Bernie Ecclestone could pay off court to end bribery trial

[erebus]

So as stated before in previous postings, money buys justice. The law and the laws are for common people, ordinary flok, not the rich and powerful, and never has been and never was.

[L00b]

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.

Until and unless factual verification (by evidence) is provided that BE is liable for the acts alleged by the German prosecution and in respect of which the settlement is allegedly about, I'm not seeing where the dishonesty or immorality is: such 'dishonesty' could lie on either side (BE/German prosecution) or be shared in measures by both, and no one else knows but BE, his solicitor(s) and the German prosecution.

 

All I'm seeing is that allegations against BE were made, that they were not determined by a Court as true or untrue, and that the German rule of law and procedure was followed. So, I'm not going to cast any stone just yet.

 

But ye all feel free to continue bashing the 'bad' rich (and the judicial system and the Jerries while you're at it, of course) as ordered by the media

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

Until and unless factual verification (by evidence) is provided that BE is liable for the acts alleged by the German prosecution and in respect of which the settlement is allegedly about, I'm not seeing where the dishonesty or immorality is: such 'dishonesty' could lie on either side (BE/German prosecution) or be shared in measures by both, and no one else knows but BE, his solicitor(s) and the German prosecution.

 

All I'm seeing is that allegations against BE were made, that they were not determined by a Court as true or untrue, and that the German rule of law and procedure was followed. So, I'm not going to cast any stone just yet.

 

But ye all feel free to continue bashing the 'bad' rich (and the judicial system and the Jerries while you're at it, of course) as ordered by the media

 

Putting aside your ridiculous prejudices about other posters.

 

I've no idea whether BE has committed any crime. (Edit. and because of Germany's legal system, we never will).

 

The German judicial system decided that he had enough of a case to answer, and so charged him.

 

Now, they have decided to not proceed any further. Why?

 

1. If it is because they no longer think he has any case to answer (eg because the evidence against him, once subject scrutiny, is not as good as they thought it was), then they would surely just stop the case and (metaphorically) free him. In these circumstances, why is he being required to pay any money. If he has no case to answer, then he must be freed, regardless of any payments. The German State is, in effect, extorting money from him in order to drop the case.

 

2. If they still think there is a case to answer, then by offering him a deal, they are sending out a message that it is OK to break the law because we can come to a deal. The law is optional, it seems.

 

3. If the case is in the balance, and may go either way - well, that's just part of the job. If it were easy, anyone could do it. The judicial system has to decide one way or the other - whether to proceed or drop the case. In this sense, this is a grey area, but they should proceed without favour. That's the key to an honest judicial system. If they still think he is guilty or at least has a case to answer, then they should continue with the case. if they don't, then they should drop the case. It is as simple as that, and there is no reason for money to be involved.

 

The dishonesty I'm talking about is on the part of the German judicial system, in ever offering any sort of financial get out, without coming to a conclusion.

 

It's OK to do this in a civil case, where parties may compromise, because it is basically a private matter and sets no precedent. But in a criminal case, ie the State Vs someone, then the state is setting a precedent (or in this case following their own laws).

 

I understand that it is what they do. It is their country and they can and should set their own laws.

 

However, I believe it is morally wrong. It is a poor law, and lowers Gremany's reputation.

[L00b]

<...>Now, they have decided to not proceed any further. Why?<...>

Why not take it from the horse's mouth?

 

<...>

 

After hearing more than three months of evidence, the Munich state court cited significant doubts that Ecclestone could be convicted on charges of bribery and incitement to breach of trust as it approved an agreement between his lawyers and prosecutors and closed the trial.

 

<...>

 

The charges involved a $44 million payment to German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky, who is serving an 8 1/2-year sentence for taking the money. Gribkowsky was convicted of corruption, tax evasion and breach of trust in a trial led by the same judge who heard Ecclestone’s case, Peter Noll.

 

<...>

 

After hearing evidence since late April, “the court did not consider a conviction overwhelmingly likely,” court spokeswoman Andrea Titz said.

 

“There was no conclusion on guilt or innocence of the defendant,” she said. “He is leaving this courtroom a free man.”

 

Prosecutors alleged that the payment to Gribkowsky was meant to facilitate the sale of Munich-based bank Bayern LB’s stake in F1 to a buyer of Ecclestone’s liking. However, the court noted in Tuesday’s decision that witness testimony suggested that the sale of the stake to CVC Capital Partners was “an unexpectedly profitable deal” for the bank.

 

Defense lawyer Sven Thomas welcomed the court’s decision and said it showed that there would have been a “clear option of acquittal” had the trial continued, news agency dpa reported.

<...>

 

Judge Noll defended the decision, stressing in court that the payment “is oriented to the financial situation of the defendant.” He said Ecclestone had given assurances that the $100 million represented “an appreciable portion” of his wealth without overburdening him.

 

According to Forbes magazine, Ecclestone and his family are worth $4.2 billion. Noll, however, said after examining documents on his assets, that Ecclestone isn’t a billionaire, dpa reported.

<...>

source

 

So, looks more like (1) in your list, and that is only available/occurs as a result of there being relevant provisions in German law, and the linked article suggests that this provision is indeed widely used over there. Many will see it as "buying justice", personally I'd see it as a 'voluntary fining arrangement' which frees up Court resources quite nicely.

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

Why not take it from the horse's mouth?

 

source

 

So the question remains.

 

Why does he have to pay anything?

[L00b]

So the question remains.

 

Why does he have to pay anything?

Because that is the legal mechanism appropriate to the circumstances under German law. Offer to pay and the trial ends (if the Judge and prosecution agree with 'paying instead of trying'), don't pay and the trial goes on.

 

And the Judge and prosecution are much more likely to accept settling if the case is looking wonky (as it did in this case, refer the top sentence of the quote), that is just common sense: they can settle and draw a line, or risk wasting further taxpayer's money and Court resources with an eventual failure to convict.

 

It sounds, from the German Judge, that the figure arrived at was based on BE's wealth. That is not surprising, many aspects of German law (and comparably 'Germanic' e.g. Denmark, Finland) have penalties indexed on personal wealth/situation rather than a fixed index or scale. E.g. speeding fines in Finland (trivial but easy-to-understand parallel).

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

Because that is the legal mechanism appropriate to the circumstances under German law. Offer to pay and the trial ends (if the Judge and prosecution agree with 'paying instead of trying'), don't pay and the trial goes on.

 

And that's why I think that the German justice system is immoral. They have said that there is doubt about whether there would be a conviction and therefore intend to drop the case, which is fair enough. They then extort money out of the accused because they can, not because there is any justicfication for doing so. That is why it stinks.

[L00b]

And that's why I think that the German justice system is immoral. They have said that there is doubt about whether there would be a conviction and therefore intend to drop the case, which is fair enough. They then extort money out of the accused because they can, not because there is any justicfication for doing so. That is why it stinks.

No, the German justice system considers an offer to settle from the defendant and the judge sets the price tag.

 

The defendant does not have to offer to settle, it is simply a legal option which can be exercised by the defendant - or not.

 

The defendant does not have to provide the consideration (payment), if the defendant does not like the price tag.

 

There is no extortion at all, it's a contract between consenting parties.

 

The defendant, faced with a case progressing his way (as seems to have been the case here), can perfectly well continue with the trial instead, towards a decision failing to convict him, at a (expectedly much-) lower cost (in this case). Settling brings certainty, continuing perpetuates the unknown. At the level we're talking here (i.e. multi-million "business" levels) legal certainty has a price tag, and BE thought $100m was an acceptable one.

 

For the German justice system, it's a resources management decision based on the unfolding merit of a case. Not a bad system, actually.

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

Because that is the legal mechanism appropriate to the circumstances under German law. Offer to pay and the trial ends (if the Judge and prosecution agree with 'paying instead of trying'), don't pay and the trial goes on.

 

And the Judge and prosecution are much more likely to accept settling if the case is looking wonky (as it did in this case, refer the top sentence of the quote), that is just common sense: they can settle and draw a line, or risk wasting further taxpayer's money and Court resources with an eventual failure to convict.

 

It sounds, from the German Judge, that the figure arrived at was based on BE's wealth. That is not surprising, many aspects of German law (and comparably 'Germanic' e.g. Denmark, Finland) have penalties indexed on personal wealth/situation rather than a fixed index or scale. E.g. speeding fines in Finland (trivial but easy-to-understand parallel).

 

Penalties should be based on wrong doing. BE has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the German judicial system, yet they still penalize him.

 

I can understand it from his point of view. but IMO it is wrong of the State to operate this way. Any time there is a prosecution, it costs the state money, and in this sort of case that will be a lot of money. If they want to save some money, because they think they might not win, then drop (or don't even start) the case. It still does not justify doing the sort of deal that they have just done.

 

If BE was guilty, (I'm not saying he is), then he will have got off lightly.

 

Anyone considering serious fraud or bribery etc (which, if caught, will typically involve very complicated and expensive court cases), will now feel more comfortable in the knowledge that provided they make enough money from their dishonesty, they are likely, for a small cost, to be able to keep their good name and their freedom. It sends out all the wrong signals.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2014 at 15:31 ----------

 

No, the German justice system considers an offer to settle from the defendant and the judge sets the price tag.

 

The defendant does not have to offer to settle, it is simply a legal option which can be exercised by the defendant - or not.

 

The defendant does not have to provide the consideration (payment), if the defendant does not like the price tag.

 

There is no extortion at all, it's a contract between consenting parties.

 

For the German justice system, it's a resources management decision based on the unfolding merit of a case. Not a bad system, actually.

 

The "consenting parties" is a bit of a red herring. If they were two parties in a civil case, then fair enough, but they are not. One is part of the state which has to be seen to behave consistently and fairly. At the moment it is not doing that.

 

It is clearly in BE's interest to offer to deal, if he's given the chance. The money is well within his means. Regardless of his guilt, I can see why he would go for it.

 

My issue is with the German system being complicit in this, as it sends out the message that complying with the law is optional.

[L00b]

<...>Any time there is a prosecution, it costs the state money, and in this sort of case that will be a lot of money. If they want to save some money, because they think they might not win, then drop (or don't even start) the case. It still does not justify doing the sort of deal that they have just done.

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.

Anyone considering serious fraud or bribery etc (which, if caught, will typically involve very complicated and expensive court cases), will now feel more comfortable in the knowledge that provided they make enough money from their dishonesty, they are likely, for a small cost, to be able to keep their good name and their freedom. It sends out all the wrong signals.

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?

Edited August 6, 2014 by L00b