Craig Whyte will stand trial alone on Rangers fraud charges (adjourned to 29th July)

[Frankie 8,186]

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1356284-craig-whyte-will-stand-trial-alone-on-rangers-fraud-charges/

 

Four men facing trial over the alleged fraudulent acquisition of Rangers have had all charges against them dropped.

 

Former owner Craig Whyte is now the only man out of the original six accused who faces charges on the lengthy indictment relating to his dealings with the club.

 

Oldco joint administrators David Whitehouse, 50, and Paul Clark, 51, their Duff & Phelps colleague David Grier, and lawyer Gary Withey will no longer stand trial after the allegations against them were thrown out.

 

Whyte, 44, appeared at the High Court in Glasgow on Friday where the Crown Office confirmed the oldco administrators along with Grier and Withey would face no further proceedings. Whitehouse and Clark attended and sat in the public gallery.

 

Former Ibrox chief executive Charles Green, 62, had allegations against him in the case temporarily deserted by a judge at the High Court in Edinburgh earlier this year.

 

Whitehouse and Clark had faced a number of allegations including 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.

 

The Duff and Phelps pair had also been accused of not disclosing the identity of a "person engaged in money laundering".

 

It was also alleged in the original indictment that Grier together with Whyte, Clark, Whitehouse and Withey, were knowingly parties to "making the administration of the club inevitable" through failure to pay debts, and also used £6m in money from a firm called Ticketus to ensure Duff & Phelps became administrators in order to facilitate the sale back of a debt-free Rangers to Whyte.

 

A further preliminary hearing in the case against Whyte is scheduled to take place at the High Court in Glasgow next month.

[Frankie 8,186]

The fact it's the judge deserting these charges suggest this isn't good news for the prosecution.

[Uilleam 5,498]

My faith, limited as it has always been, in the will and wherewithal of the Crown Prosecution Service to

bring this matter to a trial and to a satisfactory verdict, is disappearing, rapidly.

 

Is there a book on what will happen on July 29?

[boabie 230]

The fact it's the judge deserting these charges suggest this isn't good news for the prosecution.

 

A judge can't desert charges against a person Frankie.

[buster. 4,808]

There is so much we don't know, or at least so much has happened over the past few months without any indication as to why it has happened, that I'm going to try and keep to the 'transfer thread tactic' of not getting to wrapped up in it until the final outcome is presented.

[Frankie 8,186]

A judge can't desert charges against a person Frankie.

 

BBC report is somewhat different in wording from STV.

 

STV suggest D&P allegations were thrown out but BBC infer the Crown dropped them. Quite a difference I'd say.

[Uilleam 5,498]

BBC report is somewhat different in wording from STV.

 

STV suggest D&P allegations were thrown out but BBC infer the Crown dropped them. Quite a difference I'd say.

 

Bastards appear to be walking free, in either event.

[der Berliner 3,290]

Bastards appear to be walking free, in either event.

 

One crow doesn't pick the other crow's eye, as the saying goes over here.

 

While we don't know what has been going on behind the closed doors, it makes you wonder how "good" the prosecution's arguments and cases were. Not least after the amount of time it took them to bring these chaps to court.

Edited June 3, 2016 by der Berliner

[boabie 230]

BBC report is somewhat different in wording from STV.

 

STV suggest D&P allegations were thrown out but BBC infer the Crown dropped them. Quite a difference I'd say.

 

At this stage of proceedings the court couldn't throw out a charge as they were not there today to hear any evidence. The crown office have decided not to go ahead with them. Like everybody else I'd love to know why.

[Frankie 8,186]

At this stage of proceedings the court couldn't throw out a charge as they were not there today to hear any evidence. The crown office have decided not to go ahead with them. Like everybody else I'd love to know why.

 

It will take another few months before we find that out. What I'm interested in is whether or not they'll now be useful witnesses against the remaining defendant.