Harry - trial begins

[3Dnata]

It's got the look of a cut-throat defence by the sound of it.

 

[bigturnip]

BT, hopefully the posts above will make clear the point I was trying to make. Namely, even the facts as they are (Harry took a cut of the transfer fee on players he sold; Harry opened an offshore bank account in his dogs name in a tax haven and received payment from Mandaric into it and didn't declare the payment for several years), will be enough for most to draw a moral conclusion, regardless of whether he's found guilty or not.

Those aren't facts, those are the arguments presented by the prosecution, later in the trial Harry's defence will argue that Harry didn't open the bank account, but Mandaric did, they will also argue that Harry never had access to the account and that Mandaric told him the money had all been lost in a bad investment. I assume they will also argue that why on earth would anybody declare a bank account to HMRC that they never opened, never had access to and as far as they knew any money in there had been lost in a bad investment?

Once all sides have presented their arguments it will be up to 12 people led by a judge to decide which version of events is true and whether either, both or neither of them are guilty of the charges they are accused of.

At least the press have the decency to include the prosecution's arguments in inverted commas and not state them as fact.

Personally I don't give a shit, and as I said in my opening post (not quoted here), I don't think Levy will either.

I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.

 

[bigturnip]

I wonder how much Harry has paid in text before and after the "bungs" were paid? I bet that the figure makes this seem all irrespective. I dont beleive he was set out to cheat the tax man, it was just an opportunity that was given to him that he acted incorrectly on impulse

Yeah the number of times he's probably texted the media over his career probably makes the few hundred thousand pounds in this case look like small potatoes. :razz:

 

[talkshowhost86]

I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.

I hadn't really thought of the FA giving him a ban even if there's no gaol time given. That would be a bit of a blow.

 

[bigturnip]

I hadn't really thought of the FA giving him a ban even if there's no gaol time given. That would be a bit of a blow.

It seems to have been somewhat overlooked, but the FA have always said they won't comment until the criminal proceedings have concluded, just like in the JT trial. But, I can't see how, given the punishment doled out to Graham, they could take no action against Harry if he's found guilty of hiding money involved in the transfer of players.

 

[walworthyid]

It seems to have been somewhat overlooked, but the FA have always said they won't comment until the criminal proceedings have concluded, just like in the JT trial. But, I can't see how, given the punishment doled out to Graham, they could take no action against Harry if he's found guilty of hiding money involved in the transfer of players.

Graham didn't get banned for hiding the money as such, it got banned because the payment made to him was a "bung" and not officially part of the transfer. In this case , Harry had a contractual right to a percentage of any transfers, so he hasn't been dishonest to the FA, just to the tax man (allegedly) !

 

[talkshowhost86]

It seems to have been somewhat overlooked, but the FA have always said they won't comment until the criminal proceedings have concluded, just like in the JT trial. But, I can't see how, given the punishment doled out to Graham, they could take no action against Harry if he's found guilty of hiding money involved in the transfer of players.

I think the two issues are very different but yeah it's a slightly worrying precedent.

 

[Wirral Spurs]

Those aren't facts, those are the arguments presented by the prosecution, later in the trial Harry's defence will argue that Harry didn't open the bank account, but Mandaric did, they will also argue that Harry never had access to the account and that Mandaric told him the money had all been lost in a bad investment. I assume they will also argue that why on earth would anybody declare a bank account to HMRC that they never opened, never had access to and as far as they knew any money in there had been lost in a bad investment?

Once all sides have presented their arguments it will be up to 12 people led by a judge to decide which version of events is true and whether either, both or neither of them are guilty of the charges they are accused of.

At least the press have the decency to include the prosecution's arguments in inverted commas and not state them as fact.




I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.

Except he sent a fax over to Monaco requesting a transfer of funds to Florida. Hard evidence amongst a fair bit of bs it appears.

 

[bigturnip]

Graham didn't get banned for hiding the money as such, it got banned because the payment made to him was a "bung" and not officially part of the transfer. In this case , Harry had a contractual right to a percentage of any transfers, so he hasn't been dishonest to the FA, just to the tax man (allegedly) !

I thought he had a different contract at the time of the transfers where he only got 5% of transfer fees, rather than the 10% in his old contract. I'm not sure why Harry and Mandaric decided that Harry was due the 10% rather than the 5%, maybe it was a simple oversight in the contract, but it wasn't in his contract at the time and therefore the FA wouldn't have been aware that Harry was due the extra 5%.

 

[Wirral Spurs]

I thought he had a different contract at the time of the transfers where he only got 5% of transfer fees, rather than the 10% in his old contract. I'm not sure why Harry and Mandaric decided that Harry was due the 10% rather than the 5%, maybe it was a simple oversight in the contract, but it wasn't in his contract at the time and therefore the FA wouldn't have been aware that Harry was due the extra 5%.

His contract was changed but the Crouch deal was (H argued) when his old contract was in place at 10%. The cash was paid to make up the difference.

 

[stemark44]

Graham didn't get banned for hiding the money as such, it got banned because the payment made to him was a "bung" and not officially part of the transfer. In this case , Harry had a contractual right to a percentage of any transfers, so he hasn't been dishonest to the FA, just to the tax man (allegedly) !

It's a good job Harry doesn't have a 10% transfer rule with us because he would owe us millions.:grin:

 

[bigturnip]

Except he sent a fax over to Monaco requesting a transfer of funds to Florida. Hard evidence amongst a fair bit of bs it appears.

If I had all the details of a bank account I had set up in another person's name I'm pretty sure I could fax a request with all the required information to initiate a transfer. That is what the trial is for, to get to the truth, but just because the prosecution have stated something doesn't automatically make it fact. A courtroom is one of the only places where you can't commit slander, so those advocating will often make statements presented as 'fact', even though they aren't.

 

[TEESSIDE1]

Those aren't facts, those are the arguments presented by the prosecution, later in the trial Harry's defence will argue that Harry didn't open the bank account, but Mandaric did, they will also argue that Harry never had access to the account and that Mandaric told him the money had all been lost in a bad investment. I assume they will also argue that why on earth would anybody declare a bank account to HMRC that they never opened, never had access to and as far as they knew any money in there had been lost in a bad investment?

Once all sides have presented their arguments it will be up to 12 people led by a judge to decide which version of events is true and whether either, both or neither of them are guilty of the charges they are accused of.

At least the press have the decency to include the prosecution's arguments in inverted commas and not state them as fact.




I don't really give a shit either, except where it effects the football club, but I'm pretty sure if found guilty on either of the charges the FA will give a shit and then Levy might not have a choice as to whether he gives a shit or not.

No doubt the judge will want a 12-0 or 11-1 decision. There's no way the jury will convict.

I sat on a jury recently for an arson with intent to recklessly endanger life - the bloke was dead in the water, yet half the jury thought he was innocent!!!!

 

[bigturnip]

His contract was changed but the Crouch deal was (H argued) when his old contract was in place at 10%. The cash was paid to make up the difference.

I'm pretty sure that contract would have also stated that Portsmouth Football Club were liable for the fee and not Mandaric personally.

 

[thinktank]

Gut feeling is that this is Mandaric's baby, so to speak.

I'm quite sure 'Arry had mimminum objections to the arrangement.

 

[bigturnip]

No doubt the judge will want a 12-0 or 11-1 decision. There's no way the jury will convict.

I sat on a jury recently for an arson with intent to recklessly endanger life - the bloke was dead in the water, yet half the jury thought he was innocent!!!!

I would imagine the jury instructions at the end of the trial will be much more detailed in a case which involves the intricacies of tax law, therefore I suspect the verdict will be much more judge-led than in an arson case where it really just comes down to a question of whether you believe him or not.

 

[TEESSIDE1]

I would imagine the jury instructions at the end of the trial will be much more detailed in a case which involves the intricacies of tax law, therefore I suspect the verdict will be much more judge-led than in an arson case where it really just comes down to a question of whether you believe him or not.

The ins and outs of the law are not something that the jury get involved in. They base their decision based on the facts/notes that they are supposed to make during the trial.

Secondly, the judge doesn't lead the jury. He/she can advise them how interpret something but it's still up to the jury whether they take on board what the judge has said.

The arson case wasn't a 'believe or not believe him' situation - rather more complicated than that.

 

[Wirral Spurs]

If I had all the details of a bank account I had set up in another person's name I'm pretty sure I could fax a request with all the required information to initiate a transfer. That is what the trial is for, to get to the truth, but just because the prosecution have stated something doesn't automatically make it fact. A courtroom is one of the only places where you can't commit slander, so those advocating will often make statements presented as 'fact', even though they aren't.

I was mearly pointing out that he must have known about it and that it was not empty if he sent a fax requesting a funds transfer.

If you were not the account holder you would not be able to initiate a transfer unless it was fraudulent.

 

[Wirral Spurs]

I'm pretty sure that contract would have also stated that Portsmouth Football Club were liable for the fee and not Mandaric personally.

Have you seen the contract or been involved with setting up contracts in this domain?

I am just answering questions based on the court reporting.

 

[Crow]