craig whyte cleared

[Bluedell 5,376]

If you fraudulently buy an asset you haven't actually bought it. Ownership remains with the seller or in this case the liquidator. If I buy your car using fraudulent means and I'm discovered my 'ownership' is invalid.

 

So if he'd been found guilty, LBG would have to repay £18m?

 

Let's look at what was sold. Shares in oldco. That is the transaction in question. Nothing to do with Ibrox or Auchenhowie. Nothing to do with a liquidator. Who sold the shares? The seller of the shares was Murray MHL Ltd, a company that no longer exists. Oldco is in liquidation anyway, so all that would happen is that a company that doesn't exist would own worthless shares.

 

Or are you trying to suggest that every transaction since then should be rewound? Do we still own Stevie Naismith and Steve Davis? Am I due all my season ticket money?

[Walterbear 557]

Why would it be the liquidator ? If Whyte fraudulently bought RFC and the sale deemed illegal then it would make more sense that it reverts to SDM as the original seller. The liquidator only came into play after a subsequent sale. At the very least, using your analogy, you would expect SDM to be given the option to retain the assets from the illegal sale.

 

You can't say "he bought this illegally so we are going to pass it to the guys who are currently dealing with the mess he created".

 

Either way, it is absolutely NOT "inevitable" that a guilty verdict would have the assets revert to the liquidator to then allow HMRC to try to grab them.

 

HMRC would not have seen it that way. They believe they are owed money and BDO are the custodians of the old company. There may have been an argument about ownership reverting to Murray but what I am saying is it is inevitable HMRC would have had a go - they may or may not have been successful. The premise of their argument would be that BDO were the de facto owners. If the assets reverted to SDM that would have been just as worrying as they would go after him potentially. They still may do. Their job is to try and retrieve what they can via BDO, SDM or whoever. I don't think they can do that now. That is the bottom line and I think it's good news .

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Probably the most convenient, verdict for everyone concerned , apart from the support and the club itself. Whyte walks away with his freedom and his secrets, Murray keeps his millions, his Knighthood and the truth gets buried. Ashley still has his fat fingers and his obese snout in the Rangers financial pie, all the other dodgy characters retreat into the background with their swag and pockets bulging. call that Justice? My wee hairy arse it is.

[Bluedell 5,376]

HMRC would not have seen it that way. They believe they are owed money and BDO are the custodians of the old company.

So what? BDO have maximised the realised cash of oldco. That's nothing to do with the Whyte trial.

 

There may have been an argument about ownership reverting to Murray

No there isn't. Murray didn't own the shares. Any fraud that took place would not have reversed a transaction that happened over 5 years ago. Hypothetically even if it did, it would only be the shares that went back and none of the assets.

 

but what I am saying is it is inevitable HMRC would have had a go - they may or may not have been successful.

You're changing your tune. You previously said that Ibrox and Auchenhowie would inevitably owned by oldco. Now it's that HMRC would have a go at something. I'm not sue what, and how it links to the Whyte trial.

 

The premise of their argument would be that BDO were the de facto owners.

So what? BDO have maximised the realised cash of oldco. That's nothing to do with the Whyte trial.

 

If the assets reverted to SDM that would have been just as worrying as they would go after him potentially. They still may do. Their job is to try and retrieve what they can via BDO, SDM or whoever. I don't think they can do that now.

BDO have already done that. You may recall BDO getting cash from Green for the sale of the club. they can't do it twice.

 

That is the bottom line .

It really isn't.

[union 0]

I wonder if CW will bring a private prosecution.

[RANGERRAB 3,358]

I wonder if CW will bring a private prosecution.

 

or maybe oldco shareholders will bring one against Whyte ?

[craig 5,199]

HMRC would not have seen it that way. They believe they are owed money and BDO are the custodians of the old company. There may have been an argument about ownership reverting to Murray but what I am saying is it is inevitable HMRC would have had a go - they may or may not have been successful. The premise of their argument would be that BDO were the de facto owners. If the assets reverted to SDM that would have been just as worrying as they would go after him potentially. They still may do. Their job is to try and retrieve what they can via BDO, SDM or whoever. I don't think they can do that now. That is the bottom line and I think it's good news .

 

How can you say that BDO would be de facto owners ? They wouldn't be. HMRC, and you, are looking to unwind the original sale but only to the liquidators. That is "having your cake and eating it too". If you want to unwind an illegal sale you would/should have to unwind it completely. You cant just unwind it to a point you wish to unwind it to.

 

Look at it logically - if it was deemed an illegal sale then Whyte wouldn't have had the opportunity to push the Club into admin and appoint his own administrators, D&P. The owner of the assets would have been SDM (and his companies) or a different purchaser. All of which points to a completely different outcome rather than Whyte not paying tax and pushing us into admin. As I said, you can't just force through a position that "well, BDO currently have the assets so they are the de facto owners" in the event that you deem the original sale illegal.

 

I completely agree with you that HMRC would probably attempt to have a go at seizing the assets - but the likelihood of it actually happening would be very, very close to zero.

[craig 5,199]

HMRC would not have seen it that way. They believe they are owed money and BDO are the custodians of the old company. There may have been an argument about ownership reverting to Murray but what I am saying is it is inevitable HMRC would have had a go - they may or may not have been successful. The premise of their argument would be that BDO were the de facto owners. If the assets reverted to SDM that would have been just as worrying as they would go after him potentially. They still may do. Their job is to try and retrieve what they can via BDO, SDM or whoever. I don't think they can do that now. That is the bottom line and I think it's good news .

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Does Whyte not also have a case against Green for his purchase of the assets ? Sevco 5088 vs Sevco Scotland ? If Whyte was found guilty it would have taken away that court case - with him being found innocent he can push forward.

[union 0]

or maybe oldco shareholders will bring one against Whyte ?

 

Oldco cannot.

[Walterbear 557]

So what? BDO have maximised the realised cash of oldco. That's nothing to do with the Whyte trial.

 

 

No there isn't. Murray didn't own the shares. Any fraud that took place would not have reversed a transaction that happened over 5 years ago. Hypothetically even if it did, it would only be the shares that went back and none of the assets.

 

 

You're changing your tune. You previously said that Ibrox and Auchenhowie would inevitably owned by oldco. Now it's that HMRC would have a go at something. I'm not sue what, and how it links to the Whyte trial.

 

 

So what? BDO have maximised the realised cash of oldco. That's nothing to do with the Whyte trial.

 

 

BDO have already done that. You may recall BDO getting cash from Green for the sale of the club. they can't do it twice.

 

 

It really isn't.

 

Oldco have not been liquidated yet. It's relevant. Re changing my tune - if someone points out a relevant fact such as Murray ownership possibility I wouldn't ignore that.

 

You've previously said the Whyte trial is not related to the EBT trial. There is no direct relationship but there is an indirect one.