Lies, Bribes and F1 - Panorama BBC1

I don't think the amount of money you have changes your view on how much you wouldn't like to be signing cheques for millions of pounds in tax every year.

He is decidedly unsavoury character, but I think I would rather not pay millions out in tax every year if I had the choice as well.
 
I thought it was just people trying to make a funny, but 3 threads makes me think that this is a forum full of people who genuinely don't know out of court settlements exist?

Most cases are resolved like this. Its a settlement offer that was originally declined, but now the prosecutions case is falling apart they are revisiting it.
 
Skeeter said:
I thought it was just people trying to make a funny, but 3 threads makes me think that this is a forum full of people who genuinely don't know out of court settlements exist?

Most cases are resolved like this. Its a settlement offer that was originally declined, but now the prosecutions case is falling apart they are revisiting it.
Click to expand...

Yeah but he's paying the court to end the trial? I thought an out of court settlement meant the prosecution was willing to accept a payment. Not the court.
 
OK. Out of curiosity who or what does the money go to? Don't want to derail but I've often wondered. Similarly when banks etc receive massive fines.
 
It will go to the state.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ed-of-bribery-charges-in-germany-9648030.html

In June The Independent revealed that Ecclestone had tried to settle before the trial began but his offer had been rejected. Circumstances have changed since then as the trial has not yielded the smoking gun that was expected.

When the hearings began in April it was thought that Gribkowsky would be the star witness and would give incriminating evidence against Ecclestone. This is because in June 2012 Gribkowsky confessed that the £27m payment was a bribe to smooth the sale to CVC.

However, during testimony in May Gribkowsky was asked again why he received the payment and he responded “I never asked myself that question. I’m still annoyed with myself for that today.” It clearly irritated the judge, Peter Noll, who said: “It’s hard for me to comprehend [what went on] if you are unable to say more precisely how it came about.”
Click to expand...

Basically they tried to settle before the trial started, and the prosecution rejected it. Now Gribkowsky has turned out to be an unreliable witness (shock as someone convicted of bribery and blackmail turns out to be untrustworthy :rolleyes:) their case is failing, so they have reopened discussions around a settlement. Accepting the settlement is as much about the prosecution saving face as it is about the defence saving face by offering it.

Like it or not, this is how the law works a lot of the time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom