Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Friday, 16 August 2013




RANGERS have been placed at the centre of money laundering fears over the mysterious £137,500 paid into the bank account of Imran Ahmad’s mother by Craig Whyte.


And further doubts have also been raised over just what that the money was for after a letter from Charles Green was leaked. For the leaked letter from Green to the Scottish Football Association – now available on-line - gives an explanation for the mystery money which is different and entirely at odds to the one Imran Ahmad trotted out at the time the deal was first revealed four months ago.


At the time Ahmad insisted that it was all just a devious scheme to trap Craig Whyte into believing he was investing in their group’s move to gain control of Rangers through a CVA, in order that he would be easy to deal with.


The story Ahmad spun was that the £137,500 was a payment made by Whyte to show his good faith in the Ahmad-Green promises that he would be part of the future of Rangers and that they needed to get Whyte’s agreement to get his shares if they got their CVA proposals accepted.


All of which seemed pretty plausible.


However, that is not the same story as the version which was spun by Charles Green in a letter to the Scottish Football Association which claimed the £137,500 was money from Whyte to reimburse Ahmad for the £200,000 payment Ahmad personally made to Duff and Phelps to secure exclusivity on their bid for Rangers.


That was not an investment in Rangers, but a fee to Duff and Phelps.


The only real point where the Imran Ahmad story and the Charles Green tale of woe merged was when they both claimed they had no idea where the £137,500 paid into the bank of account of Imran Ahmad’s mother actually came from.


And that is the point in Charles Green’s letter to the SFA which Hampden bosses quite rightly pounced on and which saw them raise the serious spectre of the sort of financial jiggery pokery, the sort of shady fiscal dealing which flags up concerns about money laundering.


For there are strict regulations in place concerning the movement of money. Just try to open a bank account without a whole host of documents to prove your identity and you’ll see what I mean.


Yet Imran Ahmad and Charles Green want the SFA to believe that £137,500 was accepted into the NatWest bank account in London of Imran Ahmad’s mother without the NatWest having a clue where it came from.


By the time the SFA replied to the claims made in Charles Green’s letter, he was no longer chief executive, therefore they drove a their bus through the gaping hole in the Green story in a reply sent to the then chairman Malcolm Murray which has also been leaked and is available on-line.


The SFA letter quite properly pointed out that the money Imran Ahmad got from Craig Whyte did not appear to have been subjected to the normal anti money laundering procedures and asked why that did not occur.


It would be interesting to hear from Imran Ahmad on that point. It would also be interesting to hear from Charles Green on that point. I wonder if they will sing the same song this time, or if their tales of woe will again fail to tally.


All of which once again raises the question of just where Craig Whyte gets the cash to sustain his considerable lifestyle? Just where did he get that £137,500? After all, as every examination of Craig Whyte’s business dealings reveal, he has no visible means of support, a fact I have mentioned on numerous occasions and a mystery Charles Green and Imran Ahmad must have been aware of at the outset of their dealings with him.


However, they seemed to have been quite happy to take £137,500 of Craig Whyte’s dough without any of the normal checks on just where his funds were coming from, procedures which Imran Ahmad must be familiar with given his history of work in the financial sector.


It was also something which Imran Ahmad was happy to keep secret until the shady transaction was exposed in April. Then he tried to explain it away as a con trick on Craig Whyte.


Charles Green also sought to find an explanation. Unfortunately for him, his version of events, as we can now see, does not tally with what Ahmad said.


And these are the two men some deluded folk still want to see back inside Ibrox, running Rangers.



posted by leggoland @ 09:09



Link to post
Share on other sites

The money isn't Rangers problem, it never reached the Club. It was paid to a private individual, so if there is a problem..it is their problem. Anyway the SFA is satisfied with the Pinsett Masons Report, so I suppose it is money well spent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggat is correct that you have to complete Money laundering procedures when you open a new account in a bank or with an investment company but provided that the institution are satisfied with the source and destination of funds they are not obliged to complete Money Laundering for subsequent transactions unless they have reason to be suspicious.


In any event it is the Bank's problem, so why would the SFA be asking Rangers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks concerned will definately have money laundering systems and processes designed to detect suspicious transactions. It is for the bank to investigate and take action, not Rangers.


If the bank was concerned that money laundering had occurred then they are legally obliged to take action. If they are merely suspicious of money laundering, but cannot determine whether this was actually the case, they will report to various authorities on the matter who may be gathering evidence about the individuals and organisations concerned.


Its a bit of stetch from Leggo, although I'm sure this is the implication of the letters referred to, so he's just reporting on the leaked documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a bit of stetch from Leggo, although I'm sure this is the implication of the letters referred to, so he's just reporting on the leaked documents.


That's my take on it too and from reading posts elsewhere it would look as though quite a number of people are missing this point. He is, without doubt, simply referring to the leaked letters, although I do think he's maybe adding a touch more emphasis to the money laundering aspect than necessary.


On a side note, the leaked SFA letter which is supposedly from Stewart Regan was never in a month of Sundays written by Stewart Regan. Assuming it's a copy of the genuine letter, then that letter reads as though it's been composed by one of the obsessed Rangers hating lawyers like Rod McKenzie or someone else from the Celtic & SPL legal eagles Harper Macleod. It certainly wasn't composed by Regan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.