Scott7 5,287 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 and what pray tell could that be? I haven't a clue but in a long fraud indictment there's often a chance for the defence to raise questions of competency and relevancy and get the thing bunged out or have parts excluded. Let's just hope its just procedure and evidence they're bickering about.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I haven't a clue but in a long fraud indictment there's often a chance for the defence to raise questions of competency and relevancy and get the thing bunged out or have parts excluded. Let's just hope its just procedure and evidence they're bickering about.. IIRC there was a suggestion during the Green legal fees appeal that more indictments had been added. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 and what pray tell could that be? "A big boy did it and ran away" not to sure that will stand up lol 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onevision 1,463 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 "A big boy did it and ran away" not to sure that will stand up lol probablty not but will " it wisnae me it wuz him " ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,826 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 IIRC there was a suggestion during the Green legal fees appeal that more indictments had been added. A Long and Winding Road.................................................. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 looks like we'll hear nothing more FOUR men have appeared in court in connection with allegations that they participated in a multi million pound fraud against Rangers. Businessman Charles Green, 62, David Grier, 54, David Whitehouse, 50, and Paul Clark,51, appeared in the dock at the High Court in Edinburgh. The press cannot report the contents of proceedings due to legal reasons. The quartet and the Glasgow side's former owner Craig Whyte,44, are accused of defrauding several millions of pounds from the 'Gers. Another man - Gary Withey, 51, is also said to have participated in the alleged criminal activity. Both Mr Whyte, of Banks, Lancashire, and Mr Withey, of Woking, Surrey, were not present in court today. Their attendance from the proceedings had been granted by judge Lord Bannatyne at an earlier hearing. Prosecutors claim the alleged crimes took place after entrepreneur Sir David Murray sold the club to Mr Whyte in May 2011. A legal document detailing the allegations facing the man states that they allegedly did "conspire to and obtain sums amounting To £28,262,04 by fraud." It is alleged that they were then able to acquire 85.3 per cent of the issued capital of the club for £1 by fraud and "did thus obtain a majority and controlling stake in the shareholding of the club." Mr Green, a former chief executive of Rangers, is charged with various allegations including that he and others "did agree to do something that (they) knew or suspected would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime." The legal document also states that Mr Grier's and Mr Clark's address is Duff and Phelps at the Shard in London. Share article Mr Whitehouse's address is given as care of Duff and Phelps in Manchester whilst Mr Green's address is given as care of a Glaswegian solicitors firm. The hearing, which is expected to take five days, is continuing before Lord Bannatyne. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14250471.Four_in_court_over_alleged_Rangers_fraud/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Perhaps they're keeping the info out of the public domain so they can selected a jury without pre-conceived ideas over the content. IMO, they'd be better having the trial in London. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 3, 2016 Author Share Posted February 3, 2016 Think it's Ashley V SFA tomorrow....could be wrong 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,826 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Perhaps they're keeping the info out of the public domain so they can selected a jury without pre-conceived ideas over the content. IMO, they'd be better having the trial in London. Given circumstances around the up and coming trial, I doubt the public (unless attendees at court) are going to know much detail of ongoing prceedings and are basically going to have to wait until the written judgement akin to War & Peace is made public (if this happens in criminal cases / not sure). The Crown made what I'd assume to be an unusual step of going public with a warning to social media users regards 'public/online prejudicial conversations' and I think the same thinking will be behind probable heavy reporting restrictions all the way through proceedings so as to lessen the risk......... Social media and it's easy access must make this difficult to police so anything that can be done to prevent is advisable. If you want to keep up to date you'll have to attend and I wonder if within the law/court regulations......... they'll want names and addresses to go with a warning about 'contempt'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 @STVNews: Breaking: Rangers oldco administrators have five charges dropped in fraud case https://t.co/Kdb5AAeUwr https://t.co/mjzVuQ7CFa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.