The Disreputable David Murray back on Scotland’s rich list with £150million fortune

[Walterbear 557]

because it was meant to come from one of Whyte's companies. It was supposed to be Whyte's money.

 

If they knew it was coming from ticketus they have questions to answer with respect to company law.

[Darthter 542]

maybe they should have checked where the £18M came from ??

 

No really their issue....as long as the cash is not coming from illegal means. At the time of the exchange, there was nothing to indicate that the source of the funds was anything other than above board. the transfer of funds from Ticketus to LBG was legal....it was possibly just CW's brokering of the deal with Ticketus that wasn't - the court will hopefully determine that.

[Bluedell 5,345]

because it was meant to come from one of Whyte's companies. It was supposed to be Whyte's money.

 

Need to be careful about what we say in this area, but the issue you have raised is an issue for Whyte. LBG are under no obligation to ensure that the cash came from Whyte, as far as I'm aware.

[Bluedell 5,345]

If they knew it was coming from ticketus they have questions to answer with respect to company law.

 

What part of company law?

[RANGERRAB 3,263]

Need to be careful about what we say in this area, but the issue you have raised is an issue for Whyte. LBG are under no obligation to ensure that the cash came from Whyte, as far as I'm aware.

 

so if I turn up at my local bank with £18m to deposit or whatever they won't be too bothered where it came from ?

[Bluedell 5,345]

so if I turn up at my local bank with £18m to deposit or whatever they won't be too bothered where it came from ?

 

As I said earlier, they probably did establish were it was from. They may have even contacted Ticketus who could have confirmed that the cash was indeed being advanced by them as part of a commercial transaction.

 

I'm not sure what else they are required to do under money laundering regulations.

[RANGERRAB 3,263]

As I said earlier, they probably did establish were it was from. They may have even contacted Ticketus who could have confirmed that the cash was indeed being advanced by them as part of a commercial transaction.

 

I'm not sure what else they are required to do under money laundering regulations.

 

he was borrowing from ticketus & using Rangers assets(ST's) to pay it back and everyone thought that was ok?

[Bluedell 5,345]

& using Rangers assets(ST's) to pay it back and everyone thought that was ok?

 

I'm not an expert on money laundering but I'm not sure the bank have a requirement to establish the security involved.

[Uilleam 5,440]

he was borrowing from ticketus & using Rangers assets(ST's) to pay it back and everyone thought that was ok?

 

It reads like "Financial Assistance" which used to be illegal, but the Law was changed in 2008, abolishing the restriction on FA.

Apart from that, the transaction with Ticketus was undertaken back to back with the sale to Whyte, ie Whyte contracted with Ticketus, after acquisition, or simultaneously with it.

 

What may be of interest is that under the Companies Act directors of a company have a statutory duty to act in a way

that they consider to be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole.

This might apply, I imagine, to directors placed on the board by, or at the insistence of, oh, say, the company's bank.

[JohnMc 2,473]

he was borrowing from ticketus & using Rangers assets(ST's) to pay it back and everyone thought that was ok?

 

The Glazer's bought Man Utd with a 'leveraged buyout' where they basically borrowed money, at eye-watering interest rates, and used Man Utd as collateral for the loan. So they borrowed money against something they didn't own to buy the thing they didn't own.

 

I'm reluctant to type much more on this subject currently other than to say using a football club as collateral for a loan to buy that football club has been done before.