RAT MARTIN'S OFFSHORE STASH

[Dutch Branch]

We're top of the Offshore Finance Championship!

City even top of that but at least we are mid table

 

[hlane17]

City even top of that but at least we are mid table

Unsurprising that City are top of both tables...

 

[CC51DAS]

Interesting, although I'm not quite sure how to interpret the different columns.

£4,584,410 multiplied by an exchange rate of 1.34 would produce approximately USD 6,150,000. This corresponds with the rate that applied towards the end of 2021, I believe. So I guess the people who compiled that table worked from the same dollar figure that Naps obtained.

Can anyone tell me how much was cited in the HMRC fraud case and how much was attributed to the Rat and how much to Geoff King??

 

[Dutch Branch]

Interesting, although I'm not quite sure how to interpret the different columns.

£4,584,410 multiplied by an exchange rate of 1.34 would produce approximately USD 6,150,000. This corresponds with the rate that applied towards the end of 2021, I believe. So I guess the people who compiled that table worked from the same dollar figure that Naps obtained.

Can anyone tell me how much was cited in the HMRC fraud case and how much was attributed to the Rat and how much to Geoff King??

If you can be arsed to read up on how that table is worked out it should be in the link below.

https://taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf

 

[CC51DAS]

If you can be arsed to read up on how that table is worked out it should be in the link below.

https://taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Final-Offshore-Game-Report.pdf

Thanks again for this DB. I've had (a fairly rapid) read through and it seems that the money held offshore is the £4,584,410 and at least this sum and possibly more has been loaned back to the club. Can't say I'm sure about this. Happy to be corrected by someone with the right background - Firestorm ?

But where did that money come from in the first place ?

Open the books Ratty and tell us the answer - nothing to hide - the truth will out

 

[kentblues]

Interesting, although I'm not quite sure how to interpret the different columns.

£4,584,410 multiplied by an exchange rate of 1.34 would produce approximately USD 6,150,000. This corresponds with the rate that applied towards the end of 2021, I believe. So I guess the people who compiled that table worked from the same dollar figure that Naps obtained.

Can anyone tell me how much was cited in the HMRC fraud case and how much was attributed to the Rat and how much to Geoff King??

The “fraud case” was bizarre. And got all the way to court only for there to be no evidence, and pretty damning comments from the judge dismissing the case. It was around VAT related to a land sale. This in itself was bizarre because except under rare circumstances land sales aren’t subject to VAT.
Anyway he didn’t hand over VAT because there was no evidence that any was due.
Why this in any way ties in to Mezcal I can’t imagine- if he wanted to move his legitimate profits from a land sale there that would be his choice.
No idea where the numbers in the table come from.

 

[CC51DAS]

The “fraud case” was bizarre. And got all the way to court only for there to be no evidence, and pretty damning comments from the judge dismissing the case. It was around VAT related to a land sale. This in itself was bizarre because except under rare circumstances land sales aren’t subject to VAT.
Anyway he didn’t hand over VAT because there was no evidence that any was due.
Why this in any way ties in to Mezcal I can’t imagine- if he wanted to move his legitimate profits from a land sale there that would be his choice.
No idea where the numbers in the table come from.

Thanks KB . Very interesting. I suppose my main thought was - is there any correlation between the amount he was pursued for and the figures in the report from the BVI account? Maybe HMRC thought there was and were wrong? Did anyone obtain the notes of the Court hearing? That might shed some further light. I imagine they'd still be available if not.

Either way, there's a simple way of clearing this up. Its within the Rat's gift to provide all the information

 

[kentblues]

The land sale would have been north of £20m. There was never any VAT element. That was an imagination supported by zero evidence. I suspect Ron understood the complexities around the rare occasions when VAT should be charged on a land sale better than whoever led the case- who knows. Government has been threatening to tidy up this area re. VAT for years and haven’t.

He could go public with Mezcal’s accounts I guess. But he doesn’t need to and I strongly suspect won’t, all be it I doubt there’s much to see..

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

This is all very good in my opinion. Southend supporters have a wide knowledge in this type of thing, and some are experts or have experience in certain fields. If him and his co-conspirator family let this club go down the pan, then we can go very deep if needed in his financial dealings, company's, offshore accounts, what assets he has swallowed up at SUFC, etc, etc. If he thinks him and his family are going to get even more wealthy and sail off into the sunset at the expense of our football club, he's misread our massive fan base. We can dig up all sorts on him and his tangled web of companies if needed. He needs to take a massive hit that his mismanagement deserves, and sell up for less that he hoped for. If he lets the club survive and hands us over to a group more suitable and wealthy, and leaves us in good hands, then most of us won't give a damn that he makes money at Fossetts Farm.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Can anyone tell me how much was cited in the HMRC fraud case and how much was attributed to the Rat and how much to Geoff King??

Might be total nonsense, but supposedly Geoff King was deemed to be unfit to give evidence (?) shortly before the trial began, which led to it being dropped?.
IF that was so, then how convenient?.

 

[kentblues]

Might be total nonsense, but supposedly Geoff King was deemed to be unfit to give evidence (?) shortly before the trial began, which led to it being dropped?.
IF that was so, then how convenient?.

More alternative facts…indeed total nonsense…who makes these kinds of things up?

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

More alternative facts…indeed total nonsense…who makes these kinds of things up?

No idea, just mentioning what was said, and as i said 'might be total nonsense'.
But why did the case get dropped, after The Fraud Squad spent considerable time collating evidence, something they wouldn't have done, if they thought it was a waste of time?.

 

[jackj13]

No idea, just mentioning what was said, and as i said 'might be total nonsense'.
But why did the case get dropped, after The Fraud Squad spent considerable time collating evidence, something they wouldn't have done, if they thought it was a waste of time?.

Seems a pretty flimsy case if the whole case collapses if one defendant can’t give evidence. All in the past now anyway.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Seems a pretty flimsy case if the whole case collapses if one defendant can’t give evidence. All in the past now anyway.

Depends on whether that defendants evidence was the most crucial to the case?.
But as you say, all in the past, which hopefully we won't be in a weeks time?.

 

[West Stand]

Worth looking at the charge registered at companies house £9+ million ?

 

[kentblues]

No idea, just mentioning what was said, and as i said 'might be total nonsense'.
But why did the case get dropped, after The Fraud Squad spent considerable time collating evidence, something they wouldn't have done, if they thought it was a waste of time?.

The judge accepted that the prosecution failed to meet the first limb of the Galbraith test and that there was simply no evidence to reasonably support the prosecution case. They may have spent time collating something but alas it turned out it wasn’t evidence.

* The Galbraith test means there are two separate limbs for the defence to consider when making a submission of no case to answer:

Limb 1 - there is no evidence upon which the jury could convict; or

Limb 2 - there is some evidence, but it is so poor that it would be unsafe to leave it to the jury

You will be shocked to hear sometimes the SFO just c**k up..But failing to meet limb 1 of the test is an achievement

 

[kentblues]

Worth looking at the charge registered at companies house £9+ million ?

Mezcal holds that charge as Security Trustee.That means they hold the charge for the benefit of/on behalf of other lenders. So Mezcal has not made that loan.

Of course, none of the charges in the SUFC accounts will ever see the holders receiving any money. More likely, as with other charges, positioning in case of administration.

Interesting nonetheless.

 

[West Stand]

Mezcal holds that charge as Security Trustee.That means they hold the charge for the benefit of/on behalf of other lenders. So Mezcal has not made that loan.

Of course, none of the charges in the SUFC accounts will ever see the holders receiving any money. More likely, as with other charges, positioning in case of administration.

Interesting nonetheless.

I thought in that charge document it’s stated that they were the lender as well as security agent .

Irrespective that £9 million is very much the significant handcuff for anyone going forward as my reading is that this document links Roots Hall Ltd and you would assume therefore the lease between SUFC and Roots Hall this all goes round in a circle

 

[CC51DAS]

Mezcal holds that charge as Security Trustee.That means they hold the charge for the benefit of/on behalf of other lenders. So Mezcal has not made that loan.

Of course, none of the charges in the SUFC accounts will ever see the holders receiving any money. More likely, as with other charges, positioning in case of administration.

Interesting nonetheless.

Very. Thank you once again KB

Two things keep coming back to my mind.

1 - there certainly seems to have been USD 6.150.000 (approx £4.5 million) in that account at some stage, so where did it come from/ how did it get there / what did it relate to ? If not the fraud case just the profit on another deal with a party who was already based offshore ?

2- IF there is money in that account, having got it there, Ratty doesn't want to bring it back onshore- a) it could raise a lot of questions b) he'd have to pay tax on it. So far better to get someone else to pay his bills for him as part of the deal and to hell with the club if no-one does.

No doubt, as part of the DD, he'd have had to open the Mezcal accounts for scrutiny. So if there's nothing to hide he might as well just publish them to remove any lingering element of doubt. He wouldn't want to find himself on Panorama would he ?

 

[Dutch Branch]

Very. Thank you once again KB

Two things keep coming back to my mind.

1 - there certainly seems to have been USD 6.150.000 (approx £4.5 million) in that account at some stage, so where did it come from/ how did it get there / what did it relate to ? If not the fraud case just the profit on another deal with a party who was already based offshore ?

2- IF there is money in that account, having got it there, Ratty doesn't want to bring it back onshore- a) it could raise a lot of questions b) he'd have to pay tax on it. So far better to get someone else to pay his bills for him as part of the deal and to hell with the club if no-one does.

No doubt, as part of the DD, he'd have had to open the Mezcal accounts for scrutiny. So if there's nothing to hide he might as well just publish them to remove any lingering element of doubt. He wouldn't want to find himself on Panorama would he ?

Now there’s a thought maybe it’s time he was on Panorama to expose him for the killing us. The Martin model