Frankie 8,185 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) http://news.stv.tv/west-central/1343723-charges-dropped-against-former-rangers-administrators-in-fraud-case/ All charges against the former Rangers oldco administrators have been dropped in the fraud trial they were facing. David Whitehouse and Paul Clark were accused alongside former owner Craig Whyte, 44, ex-chief executive Charles Green, 62, and three other men over a number of allegations relating to their dealings with the club. On Monday, prosecutors at the High Court in Edinburgh dropped all charges against the two Duff and Phelps employees. The Crown dismissed charge three on the indictment against the pair, which accused them of not disclosing the identity of a "person engaged in money laundering". The prosecution also deserted the other allegation they faced pro loco et tempore, meaning the procurator fiscal could return to it at a later date. Whitehouse and Clark were accused in that charge of conspiring with Whyte, Green and former Rangers finance director Imran Ahmad to defraud the club’s creditors of funds and assets. It was also alleged in this charge the pair allowed Whyte, Green and Ahmad to acquire the club at "significantly below the true market value". The charge claimed Ahmad paid Clark and Whitehouse an exclusivity fee of £200,000 as the joint administrators of oldco Rangers. It comes two weeks after the Crown dropped five charges against the former administrators of oldco Rangers, as well as some of the charges faced by Whyte, Green and David Grier in the multi-million-pound fraud case. Whyte, Green, David Grier, Gary Withey, 51, and Ahmad still face a number of charges relating to their dealings with the club. Edited February 22, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,185 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 As always please refrain from any comment which could breach contempt of court laws. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 You would have assumed that those whipping up the charges had done their work thoroughly enough (took them ages), now one after another of these charges are being disregarded (at least for the time being) or dropped though. Makes you wonder whether it is because these two made a deal with the prosecutors (how likely is that though?), the charges were flawed, or, as the saying over here goes, one crow doesn't pick another's eye. (Honestly don't know whether the last remark is controversial enough to be in contempt of the court laws.) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,185 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) I'd suggest the following lines are of more specific interest in terms of solving the overall conundrum. The Crown dismissed charge three on the indictment against the pair, which accused them of not disclosing the identity of a "person engaged in money laundering". The prosecution also deserted the other allegation they faced pro loco et tempore, meaning the procurator fiscal could return to it at a later date. I'm also of the opinion this is a positive step in terms of the overall court case. Edited February 22, 2016 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 does this mean they have now disclosed the identity of this person ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,185 Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 does this mean they have now disclosed the identity of this person ? It could mean that but it could also mean they didn't know and/or the charge was erroneous. Impossible to say either way really. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onevision 1,454 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 Won't surprise me to see charges against all those charged being dropped, hope not but just sayin.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,455 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=4b5003a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 22, 2016 Share Posted February 22, 2016 I think these two have been very helpful to the police in this trial, charges being dropped being the reward? 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.