The Sing Sing Correctional Facility is a maximum security prison located at the town of Ossining, New York. The name is such that it has now passed into the language and is used as a general term for imprisonment. This should be confused with the criminal terminology of “to sing”, which is a short form of “sing like a canary”, which means that a person tells the authorities everything they know about an alleged crime.
The word from Germany is that Gerhard Gribkowsky is in discussion with prosecutors over whether he wants to admit involvement in alleged bribery in an effort to change the sentence he receives. Gribkowsky has been in custody for 17 months, but has at no point made any statements in court. He is accused of breach of trust, tax evasion and receiving substantial bribes.
The last of the charges is the significant one for the Formula 1 world because if Gribkowsky admits that he received a bribe, this will mean that the person or persons who paid the bribe will also be liable for prosecution. German prosecutors have traced payments made to Gribkowsky to a company in the Formula One group and to the Ecclestone Family trust company, which is controlled by Slavica Ecclestone, the former wife of F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone.
Ecclestone appeared as a witness during Gribkowsky’s trial and said that he did not pay a bribe, but rather felt the need to pay the banker because he felt he was “being shaken down” over questions about his dealings with UK tax, although he did not make any accusation of blackmail. CVC Capital Partners, which appears to be the majority owner of the Formula One group, says that it had no knowledge any payments made by Ecclestone to Gribkowsky.
Not only Bernie can play scotched earth, then.
And Grib become a prosecution witness.
My very firmly held view is is choice is 5 years on remand, then a sentence, or a plea. Had a chat with a local defender who is a great pal, and a huge percentage of complex trials in the UK plea out. And I reckon our rules are plenty fairer (if you have a top attorney, that is) than Germany.
Sucks, but he needs the decks cleared, personally as much as F1 does. I presume he has a suffering wife somewhere . .
No conclusion: no float.
Think, boys . .
“And I reckon our rules are plenty fairer (if you have a top attorney, that is) than Germany.”
And there lies the rub! The law treats the rich very well, and I think it is a part of that decline over the last 15 years (Or from the time Blair was set upon the country) in the direction of medieval hierarchy, the gupf between rich and poor has increased greatly.
Whilst on nicknames, a “Bernie” let’s not forget is slang for £1M, the donation Bernie gave to Blair in support of his supposed forthcoming tax breaks for the mega rich. It seems to have worked out very well for Bernie he like most of the mega rich have avoided paying a lot of income tax in the UK, hence his fear of Grib. The fact that Blair had to give the money back from a bankrupt party fund, whilst simultaneously denying any knowledge of it is one of the few Blair smiles.
rpaco, it is far far worse than that. you need money to appeal to judicial review to get around bent or simply untrained judges now . . . and it can only get worse, my generation who practise – or at least my pal, who is a heart, and ear to ground – are getting apathetic and depressed, so who will inform the next generation?
Cynical times. You need a Bernie to own a family home* . . . in my early days a Placido (Tenner) bought you fair lunch and pints for two, so there’s nigh 1000% inflation . . I’ve spent a decade beating myself up for not studying economics better, but the reality is not textbook. Took The Palindrome (Soros) to unravel the Target2 debate, and hundreds of guys to unravel the QE mess. Don’t feel any better, mind . . *and there is a supply demand problem with that likely only fixable by scrapping much of the welfare state. Who slipped me the red pill?
“And there lies the rub! The law treats the rich very well”
I have a flip side to that, but fear I should be too sarcastic for consumption here to describe it all. They presumed, by accent, I was rich. Inverse prejudice does exist, and one time, well, I was mad enough to lecture a judge on their job, so my quieter tones turned into a haughty indictment. For a whole afternoon. I was I think mostly correct. But don’t annoy judges
Damn commie you’ll be stealinng the food from tamara and petras mouths next….
Commies were quite good at stealing from the poor, too . . . bloody traitors ..
Scotched Earth? Yeah… I want that single malt heaven…
“scorched” maybe (damn those r & t keys being so close). Giggles. JF
nah, damn some fine Islay not being so close!
Enigmatic comments or what ? – the problems of being a billionaire Eh?
Don’t need to float, CVC had their money out some time ago and are divesting themselves of the icing on the F1 cake as quickly as they can find vulture funds to take it off their hands. Discounting on Enterprise Valuation basis i.e. highly leveraged company, better then the IPO which was classed as Junk Bonds. Last I heard 35% and falling,
Bambino, CVC – so who’s the third wise monkey?
Wilson
What is the difference – “shaken down” or bribery. No one put a gun to Eccelstone’s head…….
Intrinsic or ~ far more rarely ~ extrinsic evidence that compliance with a demand would have created a personal benefit to the detriment of others to whom one has a fiduciary duty. Then, failure to report, all that guff.
As I’ve noted before, people are still clearing up Polly Peck.
Anyhow, it’s not the gun to head, it’s the personal motivation. Clever blackmailers make sure they have both gun and complicity, to cover their bases, and although I think Grib has had a hard time, he is well smart enough to have pulled that off. Not desperately liked, either, in his one time field. So Grib’s all out of character witnesses even in mitigation.
What I do not know is how mens rea would apply in Germany. However, that is considered the toughest of all defences to work. I would be bringing in all kinds of potentially unallowable extrinsic evidence based on modern psychological statistics. Most of which proves common wisdom, but might be arguable.
My blood pressure rises every time I outright speculate like this, so enough maybe for now. As my pal says, “John, this is not commercial law, believe me, it’s more complicated.” I believe him. He’s hot shh, but under resourced. This is a cocktail.
Justice, swift and fair, but there’s too many total manipulations afoot even by default in any trial. There, said it, presume nothing, neither your rights. This is why I am talking to my pal again to see if we can kickstart him commercially.
Are you a solicitor?
No, a solicitor is a lost lady on the street, late at night. The exams are easy, automatic rights happen with pupilage, basically being some barrister’s lackey for no pay for years, preventing access to normal people. I dissent to that, though this was a much later interest for me. Answer: no I do not like the system, but I am sometimes granted rights of audience, and there are rules for that. Sometimes as simple as being polite. As fasr as conducting cases are concerned, I soon realised the scams. So tooled up. Think I could see anyone in any court, apologies for my arrogance, just hardbitten experience. ~ j
I wouldn’t qualify, either. School dropout here, and the solicitor lot are very covetous of their high school grades I managed many years before them. I’m bitter, and a total arsehole, but have you lost big hundreds of thousands being conned by their nice little lazy club (when that was real money)? Apologies to all, and to the good solicitors, who presumably do exist out there . .
Sorry, dude, I get blown apart by this stuff. Never personal.
No, he’s a purveyor of strangulated dictionary thought.
I hope not, he might regret stating that Judges are ‘bent if he is….
Thank you very much guys!
I have to say that Peter C’s “purveyor of strangulated dictionary thought” is the best insult I have had for a while. That’s fair comment, no offence taken, but maybe not the whole truth.
My pal is in fact fearful of the system, and is a full on and very talented solicitor, denied his abilities. Not nearly as fearful as his wife, who has vetoed twice my suggestion that the law now allows lay partners to invest in a law firm.
Being where I am, and being a stupid talkative idiot, I hear all sorts. There is a judge about here whose name is street slang for being ruined. Judge in question denies defence arguments for bail. Not just individually, not just in a hearing, denies the actual hearings, but wholesale “signs” off whole dockets so he can go get a nice lunch.
I think this scary stuff.
Of course I am not a lawyer. Maybe when you talk every day about such stuff, you start to sound like one.
Who is, kow tows.
All save one, AFAIK, who I utterly respect.
Does not mean I have not litigated, nor spent 18 hours overnight trying to settle 15 years of litigation, and nearly there. But then, I think being good at that means there *is* no court case.
Sorry to all, tiredness and all that got me very edgy, and at the end of the day I try to worry about other things. In person, I could add proof to what I say. But I realise, on the internet, it’s just some jerkery unless you saw it yourself. I should cede my pulpit. But not before saying to Peter C, with all love and care that I can, this is not dictionary thought, merely experience. Apologies to Joe and everyone, this is a bit too raw for here. best to all ~ j
In the UK there is talk of any serious fraud trials being heard without a jury, this is because the authorities think a jury would not understand or follow the complex twists and turns of the defence and prosecution. Polly Peck is a good example.
I don’t know if this has been implemented in the UK yet, but you can bet this German Court is hearing a very convoluted story.
Formula One is currently having to give an account of itself in the German Courts, and will do so admirably, always remember Formula One is one of Britains best exports, along with Queen & James Bond.
That might work. But do we have to jury select the justices now?
Don’t know about that one John, thought they selected themselves…
To make the legal system in this country understandable to the public perhaps they should excercise plain english and speak less latin.
Always thought Max was very good explaining complex issues.
A QC Barristers mind will convince you two plus two is not what you thought!
And these people along with Theoretical Particle Physicists will soon dominate the world Mr Bond…
There is a concept called Common Man. What would he think?
What happens is that people go to court with specious arguments, often not knowing their own motivations, or even hiding that.
I didn’t realise how contentious this subject might be. But I rather take faith in the fact that people are interested. I reckon the world is a mess, and when people think that, they might want a bit of justice.
I am running out of mills I have not been through.
But of my experience, there exist simply awesome people in law, just too few.
My mentality, misguided as it may be, is to promote these better ideas. Advertising is not always a pretty girl, a car and an emblazon.
I would like to go on that modern “common man” thinks, dint of advertising and other factors, that he is special, thereby disrupting simple thought. However that would require me insulting the whole world, so I shall not go on.
Top question, IMNSHO.
You can ask a judge to recuse themselves for many reasons. I once spun that, but hey, it was my backside on the line, I got a big smile, a laugh and a “do not darken my door again, get out of here”. Most solicitors do not try that, because they think they want “favours” later. “Favours” being simple procedural progress.
There is a huge population in contact with law or law enforcement, I simply see it as a way of balancing things. Also a economic hurdle. I can go so deep on this, you would accumulate received prejudices, so this is one time I argue “please believe me”. ~ j
The difference is quite significant. Bribery would be Ecclestone paying Gribkowsky to perform some nefarious task. In that instance Ecclestone would be a wrong-doer. A shakedown is Ecclestone being the victim.
“… feels he was shaken down …”. Legally very different to being shaken down. Both give an explanation as to why Bernie E might shed some money like that, but the later requires evidence of some sort.
Basically, while there is still a possibility that Eccelstone had reasons to feel like he was being ‘shaken down’ he can’t be put in for bribing. So basically moving the focus from ‘was Bernie …’ to ‘who/how did this happen to Bernie’..
Dear all
Imagine that the market price for Teflon is going to go through the roof before this little show is over. What’s that old bush saying…? Oh, yes, that’s it- “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” And, at Bernies age, should the unthinkable happen, a 2 year sentence might as well be life.
Cheers
MarkR
another old one, “there’s never just one roach in the kitchen”.
I fear this is going to turn out very sadly. If you think about it, once management loose trust, hands offering money clench their fist. The two smartest teams in my book have diversified aggressively. Might be just coincidence, but consider Mr Parr’s moral dilemma. Consider Mr Parr further, that he defended (successfully, which is some testament to his ability) a councillor in the Porter – Westminster chargeback affair. So there’s a man with hard experience of corruption, once removed.
This is why I need the occasional bedtime story . . Joe, get yerself to another jumble sale!!
My father was a conflicted man, he saw nature, especially human nature as reason to disbelieve in divinity, yet could only see a god in beauty. Or godliness from beauty. We all need our fairy tales, why else do we tell them to our children. But those told by adults to adults are rarely benign. I have always lived in a modicum of fantasy (if my brother is looking in, stop choking Howard, cough it up!) and movies and even advertising sales are extensions of that. Until very recently, I kept shut about the reality I saw, preferring the alternative. Would not even call it as I saw it, just took a circumnavigation. Who wants to butt heads with idiocrasy? I think I just became aware the world needs a better fairytale to counter the ingress of ingrates. But I also think that worry might have been a huge factor in laying me physically low. Sweet irony, if so. Must re read Swift. Incidentally, not who you would think is Oscar material, but Ted Danson gave the performance of his life as Gulliver in the 1996 transatlantic television adaptation. Wasn’t entered for prizes. I just lent my copy out, and am fretting, as hard to find another. Check it out, if you can.
CVC now down to 35% with Waddell & Read up to 21%, Reuters reports… but I imagine you saw that!
So, if G admits that he accepted a bribe from B, then B is liable for bribery as an accomplice? Even if B has already testified in court that he did not believe he was bribing anyone?
What do we call this one then….Grubbygate?
It’s difficult to imagine Bernie parting with that amount of money easily.
What about CVC? If you’re in the business of finance and investment you would want to know where every penny was going…
Still believe our Bernies an honest man unlike the Madoff variety across the pond.
“It’s difficult to imagine Bernie parting with that amount of money easily.”
He didn’t, if you remember, it was offset by his “commission” which was paid to him and Bambino.
The general consensus is that Bernie would never have paid such a massive sum unless Gribkowsky ABSOLUTELY had the goods on him.
If Gribkowsky talks, he’s likely to deliver Bernie’s head on platter. Even if Bernie is charged but never actually convicted, it seems beyond reason for CVC to allow a so indicted person to continuing running their business.
If Grib talks, Bernie should walk. I say “should” because Bernie’s doubtless been scheming to avoid this exact eventuality. Perhaps that’s the reason CVC is divesting? Perhaps a new owner wouldn’t have CVC’s scruples?
An indictment would give Bernie a big kick, perhaps the biggest he’s ever received, but I still wouldn’t count him completely out.
This would seem to be a propitious time for someone with an axe to grind with the FIA and/or CVC/FOM to bring an action in Germany, challenging some recent developments. German courts have a history of not playing ball with the machinations of the aforementioned, and if the right “client” were used as a straw man , like ADAC for Mercedes for example, the whole apple cart could be overturned.
The EC had questions about the FIA/FOM 100yr deal going back decades ago…
Slavica going to prison, then?
Lie down with snakes you got to expect to get bit.
Crafty old man, ain’t he?
Singing his way OUT of Sing Sing for The Grib, and/or singing Bernie and Slavica into it.
About time a little less forelocks stopped being tugged BE’s way. He’s looking very shaky IMHO.
any indictment of Bern in europe would have repercussions on his ability to carry on a business in the US, would it not? I’m thinking of the GPs in NJ and Texas or wherever else there was supposed to be an american GP…. The US is one place a dodgy businessman would not want the government boys to be sniffing round his affairs. I suppose the other is Germany!
Why would a CEO’s legal problems in Germany prevent an F1 race from taking place in America? The contracts are between companies, not individuals.
may not prevent a race taking place, or it may. I was saying “his ability to carry on a business in the US” would be hampered. To be convicted of criminal activity even outside the US [not saying that Bernie would be] but, if he was, that is taken v much more seriously in the US than elsewhere
I really fail to see a point here. What does the US care? What is the US going to do? How would this matter? How would this prevent any race. Why would this prevent racing in America and not Europe? Bernie does not promote the GP’s in America. Or any GP for that matter. So I just don’t get why this would have any impact on F1 in the US other than possibly speculative opponets of the races here thinking that it has something to do with anything and using it as ammunition in their anti F1 rants. Or as a reason why they think F1 should not race in the US. Again… as S.Bloom said… this is between two individuals.
Indicted corporate officers have a very difficult time performing their duties, especially when those duties put them frequently into the public eye.
The role of running FOM is a very public one. It requires the executive to meet with presidents and potentates, bigwigs and movie stars. None of which are keen to be photographed with someone under active criminal indictment.
That’s even before we get into the terrible black eye it would give the sport. It would be a wound that could not even start to heal until the individual resigned.
Further, an indicted individual may have trouble being bonded, resulting in their inability to sign corporate documents.
It’s a big deal. It would be nearly impossible for an indicted individual to perform the duties of FOM chairman.
So that answers the question of why this is not good for the sport. Anyone can see that. Now please explain how this is specifically bad for the U.S. moreso than, say… Europe or Asia?
How the rich gets greedy, the more info that comes out the dirtier it gets.
I don’t believe for one moment, that Bernie has ever been shaken down in his life. This guy is just too damn street smart. If someone told me that he had been shaken down by Bernie, then I just might believe him. Also funny amount to pay out. If I wanted to shut him up, then I would pay him a few million, not the amount claimed. I know that he (Bernie) stated he wanted to protect his family trust – tax agreements from the UK government, and if it meant paying out millions in tax, then for a few tens or twenty million it is worth it. Sorry, but I still don’t fall into that trap of thinking. I know of many FTSE 100 companies with tax bills of Billions owned to the UK government and end up years later paying a few million, so why did Bernie worry? Surely his advisers would have told him about all these FTSE 100 companies and deals done.
Just look at companies like say GOOGLE, the UK market is there biggest outside of America, and they make billions, yet only pay twenty million in tax. Yes F1 is rich, and gets funds in from around the world, same as Google, but not at the same level as Google does each year.
There is a lot more to this payoff than what we are been told right now. If we are to believe that Bernie paid out that amount, then he is not as smart or as clever as we think or his press make him to be. In that case then Joe, you with your Domain name, you should try selling it to Bernie, you might strike it lucky and have your own jet to take you to the races each year.
Been there. Done that.
The money paid out, didn’t come directly from Bernie if I remember correctly, he had his mate a certain upstanding character called Mr. Flavio Briatore move the said alleged funds around inside his companies. So if true then Mr. Briatore would take the fall first before Bernie, thereby giving Bernie a few more years with his young – soon to be – wife.
LOL!
The available evidence clearly proves you wrong. Bernie WAS shaken down, very successfully in fact. If Gribkowsky had just paid his damn taxes, this whole affair would probably have never come to light.
Just because Bernie is tough and clever doesn’t mean he’s perfect. Even the cleverest among us make mistakes. I could name a dozen big mistakes made by Ecclestone, many of which cost him far more than he the Gribkowsky payout.
Gribkowsky is also a tough and clever man. He’s spent the past 17 months in a very hard prison without speaking a word to the prosecutor.
Oh, and there is a big difference between Bernie and those large companies that fiddle their taxes. It’s impossible to send a corporation to jail.
Random, Sorry to say you’re wrong. Bernie was dealing with a “Trust” which is not a person, but a legal identity. Under the current laws in the UK, a director of a PLC can find themselves in Jail on tax charges brought against the company of which they are an officer of. It was not Bernie but the “Trust” which held the shares – equity in this business. This “trust” would have had to pay the tax bill if there was one to pay. Also Bernie didn’t have control of the “trust”; his wife did if we are to believe the reports. In fact, back when Bernie was doing this, the Trust, would have just about made it the FTSE 100 list if it was floated on the UK Exchange, given their value – asset holding & income. So why didn’t his advisers, adviser him correctly? The laws in the UK, been a Director have changed a lot in the last few years, and if you look, you will see Directors have gone to jail, or had charges against them brought. Most of these cases don’t make the public domain, and are agreed behind closed doors, for the benefit of all parties. You just don’t read about it in the newspapers, but they do happen. The UK Taxman likes to do business that way these days.
I never said it was impossible to send a CEO to jail, I said it’s impossible to send an corporation (or similar entity) to jail.
Even if we apply that standard to the officers of those corporations, it remains overwhelmingly true. It may be within the law to send a corporate officer to jail, but it still remains extremely uncommon for officers of corporations to do jail time for the non-payment of CORPORATE taxes. Penalties yes, jail time, no.
That all changes when a corporate officer is found guilty of not paying personal taxes. That is really what we’re talking about here. Bernie wasn’t running a regular company owned by investors, he was running a trust holding his own personal wealth. Bernie claimed he had no control over the trust, but that was precisely the claim Gribkowsky was reportedly able to prove a lie.
Proof that Bernie told this massive lie to the UK tax authorities might not only open Bernie to UK tax charges, but also charges of falsification or perjury. If Gribkowsky talks, it could be a very big deal for Mssr. Ecclestone.
What has this guy got on mr E , Bernie is a monster of a business brain and I can’t believe anyone would get the better of him , is there something he is trying to hide ???
According to reports, Gribkowsky had proof that Bernie “irregularly avoided” a lot of taxes in the UK. How much is a lot? Suggestions have exceeded Billions of pounds, making this potentially the largest individual case of irregularly avoiding taxes in the history of the United Kingdom. So why in this time of budget shortfalls isn’t this headline stuff in the UK? Damned good question. Criminal penalties and ethics aside, a 50 million dollar payout to save a few billion seems a sound investment. No long-time followers of the sport I’ve talked to believe Gribkowsky didn’t have the goods on Bernie, largely because Bernie never would have paid him a shilling if Gribkowsky didn’t have him dead to rights. Bernie is hardly perfect, he’s made massive business errors over the years, some costing him many times this payout. His digital TV company, his fight to retain voting rights over the F1 companies, his repeated cock ups of the US market. His divorce cost him more than all of those losses combined. Bernie’s tough, he’s clever, but he’s not even close to perfect. From all appearances, Gribkowsky completely bested Bernie in this fight. Gribkowsky probably would have gotten away with it if he’d either moved to some tax haven or just paid his damn German taxes. He got extra greedy and lazy. He stayed in Europe and eventually came to the attention of the tax man. That little bit of extra greed has already sealed Gribkowsky’s fate, it could very easily seal Bernie’s as well.
Maybe the bbc were smarter than we thought in dumping f1 so far as they could with this on the way…who wants to be near this bommb if it goes off? Jimmy Carr will cause enough problems…
Yes, that he was once a used car dealer. Nothing changes.
I’m surprised the News of the W have not hacked into Bernie’s calls
Mr Gribowsky should surely be let free from jail and never allowed to have money again. Now that the new, cool, relevant F1 is moving strongly into the early nineties, everything is ok. Would rather hear about your wonderful holidays as F1′s hardest working blogger, France seems nice this time of year, and now that Williams have “won Le Mans” maybe they can win another F1 race.
According to German news sources it is singing for a shorter stay in Sing Sing…
Isn’t there a Formula One Group flotation aspect to this story? If there is a legal cloud hanging over Formula One Group, public flotation becomes a bit more complicated. Pension, investment and insurance companies that would be expected to buy shares don’t like that sort of thing and they especially dislike it when the brains behind an organisation appears to be so entangled.
The private sale of Formula One Group shares becomes more easy to understand. CVC wants a return on its investment, but IPO is not a realistic option. So they sold a block of shares privately, probably at a lower price reflecting higher risk. Non-voting shares?
Some of the commentators above seem to confuse CVC, Formula One Group and Bernie Ecclestone, treating them as the same entity. It is a common mistake. Bernie’s tax affairs (or hypothetical blackmail attempts) are Bernie’s problems. The money owned by Formula One Group belongs to that company.
All of the above makes it worse than a legal cloud. If there is substance to the allegations, Formula One Group made a payment for a “service” that was unrelated to Formula One Group’s activities. An investor would therefore ask: “who is running the books here?”
AFAIK the german prosecutors are now obliged to at least investigate against Ecclestone for bribing Gribkowsky. Whether the UK Inland Revenue is or feels obliged to investigate a possible tax fraud I’d like to know, though.
Bernie IS currently under investigation by the UK tax authorities. I even believe it was mentioned on the floor of the house of commons.
Was a looming Gribkowsky confession the reason for the rush for an IPO?
From all appearances, the Gribkowsky confession was a very recent development. The IPO plans and the initial stake sales preceded it by months.
That said, the Gribkowsky verdict has been pending (and delayed) for some time. A lot of use have wondered if the verdict has had not some inconsiderable bearing on both the IPO and the recent state sales. It fits, but there’s no proof as yet.
The reason it fits is that even without a Gribkowsky confession, a guilty verdict could also result in charges against Bernie.