Did Bernie lie?

[Slife]

Ummmm.....a billion is pocket change to Bernard. What I find intriguing is that his cover story seems like it is an admission of a criminal act in and of itself. How likely is it that someone would pay $41,000,000 to another person just to get him to not drop the dime and call the British tax authorities if he had done nothing wrong?

Well when you have billions, you probably wouldn't have an issue pay $41 000 000 to have somebody keep quiet.

[WhiteBlue]

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2013/07/ ... ll-mean-2/

Good write up by Joe as usual on such an issue. My personal view is that Bernie is entitled to the assumption of innocence like any other accused. On the other hand Gribkowski was sentenced to prison for taking a bribe from Ecclestone by the same court of law. I have some difficulty to understand how the the bribed can be guilty and the briber not. The decisive point could still be that Gribkowski testified against himself when confronted with the evidence of the money he had acquired illegally. He was already in for tax evasion and it made little difference if he got it by blackmail or from being bribed. Admitting to bribery would probably have gotten him some reduction of the sentence. In Bernie's case we do not have a certain punishable act like tax evasion. So the state attorney has no leverage for a confession. I always thought the Munich court would wait for the New York law suit to generate some evidence of the wrongdoing. Now they have Bernie's word against Gribkowskies. The bad news for Bernie is that the prior findings in the Gribkowski case will be treated as fact. How could the court do any thing else?

This conundrum makes it difficult not to speculate about the outcome. If the whole process eventually leads to the termination of the 100 year deal or at least the removal of the old bugger from power I would not mind it at all. IMO the time has come for F1 to enter a new age of governance and management style. If we are to have a racing person at the helm of the business I would rather have a guy like Gerhard Berger who obviously knows how to run a company and shows some integrity at the same time. I would have no trust at all in those people who have been close to Bernie such as Briatore for instance.

We have a fairly clever person at the helm of the FiA I believe. The latest move was to make Berger the president of something they call the single seater commission, which currently does not include F1 although F1 clearly is a part of the single seater category. We can speculate a little bit here. Why has the FiA not signed a Concord agreement with Ecclestone and FOM? Perhaps because they do not want to make commitments that in the light of the later events of this year would look foolish? What if Ecclestone evades the trial in Germany or gets sentenced to jail which is almost inescapable in case of a guilty verdict.

It would be a fantastic opportunity to re negotiate with CVC about the commercial control. How about letting the business go public and giving the teams and the FiA shares instead of the negotiated payments. There could still be a dividend contract that is based on performance in the championship but with a base dividend paid to all teams.

And what if the board of a public FOM would comprise a strong voting block owned by the FiA. I would like that very much. The money men can well have some influence but the sport needs to look after its own commercialization IMO. A commissioner of single seaters could be an important figure for the FiA in the future.

[MOWOG]

The bad news for Bernie is that the prior findings in the Gribkowski case will be treated as fact. How could the court do any thing else?

A small quibble. Findings of fact in one case are not determinative in another case unless the parties are identical. In this case, they are not. Le Grand Bernard will not start his trial encumbered by the findings in the prior case.

If the whole process eventually leads to the termination of the 100 year deal or at least the removal of the old bugger from power I would not mind it at all. IMO the time has come for F1 to enter a new age of governance and management style.

I think probably everyone involved in the Formula One Circus would agree whole heartedly with you! [-o<

[WhiteBlue]

The bad news for Bernie is that the prior findings in the Gribkowski case will be treated as fact. How could the court do any thing else?

A small quibble. Findings of fact in one case are not determinative in another case unless the parties are identical. In this case, they are not. Le Grand Bernard will not start his trial encumbered by the findings in the prior case.

Hmmm, I'm not a legal expert but I feel it would be very difficult for the court to completely disregard the prior testimony it received. The evidence will have been supplied to Ecclestone's lawyers and translated by now. So I see a great difficulty to exclude those facts from the case. If the prosecutors have any sense they will have included evidence from the preceding Gribkowsky case in their file. And from my legal understanding it will stand unless Bernies lawyers can somehow shoot it down in their response to the indictment. That could be one of the reasons why this has taken so long. But knowing the effectiveness of German courts I expect the situation to get a lot hotter for Mr. E in September or October.

[MOWOG]

Let me begin by admitting that I am a former attorney. Don't hate me. We all have to eat!

Secondly, I know nothing of German law, so bear that in mind. But in general, any determination of fact in one legal proceeding is not binding in another such proceeding between different parties. Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of facts that are common knowledge, such as the temperature on a certain date or the contents of statement in a learned journal. But the finding that Mr. G took a bribe will not control the inquiry into whether Mr. E paid a bribe.

Putting all that aside, it would be nice to see Bernie retire to play bocce on the foredeck of Flabbio's yacht and leave the sport of Formula One alone. [-o<

[WhiteBlue]

Good to know that we have some legally trained minds aboard. But you have not answered to the the specifics that I mentioned. AFAIK an indictment before a German court would present evidence that is known to the court and that would certainly include court files that relate to the the case. IMO it would not be possible to exclude knowledge that the court gained by prior testimony gathered from the accused and his collaborators. Such evidence would be included in the indictment file and provided to the defence lawyers. As such it would be admissible in court unless the the defence manages to shoot it down.

[MOWOG]

Well, like I said, I know nothing about legal systems on The Continent. My wife would probably confess that I just know nothing at all. We here in America, for the most part, have adopted the model given us by the English common law 300 years ago and as far as I am concerned, we should give it back to them and start over!

We will have to see how this plays out in the courts. But my opinion, based upon years of close observation of the legal system, is that if you have enough money, you can usually manage to skate on most of the requirements of the criminal code. And since Bernie is one of the richest men in the history of the world, I think he is probably not too worried about going to jail. If anything frightens him, it will probably be the bill his attorneys render at the conclusion of all this.

[Pierce89]

I find the name of this thread most comical. I don't think there's much of a question of Bernie bribing or lying, but as Mowog stated, rich people generally skate.

[WhiteBlue]

In the meantime more details are available from the German press. The indictment actually is dated May 10th of this years but it took some time to translate the thick file that was send to Ecclestone into English.

The Judge will be Peter Noll again, who also presided over the Gribkowsky trial. Btw. in his final comment on the Gribkowsky verdict he said that Gribkowsky was led into crime by Ecclestone. That does not sound so good for Bernie.



Bernie should know the guy. Noll is very experienced with white collar crime and is known for his sense of humor. But he is also quite strict with regard to formal procedural requirements. He tolerates no English language documents in his court sessions. Everything needs to be translated into German. According to German papers the Gribkowsky confessions are part of the indictment file.

Initially there was some speculation that Bernie would be allowed to pay the bank $ 400 m which they claim was their damage and avoid the indictment, but Knoll has obviously decided that the case is too important to be settled by such questionable tactics.

Bernie now has four weeks to answer the charges and depending of his answer the decision to open the formal proceedings will be taken by Noll. One can imagine that he had the papers for some time and already knew what was coming when he attended the German GP. The court said on Wednesday that the trial will start sometime from mid September.

I have no doubt that we will see Bernie in Munich in October latest and that could mean we may have a verdict before the 2014 season starts. The Gribkowsky trial ran for 50 court days over a period of 9 months. That is relatively long for German standards because the defendant had problems with his mental condition and was unable to attend. In Bernie's case I do not believe that he will be able or inclined to draw things out as soon as the trial has started. I would make a guess that the whole thing will be over before Xmas.

[MOWOG]

That is one of the biggest differences between European legal proceedings and those in America. Here, the case would take 5 -10 YEARS to get to trial, then a year or so to try and then another 5 - 10 years for the appeals to be heard. Each step in the process is an opportunity for the attorneys to render more bills and the judges seem to permit if not actually encourage such champerty.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. Kudos to the German court if it can get this case to court and resolved by the end of 2013. Such a thing would be beyond impossible in the US.

[WhiteBlue]

Some interesting reasoning by PP:

Gerhard Gribkowsky... was sentenced to eight and a half years
in prison for this. Gribkowsky was charged in
July 2011 and his trial started four months later. There is next to no chance that it
would take less time to get Ecclestone in court than Gribkowsky. Don't forget that
Gribkowsky was a German citizen who was already incarcerated in Germany and
whose assets had been frozen. In contrast, Ecclestone is resident in the UK, has
very deep pockets and is a free man.
The big question is whether the case will go to trial at all. Unlike many armchair
legal commentators out there, Pitpass is not going to try to predict the judge's
decision but suffice it to say that the situation is certainly not black or white. In
Formula One it rarely is.
At a very basic level, it could put the court in somewhat of a Catch 22 if there was
a trial which finds Ecclestone innocent of paying the alleged bribe.
Ecclestone is already represented by several of the best corporate lawyers in
Germany and the judge will be well aware that the F1 boss will put up one of the
biggest fights they have ever seen. If it leads to him being found innocent of
paying the alleged bribe then that may well call into question why Gribkowsky
was imprisoned for receiving it. Not only could this publicly embarrass the
German court but it could also expose it to a damages claim from Gribkowsky.
On the face of it, this argument may sound counter-intuitive as it could seem hard
to imagine how Ecclestone could be found innocent of paying the bribe given that
Gribkowsky has already been found guilty of receiving it. However, it isn't as
straightforward as that.
This is largely because, as Pitpass reported just over a year ago, the verdict of
the Gribkowsky case could not be used in a trial against Ecclestone. All of the
pertinent facts would have to be proved from first principles because it is a
separate case and, crucially, because Ecclestone has not had a chance to address
them – he was simply a witness in the Gribkowsky trial.
Gribkowsky is understood to be the star witness in the prosecution's case against
Ecclestone. The case is said to hinge on Gribkowsky's admission in court last year
that the payment to him was a bribe to ensure that he would sell BayernLB's
47.2% stake in F1 to CVC. He claimed that at a meeting in 2005 Ecclestone told
him, "if you help me to sell Formula One, I will employ you as a consultant."
The prosecutors believe that CVC was Ecclestone's preferred buyer as it had
agreed to retain him as F1's boss. They also claim that selling to CVC reduced the
value of the bank's stake in F1 as other buyers could have paid more.
Ecclestone denies this and, as Pitpass' business editor Christian Sylt revealed in
July 2011, he claims that Gribkowsky threatened to make false allegations about
his tax affairs if the money was not paid.
Essentially it is a case of 'he said, she said' however there is one crucial
difference. This difference is that Gribkowsky is now in prison and this could make
him a discredited witness. True, Gribkowsky's incarceration is directly linked to
the crime which Ecclestone has been accused of but the problem is compounded
by the fact that he changed his testimony several times.
Gribkowsky initially claimed that the payment to him was for consultancy work
but he is understood to have switched to a guilty plea to reduce his sentence
when it became clear that the court would decide against him. The fact that
Gribkowsky has pleaded both innocent and guilty is proof that he is prepared to
give false details in court. Coupled with the fact that Gribkowsky is now in prison,
he does not seem to be a credible witness and if the prosecution's case hinges on
him the judge may decide that it isn't worth risking going ahead with a trial. Lack
of credibility may not be the only problem with Gribkowsky's testimony.
Writing in the City A.M. newspaper Sylt reveals that, according to Ecclestone's
lawyer Sven Thomas, there is no record of the meeting when Ecclestone allegedly
arranged the bribe with Gribkowsky. "In his witness statement Gribkowsky
described a meeting in April or May 2005 when Bernie said 'I will take care of
you'. We can not find the records of this. We have checked all possible meetings
and I covered the next months too," says Thomas.
He adds that "there was an appointment on 20 June but we do not know whether
they met then. Bernie does not remember whether he met Gribkowsky then." It
took place the day after an infamous US Grand Prix in Indianapolis when only six
cars took part due to safety concerns over the Michelin tyres.
Thomas says that "I found out it was the day after the race with six cars so it is
quite impossible that there would have been a meeting about corporate
governance because there were other topics which were a little bit more
important in Formula One. Gribkowsky had to be aware at that time that the
value of Formula One shot down because of Indianapolis."
Ecclestone says that his position is not in danger as a result of being charged and
a source close to CVC says that it "could have asked Bernie to leave at any time
over the past three years but we haven't because we support him." Time will tell
whether the judge in Germany is also on his side.

The first point is the time it will take to start a trial. Ecclestone was indicted on May 10th. So if we go by the precedence of the Gribkowsky trial the trial should commence September 10th, which is exactly what the court itself has said to the press in Germany.

The next question is if the judge will actually calla trial at all. I'm pretty certain of that, because he told the world that in his opinion Gribkowsky has been lead into crime by Ecclestone. Noll has shown some perseverance in the prosecution of Mr. Ecclestone by pushing the proceedings this far and not giving in to proposals of paying off the claims of the bank and be done with the affair.

Third Balfe speculates that Gribkowsky would be the sole witness and not be a reliable witness because he changed his testimony. I don't believe this is correct either. There will probably be some investigation and witnesses from the Bluewater complex. They claim they offered a higher price and showing this as fact will be crucial for the state's position. Additionally Ecclestone has changed his testimony as well and he was initially not under accusation. Initially he has completely denied that he paid at all. Only confronted with inescapable evidence he admitted to paying and has said it was not a bribe but a shakedown.

I think Chris Balfe is running some PR here for Bernie. His points do not come across very convincing.

[coaster]

It's really weird how quiet criticism has become, there are a lot of people watching the story unfold, after all these years of us all bagging out Bernie, now so much respect.

[radosav]

Did Bernie lie? --- --- George Costanza: Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

[Hail22]

Did Bernie lie? --- --- George Costanza: Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

Just for you mate:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB8TCRUd9rA[/youtube]

Back to the topic, I think this case will go ahead...why?

1. Its a fantastic case study for future law students to view / learn from.

2. Germany has made it no secret that they wish to smite corporate corruption / fraud.

3. This will be regarded as a benchmark for future legal cases re: corporate fraud, bribery, collusion etc.

[Hangaku]

If this does go all the way and Bernie is found guilty and does time, CVC have said they will replace him and probably with somebody not directly involved with F1 currently. In that case, it sounds like it could be a bad deal for Ferrari, as they would no longer get the smooching that they currently get *rubs hands with glee*