The Friedkin Group reaches agreement to buy Everton

[Joey66]

My first draft of a response was huge and confusing, so I’m going to ignore a lot of complicated twists and turns and hypotheticals and use an over simple analogy:

If “Sam” steals money from “Joe” and loans it to you, “Sam” has not successfully laundered that money simply because there is a contract with you. “Joe” has plenty of recourse to recover that money. Especially if “Joe” wants to also accuse you of wrongdoing.

Even if “Joe” is wrong, enjoy your 18-36 month litigation and attorney’s fees.

Sam never gave me any money

 

[Charro]

my insane deluded theory here guys ..

he’s going to be joined by other investors?

and he’s funded the ground?

you don’t just give someone 200 mill

fund a new ground a leg it

There's about four different groups who have loaned us money for the stadium.

This man is worth a lot of money. He doesn't need other investors.

He either wants out or wants more time to make a decision.

 

[Lobworm]

Where is the potential proceeds of crime here ?

I assume it's because 777 have allegedly behaved fraudulently in obtaining money which was then given/loaned to us?

 

[Damo_1878]

I assume it's because 777 have allegedly behaved fraudulently in obtaining money which was then given/loaned to us?

Correct. Also that what is alleged if proven, under POCA could also be considered money-laundering offences in the UK, in addition.

What was missing and the link in the above tweets discussed by The Athletic:

"The £200M the club owes 777 was itself lent by parties who have competing claims. 777 secured the loans against assets it did not own, sometimes multiple times. Thus they are in criminal court.

Any buyer of EFC faces a legal nightmare to determine who actually holds their IOUs. And who knows how many lawsuits if they pay back the “wrong” party.

Given the likelihood of fraud charges against 777 being made to stick, “any self-respecting corporate lawyer would have to warn a client looking at Everton that there may be a potential Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) issue down the line.”

 

[Hellerad]

It's not just that. There are other liabilities and of course the ever present fear of US courts ordering "punative damages"

This thread gives plenty of information on why US domiciled companies like Friedkin Group would have concerns they get dragged into something that was nothing to do with them. But ultimately inherit liabilities from it

That’s why I said I was using a simple analogy. Just as a response to Zat. I’m aware there are a dozen+ unique layers to it.

 

[Blue peter]

If the source of the loan was obtained through illegal means e,g. Fraud, deception etc, and a case is to be answered re POCA, their loan to us is not secured is it? So what could they do? (Other than that I appreciate there is an air of the unknown about how it could play out and the reputational damage) - I just don’t (Nader stand why TFG wouldn’t have seen this weeks ago. (Just seen the above posts but it still doesn’t explain what sanctions or assets they could apply or seize where we are concerned)

 

[Damo_1878]

That’s why I said I was using a simple analogy. Just as a response to Zat. I’m aware there are a dozen+ unique layers to it.

Exactly. The US case if fraud is proven, could also as secondary effect and consequence lead to criminal charges in both US (fraud) and UK (money-laundering)

As explained above, in my post

It's a minefield

Good to have someone like yourself telling it as it is, in terms of the US.

This Leadenhall case now is something of huge consequence

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Correct. Also that what is alleged if proven, under POCA could also be considered money-laundering offences in the UK, in addition.

What was missing and the link in the above tweets discussed by The Athletic:

"The £200M the club owes 777 was itself lent by parties who have competing claims. 777 secured the loans against assets it did not own, sometimes multiple times. Thus they are in criminal court.

Any buyer of EFC faces a legal nightmare to determine who actually holds their IOUs. And who knows how many lawsuits if they pay back the “wrong” party.

Given the likelihood of fraud charges against 777 being made to stick, “any self-respecting corporate lawyer would have to warn a client looking at Everton that there may be a potential Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) issue down the line.”

What Athletic article are you referencing? Neither of the ones I read seem to contain that passage?

The first para there feels shaky as at the moment it’s unproven allegations in a civil suit so I doubt any publication would state it as a fact they double pledged. Also it is not (as yet) a criminal matter.

 

[Damo_1878]

That’s why I said I was using a simple analogy. Just as a response to Zat. I’m aware there are a dozen+ unique layers to it.

Just another thing.

The quotes of "The Athletic" above are coming from Matt Slater

He is their only journalist I trust who is well connected and does proper investigations.

Matt Slater doesn't just make things up or write "client pieces". He is the only proper "journalist" they have IMHO

 

[Damo_1878]

What Athletic article are you referencing? Neither of the ones I read seem to contain that passage?

The first para there feels shaky as at the moment it’s unproven allegations in a civil suit so I doubt any publication would state it as a fact they double pledged. Also it is not (as yet) a criminal matter.

See above.

I'm well aware of that (no criminal charges yet against named individuals at 777 Partners or ACAP etc). But criminal prosecutors will be following the case for sure.

 

[matty1878]

You need to stop sniffing glue my friend.

The man has loaned the club money, not given it as a gift.

ye - he’s loaned the club money were he won’t know if he will get it back

tell your bum tirion hi

 

[Tony’s Carp]

See above.

I'm well aware of that (no criminal charges yet against named individuals at 777 Partners or ACAP etc). But criminal prosecutors will be following the case for sure.

The article linked above does not contain the passage you quote, hence my question. Your quote includes the sentence "Thus they are in criminal court." That's why I mention it's not a criminal matter.

The article does not say that, so where has it come from?

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

Just another thing.

The quotes of "The Athletic" above are coming from Matt Slater

He is their only journalist I trust who is well connected and does proper investigations.

Matt Slater doesn't just make things up or write "client pieces". He is the only proper "journalist" they have IMHO

paywall....

 

[Damo_1878]

The article linked above does not contain the passage you quote, hence my question. Your quote includes the sentence "Thus they are in criminal court." That's why I mention it's not a criminal matter.

The article does not say that, so where has it come from?

It's a section quoted on a reddit
It could be someone added in their own commentary but they were citing The Athletic and that article by Matt Slater

paywall....

I've not reproduced the entire article for that reason. Only snippet. Plus cited source for people to go read.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

It's a section quoted on a reddit
It could be someone added in their own commentary but they were citing The Athletic and that article by Matt Slater



I've not reproduced the entire article for that reason. Only snippet. Plus cited source for people to go read.

Well it's not in the Athletic article so you should maybe delete that as it's heavily misleading as you imply it is. It's also potentially defamatory as it states certain "facts" which have not at all been proven- hence why I didn't believe the Athletic would ever publish it.

If you haven't read the article maybe don't post quotes from effing Reddit.