Bernie Ecclestone could pay off court to end bribery trial

[JFKvsNixon]

You should probably be careful what you say. Bernie hasn't actually been convicted of a crime and his riches are therefore not ill gotten.

 

Thanks for the advice but I'll take my chances with my comment.

 

Anyway, is there any reason that if he was found guilty he could have served time as well as being forced to give up a substantial sum of money?

[Eater Sundae]

Was just going to post similar. Basically he's admitted his guilt and saved £40m plus expenses. Should have been found guilty, have a record and then sought an appeal.

 

He hasn't admitted his guilt.

 

IMO, this is disgusting. Not so much on his part - he can afford this and it takes away any risk of imprisonment, but on the part of the German justice system - it sends out a simple message "If you are dishonest but make lots of money, you can buy your way out of any punishment". What sort of deterrent is that?

[Anna Glypta]

Thanks for the advice but I'll take my chances with my comment.

 

Anyway, is there any reason that if he was found guilty he could have served time as well as being forced to give up a substantial sum of money?

 

I suspect that in the trial of an 83 year old multi-billionaire the life expectancy would run out long before his money or the appeals system. I expect that the pragmatic approach was $100 million and a free man is a pretty good result for the German court system.

[L00b]

IMO, this is disgusting. Not so much on his part - he can afford this and it takes away any risk of imprisonment, but on the part of the German justice system - it sends out a simple message "If you are dishonest but make lots of money, you can buy your way out of any punishment". What sort of deterrent is that?

In my experience, massmedia has long proven particularly inept at reporting the legal facts and minutiae which underpin a case and its outcome, and it may well be that this is not a case of Ecclestone 'buying his way out of a conviction', but of Ecclestone 'buying judicial certainty in the face of an uncertain prosecution case' - subject to checking the relevant German Statutes, the particulars of the case and the strength of the prosecution case.

 

I mean, if you are being wrongly prosecuted but the case outcome still looks 50/50 in case of a trial, and local law gives you the option of either running the gauntlet of the trial or cashing your way out, which option are you going to take? And I'll let you guess how the broadsheets would report this to Joe Public regardless, because Joe Public is lay, legal analysis and explanations take up time and column space, and headlines sell.

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[altus]

In my experience, massmedia has long proven particularly inept at reporting the legal facts and minutiae which underpin a case and its outcome, and it may well be that this is not a case of Ecclestone 'buying his way out of a conviction', but of Ecclestone 'buying judicial certainty in the face of an uncertain prosecution case' - subject to checking the relevant German Statutes, the particulars of the case and the strength of the prosecution case.

 

I mean, if you are being wrongly prosecuted but the case outcome still looks 50/50 in case of a trial, and local law gives you the option of either running the gauntlet of the trial or cashing your way out, which option are you going to take? And I'll let you guess how the broadsheets would report this to Joe Public regardless, because Joe Public is lay, legal analysis and explanations take up time and column space, and headlines sell.

 

The guy he gave the money to (Gribkowsky) has been successfully prosecuted for receiving bribes. Ecclestone has always admitted giving him the money but claims that, rather than a bribe to ensure he retained control of F1, it was because Gribkowsky had threatened to report Ecclestone over irregularities in his tax affairs[1]. It certainly doesn't look like the trial outcome was 50/50.

 

That $100m represents about 2% of Ecclestone's estimated net worth. I suspect few people wouldn't give up the same proportion of their net worth to avoid a potential 10 year prison stretch even if they were, say, 95% certain of the result going their way let alone if it was 95% against.

 

 

[1] Which begs the question, why would someone prefer to pay $44m rather than have their tax affairs investigated?

[L00b]

The guy he gave the money to (Gribkowsky) has been successfully prosecuted for receiving bribes. Ecclestone has always admitted giving him the money but claims that, rather than a bribe to ensure he retained control of F1, it was because Gribkowsky had threatened to report Ecclestone over irregularities in his tax affairs[1]. It certainly doesn't look like the trial outcome was 50/50.

Well, with an omniscient judge-jury-prosecutor like you, who needs judicial due process?

That $100m represents about 2% of Ecclestone's estimated net worth. I suspect few people wouldn't give up the same proportion of their net worth to avoid a potential 10 year prison stretch even if they were, say, 95% certain of the result going their way let alone if it was 95% against.

Here's a comment grounded from experience at the litigation coalface: no case is ever "95% sure" one way or the other, in fact no legal advisor in full possession of his/her mental faculties and reasonably aware of professional liability case law would ever give anyone better odds than 50/50. Which is the reason why, in the UK at least, the Civil Procedure Rules 1988 rightly place so much emphasis on pre-action protocols and ADR.

[1] Which begs the question, why would someone prefer to pay $44m rather than have their tax affairs investigated?

Here's some common sense advice: billionaire or proletarian doesn't matter one bit, if there's a way -any way- to avoid having one's tax affairs investigated, use it. Because the man-in-gray will always find something amiss, and no one likes unexpected tax bills.

[Anna Glypta]

Well, with an omniscient judge-jury-prosecutor like you, who needs judicial due process?

Here's a comment grounded from experience at the litigation coalface: no case is ever "95% sure" one way or the other, in fact no legal advisor in full possession of his/her mental faculties and reasonably aware of professional liability case law would ever give anyone better odds than 50/50. Which is the reason why, in the UK at least, the Civil Procedure Rules 1988 rightly place so much emphasis on pre-action protocols and ADR.

Here's some common sense advice: billionaire or proletarian doesn't matter one bit, if there's a way -any way- to avoid having one's tax affairs investigated, use it. Because the man-in-gray will always find something amiss, and no one likes unexpected tax bills.

 

I remember OJ Simpson walking away a free man.

[Eater Sundae]

In my experience, massmedia has long proven particularly inept at reporting the legal facts and minutiae which underpin a case and its outcome, and it may well be that this is not a case of Ecclestone 'buying his way out of a conviction', but of Ecclestone 'buying judicial certainty in the face of an uncertain prosecution case' - subject to checking the relevant German Statutes, the particulars of the case and the strength of the prosecution case.

 

I mean, if you are being wrongly prosecuted but the case outcome still looks 50/50 in case of a trial, and local law gives you the option of either running the gauntlet of the trial or cashing your way out, which option are you going to take? And I'll let you guess how the broadsheets would report this to Joe Public regardless, because Joe Public is lay, legal analysis and explanations take up time and column space, and headlines sell.

 

I think that the German Justice System is at fault for offering BE the deal. I can certainly understand him taking it.

 

If they think he's guilty, then they should prosecute. If the prosecutors themselves are unsure, then they shouldn't have prosecuted him.

 

But once they decided that it was worth prosecuting him, they should have carried it through to the end.

[L00b]

I think that the German Justice System is at fault for offering BE the deal. I can certainly understand him taking it.

 

If they think he's guilty, then they should prosecute. If the prosecutors themselves are unsure, then they shouldn't have prosecuted him.

 

But once they decided that it was worth prosecuting him, they should have carried it through to the end.

I can certainly understand lay people sticking to a (very common) black-and-white view of the judicial system and legal matters, but it is only (and likely always will be) shades of grey...and in that context, hindsight -as typified by the liberal use of 'should this' and 'should that' in the above- is worth precisely nothing.

 

There are plenty of times when proceedings with scant chances of success for the claimant get started only to get a situation/negotiation unstuck, simply as a tactical manoeuver (aka 'bluffs and counterbluffs'). That is just as true of cases brought against e.g. companies (or HNW people such as BE) by state prosecutors, as of civil cases between private parties.

 

Not a criticism at you Eater Sundae, just a passing comment.

 

The short and sweet of it is, we know only very little of the salient facts of the case drip-fed by sensationalism-/headline-driven media. For all we know, the German system could have made a sterling manoeuvre, netting itself $100m for a resources investment of a few hundreds thousand €s at most (prosecutor, judges, investigators and admins salaries, essentially) building an essentially- spurious/circumstancial case, still strong enough to get BE to the deal table, who likely would always choose to settle rather than fight and have his entire tax affairs pored over and quasi-sure to be leaked to the media in one form or another.

 

The fact that the settlement was accepted (by the German prosecutor) without admission of liability by BE speaks volume in and of itself (the German prosecutor could have insisted on the admission, and still settled just the same). But, as I said, hey-ho, what do I know about BE and the German case. The same as everyone else: not a whole lot at all.

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

I can certainly understand lay people sticking to a (very common) black-and-white view of the judicial system and legal matters, but it is only (and likely always will be) shades of grey...and in that context, hindsight -as typified by the liberal use of 'should this' and 'should that' in the above- is worth precisely nothing.

 

There are plenty of times when proceedings with scant chances of success for the claimant get started only to get a situation/negotiation unstuck, simply as a tactical manoeuver (aka 'bluffs and counterbluffs'). That is just as true of cases brought against e.g. companies (or HNW people such as BE) by state prosecutors, as of civil cases between private parties.

 

Not a criticism at you Eater Sundae, just a passing comment.

 

I understand what they do. What I'm saying is that I think it is morally wrong to do it. I think that a country's justice system ought to behave honestly. Their failure to do so sends out the message that the rule of law is optional.