Bernie Ecclestone could pay off court to end bribery trial

[Eater Sundae]

It won't have cost the German State $100m by this stage. Very far from it. They're quids in, by a country mile.

 

"Justification" does not come into it, see my preceding post.

So long as any such serious fraud or bribery etc. can be, and is, tried in Germany.

 

This is a German precedent, for a record amount indeed but only one in a long chain of similar settlements, and does not concern the UK, or France, or <etc.>

 

And I don't know about you, but $100m is not "a small cost" by anyone's standards. Even those of billionaires, I expect.

 

Yes it's a lot of money, but, particularly from BE's age and situation, I bet he's happy to pay. He will not be on the breadline because of it.

 

Yes it's a German issue and doesn't concern any other countries. But people in other countries can still have a view.

 

Just a thought, though. On the basis that there is this get out through the German courts, does it attract the less honest businessmen to base their operations and dealings within the German judicial system, just in case. Overall, would this be of benefit to Germany's finances?

 

Interesting discussion, but I must go now as work calls.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 15:48 ----------

 

It won't have cost the German State $100m by this stage. Very far from it. They're quids in, by a country mile.

 

"Justification" does not come into it, see my preceding post.

So long as any such serious fraud or bribery etc. can be, and is, tried in Germany.

 

This is a German precedent, for a record amount indeed but only one in a long chain of similar settlements, and does not concern the UK, or France, or <etc.>

 

And I don't know about you, but $100m is not "a small cost" by anyone's standards. Even those of billionaires, I expect.

 

There's no red herring at all. A settlement is just that, a contract. In this case as in any other criminal or civil case. And a contract is always between consenting parties: the non-consenting party would not sign it/enter into it, so there would be no contract. Doesn't matter whether one party is the State or not. Do you think the State does not enter into contracts?

 

But before I go, re last paragraph. Someone extorting money from someone else, against a threat, is still a contract between consenting parties. It doesn't make it right. In this case it may be legal, because Germany has decided it is, it still doesn't make it right. An innocent person may accept a deal so as to avoid a criminal conviction and imprisonment, and may be able to afford to pay the amount required, but he will probably be seething inside because he felt it was the only way out. Yes, he could continue with the trial, but that is a risk, so he feels he has to take the deal. He may be described as consenting, but I would argue it is under duress, so not very different from the extortion I mentioned at the top of this post - the only difference being that it was government sanctioned.

[thecypriot1]

not unusaual in most countries to plea bargin with an offer of cash especially where tax affairs are involved,good luck to Bernie he can afford it a drop in the ocean for him, i wonder how much peripheral tax revenue he has created over the years for every country that has hosted F1.

[L00b]

But before I go, re last paragraph. Someone extorting money from someone else, against a threat, is still a contract between consenting parties.

Not so.

 

In the situation you paint, the threatened party is coerced, not 'consenting'.

 

Legally speaking, there is no contract (the "contract" is vitiated from the start).

It doesn't make it right. <...>

Another common pitfall for lay people: "right" (i.e. "moral") does not have that much at all to do with "legal" (i.e. "complying with rules and precedent").

 

E.g. a lot of what I do can be seen as "right" by a party (usually my clients ) and "not right" by the other (usually 'the other side' ), the morality of it depends entirely on the facts and particulars of each case and the perspective from which they are respectively appreciated (by each 'side'). But the law and its principles all stay the same regardless, and all apply to such facts and particulars the same regardless.

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

not unusaual in most countries to plea bargin with an offer of cash especially where tax affairs are involved,good luck to Bernie he can afford it a drop in the ocean for him, i wonder how much peripheral tax revenue he has created over the years for every country that has hosted F1.

 

Plea bargaining accepts a degree of guilt by the accused. This case doesn't.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 21:50 ----------

 

Not so.

 

In the situation you paint, the threatened party is coerced, not 'consenting'.

 

Legally speaking, there is no contract (the "contract" is vitiated from the start).

Another common pitfall for lay people: "right" (i.e. "moral") does not have that much at all to do with "legal" (i.e. "complying with rules and precedent").

E.g. a lot of what I do can be seen as "right" by a party (usually my clients ) and "not right" by the otheruse t is w th (usually 'the other side' ), the morality of it depends entirely on the facts and particulars of each case and the perspective from which they are respectively appreciated (by each 'side'). But the law and its principles all stay the same regardless, and all apply to such facts and particulars the same regardless.

 

You just do not understand. Your patronising dismissal of the views of lay people ignores the relevance of the argument. The lack of acknowledgement of any concept of objective right or morality is mind blowing. Of course different sides have different views of what is right. The justice system should be impartial and objective and above that. If it isn't, it is failing. By cutting a deal, without reaching any conclusion, the German justice system sends out a message that the rule of law can be optional, and that it has avoided its responsibilities. It also shows its capricious nature in being able to, in effect, 'fine' someone who has committed no crime. You may claim that the defendant has freely entered into contract, but with the risk of a long prison sentence in the offing, the defendent is free in name only.

 

What is happening may be legal, because the government of the day has decided it is, so in that sense it is 'right'. That doesn't mean that it is not open to criticism, or that we shouldn't try to make it better. What is legal can change.

[L00b]

You just do not understand.

I understand perfectly well: I do this for a living.

 

The more you post about this, the clearer it is that you just do not understand how the legal system works: you keep looking at it from an essentially moralistic point-of-view (nothing wrong with that, it's human), not from a practical point-of-view (what its purpose actually is and what it actually does, whether in criminal or civil matters, whether in common law or civil law jurisdictions).

Of course different sides have different views of what is right. The justice system should be impartial and objective and above that.

This is what you do not understand: the (UK/German/most 1st world's and others-) judicial system is impartial, because it is completely objective.

 

It hears both sides, investigates the truthfulness (or otherwise) of both sides' respective allegations, then applies any relevant legal provisions and precedent to the situation between the sides as factually determined.

 

What is right or not is irrelevant, only what is fact and how the law applies to such facts matters. Legal practice has never been about doing "what's right", it's always been about doing what is in the best interests of your client (person, company or State). If you ever wanted a legal career, I strongly suggest you come to terms with the above first and foremost.

Your patronising dismissal of the views of lay people ignores the relevance of the argument. The lack of acknowledgement of any concept of objective right or morality is mind blowing.

You done yet? Look, I've been giving you some pointers about legal practice 'from the coalface' since you appeared interested in the subject, but if it's to get insulted because the reality of it does not correlate with your imperfect (or idealised) understanding of it, I'll just toddle off to another thread. No skin off my nose.

[Eater Sundae]

I understand perfectly well: I do this for a living.

 

The more you post about this, the clearer it is that you just do not understand how the legal system works: you keep looking at it from an essentially moralistic point-of-view (nothing wrong with that, it's human), not from a practical point-of-view (what its purpose actually is and what it actually does, whether in criminal or civil matters, whether in common law or civil law jurisdictions).

This is what you do not understand: the (UK/German/most 1st world's and others-) judicial system is impartial, because it is completely objective.

 

It hears both sides, investigates the truthfulness (or otherwise) of both sides' respective allegations, then applies any relevant legal provisions and precedent to the situation between the sides as factually determined.

 

What is right or not is irrelevant, only what is fact and how the law applies to such facts matters. Legal practice has never been about doing "what's right", it's always been about doing what is in the best interests of your client (person, company or State). If you ever wanted a legal career, I strongly suggest you come to terms with the above first and foremost.

You done yet? Look, I've been giving you some pointers about legal practice 'from the coalface' since you appeared interested in the subject, but if it's to get insulted because the reality of it does not correlate with your imperfect (or idealised) understanding of it, I'll just toddle off to another thread. No skin off my nose.

 

Check your own posts for insults.

 

No, you still haven't got it.

 

Of course I'm coming from a layman's view. That doesn't mean I don't understand WHAT is happening, or HOW the system works. My point is that in allowing it to happen in the way it has, the justice system looks to have failed to be impartial. Are there occurrences where poor people are required to pay a similar "fine" to have all charges dropped? Say where a payment of, say, £50 would have a real impact on the person required to pay it - a noticeable part of his disposable income? Or where he has no discernible income? Do these happen in the same way, ie all charges dropped? Do you know if many countries have a system the same as Germany's? I've never heard of it here.

 

 

 

Can you explain one simple thing.

 

As Bernie Ecclestone has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, why has he been required to pay any money.

 

This is not some sort of plea bargain where a reduced charge has been accepted. He has not been found guilty of any crime. he is innocent in the eyes of the law, yet has had to pay.

[Speckled Hen]

Check your own posts for insults.

 

No, you still haven't got it.

 

Of course I'm coming from a layman's view. That doesn't mean I don't understand WHAT is happening, or HOW the system works. My point is that in allowing it to happen in the way it has, the justice system looks to have failed to be impartial. Are there occurrences where poor people are required to pay a similar "fine" to have all charges dropped? Say where a payment of, say, £50 would have a real impact on the person required to pay it - a noticeable part of his disposable income? Or where he has no discernible income? Do these happen in the same way, ie all charges dropped? Do you know if many countries have a system the same as Germany's? I've never heard of it here.

 

 

 

Can you explain one simple thing.

 

As Bernie Ecclestone has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, why has he been required to pay any money.

 

This is not some sort of plea bargain where a reduced charge has been accepted. He has not been found guilty of any crime. he is innocent in the eyes of the law, yet has had to pay.

 

 

It happens all the time. It is known as settling out of court. Ecclestone wasn't forced to pay. He offered to pay. I suppose when you are 83 years of age and have $4.6 billion in the bank spending 2 years on your yacht can seem rather more attractive than spending 2 years going through the court system. The money becomes irrelevant when you have so much of it. You can pay it into a court to get the court case dropped or you can spend it on very expensive lawyers to fight it out for the rest of your life. Which would you choose?

On the flip side the court system can waste millions trying to bring a case against an 83 year old who will either be found not guilty or will have died before a FINAL verdict is reached. $100 million seems like a good deal for the courts rather than wasting $millions trying to prosecute someone whose cash won't run out as quickly as the prosecutors.

[L00b]

<...>

 

Can you explain one simple thing.

 

As Bernie Ecclestone has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, why has he been required to pay any money.

 

<...>

I have explained this in my earlier posts, rather comprehensively, and in reasonably simple and clear terms.

 

Is it a case of you not understanding them, or a case of you not accepting them? Genuine query.

 

FWIW, frequently clients do not accept my advice, because it's not "right" (i.e. what they consider as "justice", and consequently expect to hear from me...my job is to advise them with impartiality (that means good and bad news) and act in their best interests, not tell them what they want to hear). It's a very common phenomenon for legal advisers, and goes to the heart of this debate.

 

EDIT: still not seeing any insults in my posts, btw. Enlighten me, if you would care.

Edited August 7, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

I have explained this in my earlier posts, rather comprehensively, and in reasonably simple and clear terms.

 

Is it a case of you not understanding them, or a case of you not accepting them? Genuine query.

 

FWIW, frequently clients do not accept my advice, because it's not "right" (i.e. what they consider as "justice", and consequently expect to hear from me...my job is to advise them with impartiality (that means good and bad news) and act in their best interests, not tell them what they want to hear). It's a very common phenomenon for legal advisers, and goes to the heart of this debate.

 

EDIT: still not seeing any insults in my posts, btw. Enlighten me, if you would care.

 

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

[truman]

It is your consistent demeaning of other posters on the basis that they are lay people and by implication that they cannot understand how the system works. You use this as a basis for ignoring their view, (instead of addressing the post). It is akin to attacking the poster, instead of the post.

 

You are approaching this thread on the basis that this is how the law works, and it is not open to question. The legal system is not in a bubble. It is part of society and should aim to meet the needs of society. Some of your posts appear to give the impression that the legal system is a law unto itself and is not answerable to a wider society.

 

Genuine question..don't people "settle out of court" in the UK? What is the difference between that and what Ecclestone has done?