Gerhard Gribkwosky has admitted his involvement that he received millions of euros after talks over a consultancy contract with Bernie Ecclestone, F1’s chief executive.Grobkowsky said that accusations against him were “essentially true”.
He is charged with receipt of corrupt payments as well as breach of trust and tax evasion.
German state prosecutors claimed that Gribkowsky received $44m in corrupt payments from Bernie Ecclestone and from the Bambino Trust, the Ecclestone family trust fund. Ecclestone has admitted making payments to Gribkowsky, but said that Gribkowsky was “shaking him down”.
In court Gribkowsky said that in May 2005 Ecclestone said he could employ him as a consultant, if he would help him sell the Formula One. He did not declare this to his employer BayernLB – a state-owned bank. Gribkowsky also claimed that Ecclestone asked for a commission of $100 million to help Bayern LB sell the business. He said that he negotiated a lower commission deal of five percent.
It will be interesting to see what happens next. In theory plea bargains are not allowed in Germany. It will also be interesting to see what the prosecutors do about Ecclestone. In theory if they know about an offence they are obliged to investigate. If one party had admitted to accepting “a corrupt payment”, then the other party could be charged with making such a payment.
Whatever the case, none of this is good for the image of F1.
this is another reason why Bernie Ecclestone is a pox on motor racing… he did much for the sport in his younger days but the money has simply corrupted him beyond belief!
…and created an amazing industry which keeps thousands employed, directly and indirectly
So, that justifies corrupt behaviour (if it is proven) by BCE than? And, this industry wouldn’t have developed without said corrrupt behaviour? And, therefore, by implication- “the ends justifies the means”- which is precisely the philosophy that has caused this pile of s*#t in the first place.
Cheers
MarkR
Welcome to modern life. Get over it. Anyway, I didn’t say it justified anything, I made a statement of fact. It’s would seem that it’s attractive/exciting enough to have captured YOUR following?
Cheers
IanJ
‘Welcome to modern life. Get over it’ Unnecessarily rude But that’s the internet blog manner, I suppose.
Puts me in mind of my neighbour who weed killed my lawn ‘by accident’.
His response was ‘Well it’s dog eat dog now, y’know’. He’s not so cocky now.
Peter, yes somewhat crude in retrospect – sorry Mark. I hope I make my point a bit better below. With respect, your “killed” analogy doesn’t quite stack up – in terms of there being no +’ve trade-off for your lawn; I’m no gardener, but guess a lawn can be recovered – maybe not your neighbour’s attitude though? BCE hasn’t killed F1, quite the contrary in fact.
Yes, he may be different things to different people, but what exactly has he done that’s made your life (or mine… or that of anyone on this forum) worse?
What are we lacking in life that we would have otherwise had but for the business dealings of BCE? And everything else asside, that is my what my point really is.
At a time when many people in Melbourne are asking the state govt to justify the $55 million it spends on the Aus GP each year, we are constantly being subjected to budget cuts. The latest is that all money for bicycle infastructure has been cut. Each time one of these anouncements is made there will be letters to the papers drawing attention to amount of money that is spent on the AGP. Now they will also be able to point to this scandal as another reason the GP should be cancelled.
Yes, F1 has grown under Bernie’s watch. But it was growing anyway. Nascar has also grown in this period, but they have done it in a way that doesn’t have govts spending $600 million a year to subsidise it. Bernie is in his 80s. He has ripped billions out of the sport. It is time to say enough. It is time for him to go.
You ask who has been hurt by Bernie. What about the F1 fans in France, the place where GP racing was born? They haven’t had an F1 for years because they can’t pay this man’s outrageous demands. The F1 fans
around the world who love watching racing at Spa? We have missed many races because Bernie couldn’t be bothered going out to find a substainable method of funding.
I still can’t understand why the people who have to make the most expensive part F1, the tracks, are the only ones who can’t make money out of the races. And the reason they can’t make money out of the sport is Bernie and his mates are ripping half of the money F1 makes and lining their own pockets.
That wasn’t an analogy, or about Bernie. It’s, just that the bastard killed my lawn.
I’m having analysis.
ian j, please see the exchange between sCarLatti, Joe and Peter Coffman below: Bernie did not create the sport – or even the industry.
(sorry, cut myself off there) he created the business that feeds off them.
This kind of alleged logic never ceases to amaze me.
Any time a gov’t or a labor union does something stupid or improper, it is cited as if it was somehow evidence that the very nature of said organization is flawed… but whatever malfeasance is done by a rich guy, it’s not only justified on the grounds that “it’s business” but furthermore is somehow excused on the basis that the perpetrator’s self interest has had incidental benefit for others. The net effect is to actively approve of the existence of a “platinum class” of citizens who have carte blanche to do whatever they feel like.
As if this is not ludicrous enough, the spinning is often carried out by folks who don’t have a prayer of enjoying the same kind of immunity from standards of morality, decency, and accountability for their own actions.
It’s remarkable, really… but it happens every time…
Hmm, tangential thing, how do you see a movie like Kill The Irishman?
Left wing Hollywierd, or bashing the unions by default because they are portrayed as utter mob?
think that’s a good one to to see, about the subject. I tend to be pro union, and anti big unionists who seem to take on the same airs and graces as who they supposedly dislike. Is there more ambivalence to be found, or do we see it the wrong way? Did the National Economic Programme of the Soviet 30s rely upon a informal futures exchange, quietly, between factories, or did it manage on thin air?
Anyhow, great to see you back, RShack, thought we lost you there!
Sounds of pigeons coming home to roost off stage…
If Bernie gets caught up in this and gets a conviction, that will stop him getting a visa to the USA, if my memory serves me correctly.
He may wriggle, but this one could be the one that nails him.
Bit old for a jail sentence?
If it ever comes to that, he’d probably develop a serious illness just before the sentencing.
Tip for Bernie, Cortisol imbalance. You get to be a emotional bloke bitch and not even realise it. Trust me! Total plausible deniability.
To quote Joe, ‘In theory plea bargains are not allowed in Germany’.
Obviously not. Grib gets 7 – 9 years porridge. Definitely not a bargain, no. Laugh.
But blimey, what will they give Bernie?
According to the Daily Telegraph, “If Munich’s state prosecutors decide to go after Ecclestone, sources have indicated they might try to agree a financial settlement rather than go through a lengthy and costly trial with a billionaire in his eighties.”
They also quote Bernie as saying “I suppose he would say that [about receiving bribes], so maybe he gets seven years instead of 14 years. The poor guy has been banged up for 18 months. He would have said anything to save himself. He was going to be locked up whatever happens.”
Joe or anyone, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I read an article in the Telegraph today, re: this case, which had 2 reporters credited in the byline and one of them was Christian Sylt. However, it has been removed and now just the article by Tom Carey is there.
I believe that Sylt wrote a number of very long articles not so long ago about how it was preposterous to suggest that Gribkowsky might conceivably have been guilty. I suspect he will want us to forget these now.
He is now writing that Bernie is going to sue Gribowski.
F1 deserves a good kicking over this. It has been obvious for years that there needed to be a sucsession plan and still nothing is in place. Bernie is in his 80s and still nobody kmows who will take over. It has also been known since the Bernie political donation scandal that Bernie is not beyond the odd dodgy deal.
The Fia is better off for Max being gone. F1 would be better off without Bernie.
I have a folio file of who “is going to sue me” and I’m just a small mug. Explains anything much?
And Sylt’s paymaster is?
Some advertising agency, is my guess.
Joe, ignoring Silt’s guff, I am a believer in “the fish rots from the head” theory of sussing out who goes down. I agree that guy writes whatever is the stint of the day, but if I ever find a angle on this, well, I predict lighter shades of grey. It’s untold how many people Grib pissed off. Anyhow, I’ve been on record for a long time trying to argue something for him. Maybe human compassion. Maybe that’s because I don’t like some people who privately dissed him to me. I am trying to suss out a person I consider a sorta pal, who crossed a previous FIA prez in Belgium, got took down in surprisingly comparable circumstances, who I am rather sympathetic to. Heck, I was introduced by someone trying to screw me up by the very potentially poisonous association. Nearly worked! But I just learned, wow, is this fraud game complicated. Trust nobody, not any side, not any party, not any court. I have thousands of hours of tape with who will speak about this. Was all over the papers at the time.
Anyhow, I am very used to changing positions in complex cases. I decided to delve into my acquaintance’s past because I thought it plausible, with evidence very strong, enough some other guy is wanted now, that maybe his late life daughter should never receive a false legacy when she grows up. Yeah, huge names are everywhere, I know nothing of them, and it has hurt me to even inquire. But I have seen how some angles of power operate. Getting myself in trouble, here, so over and out.
Yes, Thursday’s print version (front of the Business section) had the article by Helia Ebrahimi & Christian Sylt. It’s the same as the online version that can still be found here, except that it ends prematurely, thus:
“…They allege this was done in exchange for the $44m bribe, which also resulted in a $41.4m payment to Mr Ecclestone from BayernLB.
Last night, Mr Ecclestone said: “I didn’t tell him that he must sell to CVC.”
The rest is online only. Also, the print version omits the word “surprise” in “The surprise confession…”.
I don’t know whether you can still get to the online version via the Telegraph website; I found it by putting “site:www.telegraph.co.uk ecclestone” into http://news.google.co.uk.
The later article by Tom Cary, F1 Correspondent, was linked in my earlier post, if anyone else is interested.
Ambient Sheep, thank you. I was beginning to think I was hallucinating. My point, and I didn’t make myself clear, was that the article which I’d read, with Sylt as one of the writers, was slanted in favor of eccle$tone. And Joe had educated his readers on the relationship Sylt & eccle$tone have/had. Also, I was a bit surprised to find his stuff in the Telegraph and just wanted to alert folks to all this.
Im suprised eccles allowed his guard to drop big time, gribkowski was ”shaking him down” what a laugh he was telling the truth about eccles corupt deals…
Without the confession, the prosecution would have gone for the max sentence of 15 yeards. According to the judge, this sentence will now be likely between 8 to 9 years. An earlier confession would have helped him more, and the discussions between judge, prosecution and defence apparently have been difficult, Gribowsky wanting a much lower sentence. There might be no real “plea bargain”, but these things are agreed before, as they were in this case. The published snippets of his confession are an interesting read, I’d say Bernie has a difficult time ahead of him.
The german “süddeutsche” today writes that the arraignment depends on the court decision against Gribkowsky next week. Such an arraignment is called as “probable” by the newspaper as suspicious facts are growing and the judges obviously didn´t believe Ecclestones former testimonies. In case of a conviction, he could escape confinement only due to health reasons. The presumption of innocence obtains.
First serious crack in Bernie’s somewhat defensible position of “I was blackmailed”?
Its interesting for sure, but I dont think it will tarnish the immage of F-1 – cause its immage is already dirty! Ecclestone and Mosley saw to that many years ago….
No, but, it will further reinforce F1′s Dodgy BROS PERSONA, METHINKS.
cHEERS
mARKr
Gribowsky will be condemned to max nine years in return to his plea of guilty, without it could have been much more. Such a plea bargain is not usual in Germany, but it exists. It is understood at the moment that a prosecution against Ecclestone is “possible”, as the enquieries continue at the moment. But his situation has worsened as the judges didn´t believe his former testimomy. In any case, these circumstances could become a big disadvantage for Ecclestone concerning the current F1 politics.
Has Gribkowsky provided (the reported) documentary evidence that Ecclestone lied to the UK tax authorities?
If so, there is the potential for BILLIONS of pounds in lost tax revenue and penalties.
Why isn’t this headline stuff in the UK press?
I don’t think that things are this black and white. Tax comes in grey.
cracking down on “tax dodging” whether actual or just perceived, is currently popular with the UK electorate, so naturally all politicians have now turned ‘anti-dodge diehards’ shouting from every roof top!
Expect some MP to mention Bernie at the first opportunity
That’s Tolley’s getting cheap on the ink . .
The UK press thrives on taking down people who we thought were alright (witness current feeding frenzy surrounding Jimmy Carr) and exposing them as bad eggs. Makes for a far better story than “bloke we all thought was dodgy turns out to be even dodgier”
Just must be going crackpot again, but what is wrong with “bloke turns out good”? Or have we all lost it?
Nice crack, though!
I was just grinning at “bloke we all thought was dodgy turns out to be even dodgier”, that’s all.
Before Bernie went to Germany, he got some sort of immunity deal with the Germans. One
would therefore assume that it is pretty iron clad tight on no charges been brought against him. Plus we have these legal bodies of companies, which would be hard to prove on ownership, as they are “offshore”.
The BBC report of the deal states that he would or could have got 15 years. So now only half of that. Plus that what the prosecution claim about the $41M is “essentially true”. Therefore we have to assume that Bernie was telling the truth.
If they could prove that Bernie was in the wrong, then no immunity deal would have been done with him. He would face the music later on. Plus it is known that Germany and the UK do exchange tax data with each other, so if the UK wanted to, they could in theory go after Bernie or these companies. Right now there is no sign of that happening, now or in the future. What he did, when he did it were inside the scope of the law as it stood then. I think this is pretty much the end of what we will read.
Of course he could write a book while waiting his time in jail and then maybe more might come out, but where will Bernie be then, in 9 or 10 years down the road.
i do not believe you are right.
Joe, it was widely reported and not just on his “web site” that he got some sort of immunity deal with the Germans. Of course it depends on what was in the immunity “package”, as to whether he will be charged in Germany. As for the UK, it also appears, again widely reported in the national press, that Revenue have looked into his affairs and passed – given them a clean bill of health. Also the action took place outside of the UK, so they might be hard pressed to make any charges stick on Bernie.
Maybe for Bernie, not going to Germany for a while might just be the best course of action for him to take.
You may also be aware that right now in the “Times” (Murdoch’s newspaper) a lot of stories about legal tax shelters have appeared, with well known names who have invested in them. All perfectly legal, so far. One thing of interest how did the newspaper get all the names of the people who had invested in them?
“Whatever the case, none of this is good for the image of F1″
I agree, but it’s potentially very good for the long term future of F1.
Oh and Joe I’m interested in your views on the further sale of shares by CVC? do you think it might be connected to this story?
What would you do if you were CVC? Get out oft he mess as quickly as possible?
What would I do if I were CVC?
Well I guess it would depend on how much money I was making from F1 and the availability of a good PR company and solicitors.
Thankfully I’m not CVC, so I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
Anyway I love your work/blog Joe, long may it continue
So what happens to the transaction that was brokered with CVC?
Will Bayern LB look to legal action to potentially recover any perceived losses from this? If they believe that they sold F1 for less than its true value based on the fact that there was alleged improper dealings would they go down this road?
Not that I think it would impact the circus per se, but, the question I would pose to Joe is do you think this could have an impact on the Concord agreement? Would some teams – particularly Mercedes – want to see how things pan out over the next few months before agreeing?
Is it possible CVC saw this coming (a little intel thru the grapevine) and ergo the “fire-sale” of shares and the unwinding of their position, in recent months?
Eccle$tone sure has a unique “skill-set”, as has been frequently noted.
Who cares? CVC do not give a stuff about the sport. The sooner they are gone the better.
Well, the teams are the ones who signed a contract for 50%, how is the CVC the bad guy in this.
CVC is just in it as a profitable investment.
The key point is why they signed, not that they did…
Of course, you are right, Joe, CVC have been sucking
the life out of F1 for far to long. Their control has been
malign from first to last. But in these appalling times, when
nobody trusts anybody in banking and finance, What are the
risks of F1 falling into the clutches of even more rapacious
money-pirates than the disastrous present ?
I think the problem is that if CVC leaves, it seems for now that it is being replaced by more financiers, so more of the same it would seem.
what ever happened to Exor’s intention to buy a stake in the sport, is there still any possibility that any of the teams (or their parent companies) may buy a noteworthy stake in the commercial rights?
I wonder when the threats of Germany losing its GP will start?
The home of Schumacher, Vettel and Mercedes? Not a chance.
And Sutil.
Hmm, the $100m figure is familiar to Australians as that was the payment to the Australian GP chairman, Ron Walker for brokering the on-sale of part of F1 through Hellman and Friedman in 2000. Mr Walker handles all the negotiations on behalf of the state of Victoria with Bernie. I’m sure Bernie would not have written the cheque as the deal was done through the intermediary, and its partner Brian Powers, well known to Mr Walker.
Do you refer to Terry Lovells “Bernie´s Game” in which he claimed that Ron Walker, the boss of the Australian Grand Prix, received AUD150m for his part in the sale of Formula One? What happened to that story? Did Walker sue?
You also need to read “Bernie” by Susan Watkins (Proff Sid’s wife).
The two together give slightly different aspects, Susan’s has a much closer access to Bernie, though not necessarily more sympathetic, she does include the better side of Bernie which is rarely publicised.
Such excitement! F1 is becoming more like a very exclusive, very expensive soap opera – the only soap I watch, I hasten to add. Kudos to the scriptwriters.
From where I sit, Ecclestone could be facing some life altering troubles.
Quote from Businessweek:
“Because Ecclestone didn’t want cover the cost of the bribes, Gribkowsky set up another scam to funnel money from BayernLB to the Formula One executive, according to the indictment. The bank manager (Gribkowsky) signed a sham contract under which BayernLB had to pay Ecclestone a kickback of $41.4 million and another $25 million to his then wife’s trust, prosecutors claim. ”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-20/ex-baynerlb-banker-admits-taking-bribe-on-formula-1-sale
I don’t know what the penalties are in Germany for receiving an illegal 66 million dollar kickback from a state bank, but I have to believe it’s at least in the neighborhood of the penalty received by Gribkowsky.
For someone of Bernie’s age, that would be a life sentence.
People of Bernie’s age do not generally go to jail. And if youhave a lot of lawyer one can always use the Pinochet defence, whic is argue until you drop.
Call me cynical, but people of Bernie’s wealth also do not generally go to jail.
with respect Joe, in the Pinochet case we had a home secretary dealing with the matter whom some have described as weak [and forgive the word dodgy]
who would not extradite to spain….
Joe
“People of Bernie’s age do not generally go to jail”.
No they don’t, it’s true.
But in this case we have a man who is fit enough to lead a very busy business life, lots of foreign travel etc. He seems to have made a very good recovery from the heart surgery of a few years ago.
So, if he’s fit enough to lead the life he does, he should be fit enough for a rest in Her Majesty’s Hotel.
Martin
Maybe BE could plead insanity defence and enjoys life whisked away at her majestys pleasure. With medals, shortcuts, the 10million viewers on Sky and a few other kooky ideas he’s had over the years, the evidence is already there!
Joe, I believe you actually meant to put “Wealth” not “age”
As you so correctly put it, the Pinochet defence, you just ram a mountain of Legal papers from very expensive lawyers into the machine and it grinds to a halt.
Look at how many different levels of arguments Assange has tried to use to avoid the Rape trial in Sweden in what is a very clear cut case, he has of course not even paid for this, it is all on Legal Aid….
Yes, Bernie would probably run out the clock. The prosecution doesn’t have to convict Bernie in order to defeat him, they only need to indict.
Once indicted, Bernie would be unable to continue in his current role. He’d be pushed completely out of the sport, not just in name.
No, he wouldn’t be in jail, but his connection to the sport would be completely severed. That’s not nothing.
Big time thieves do. Ask Bernie Madoff. S
ix days ago 61 years old financier and cricket mogul Allen Stanford was sentenced to 110 years.
I think Bernie is going to have some problems with HMRC, regardless of whether the payment was a bribe/shakedown/blackmail.
How will he square the fact that Bambino made its contribution, presumably at Bernie’s behest, with his claim to have “no control” over the trust?
That would not be a surprise
The ‘arms length test’ has clearly failed here.
How can a man swear under oath that a trust that he has no control over made a payment on his behalf because he was being ‘shaken down’. If HMRC are able to prove that Bernie was able to manipulate the actions of the trust then they will be able to invalidate the legitimacy of the trust and therefore be able to claw back all that they believe they are owed. And given the very public nature of the parties involved I wouldn’t expect much interest from HMRC in negotiating a settlement on this one.
My personal musings are: ‘What dirt does Gribkowsky have on Bernie? Is he for example able to shine a light on the relationship between Bernie and Max Mosley? Could he have information that proves that the 100 year agreement brokered between these two men was not an arms length agreement and that the interests of the FIA were not properly represented due to a connected party status?’
In defending against one dubious action, Bernie, Gribkowsky, Briatore, Mosley, CVC, Et al may expose many other skeletons they thought they had buried long ago.
What due diligence has been done by the parties who have just bought shares from CVC and what guarantees and warranties have CVC provided? Are there going to be future claims against CVC?
I wonder if there is any room in the Ecuadorian Embasy? Mr Assnge, can you please make room for Mr Ecclestone…..
So, does this explain the hasty attempted IPO.
BTW, I think that if this means “a bit of a clear out” it might be good for F1. At least for the people who watch it and I will add I’m quite fond of The Bolt.
I would think not. This would be a disaster for a listed firm surely? Negative impact of stock price which would require the company to demonstrate they were acting which could only be the removal of Bernie.
No, I don’t think the IPO under this threat would benefit anyone.
Bernie’s not on trial, but he should get one now. It is possible that Gribkowsky is ‘fessing up to a bribe in order to avoid having to explain a shake down. But, yes, Bernie now has questions to answer. Though at the time it emerged that Bayern’s shares had, in any case, gone to the highest bidder. That being the case, why was a bribe necessary?
I am sure that it will all come out in the wash
Crappy swan song for the Bernster, is this really what one wants to go through after a lifes work at his stage of life? With his accomplishment and contribution to British motorsport he should be getting knighted not being put through the prosecution mill.
Someone ask Bernie if he has ever seen a Hearse with a Uhaul behind it. (Translation – When the big man calls you can’t take your possessions with you)
Nah! Bernie’s stuff will have been sent on ahaead.
Long term it may be great for F1.
Allowing F1 to focus on technological and organizational developments relevant for the future, instead of developing certain private bank accounts.
Doubt it, F1 is all about business now.
Were there ever a time for HMRC to make a showcase prosecution, it must be now. With Jimmy Carr and Take that members. (a popular singing group milord) now being put under the spotlight if not the cosh because of their tax avoidance schemes and the prime minister jumping on the resultant public bandwagon.
However under the current laws I would guess that what they have done is legal.
Bernie is no fool, when it comes to money and I am pretty sure that what his layers of people do with his money is either technically legal or so incredibly comlicated that it will tie up HMRC for years and ultimately be considered too expensive to investigate.
The other point is a legal one, if Grobowski is found guilty does that mean his statements in the trial are considered proven fact? He never said that he shook Bernie down, but if Bernie depends opon that as an excuse will it be accepted in Germany?
Bernie has sufficient funds just to go and live in luxury where he cannot be touched. So if all else fails and he is found guilty in his absence he can disappear from the reach of the German courts. (if called, I doubt he will go to Germany and stand trial, he can keep well out of the way) I suspect that any attempt to freeze his funds will be unsuccessful as they also will be on a sunny beach out of reach of any european court or organisation.
Whilst I think there’s a case for asking Bernie some questions, he wasn’t on trial and thus could not mount a defence. Gribowsky saying that he took a bribe might be enough to spark a new enquiry, but there should be no presumption that Bernie must be guilty. Evidence would have to be lead in a new case, with Bernie having an opportunity to defend himself.
Surely Ecclestone has been mounting ‘his defence’ publicly for the last year, inviting all and sundry to comment.
Grigkowsky has only once addressed the Munich Court and that was to plead guilty of bribery in the dying days of the trial. By implication and his quoted statement he says Eccleston bribed him.
Given the German judicial system doesn’t rely on a jury system I think we can rely on their Judges to ensure a fair trial irrespective of the public mood or sentiment.
of course many of the comments about Bernie here are justified, but let’s remember he created the F1 we know and love almost single- handedly.
OK he made lots of profit, and maybe even cares more about his cash than us and our beloved F1, but we can’t grudge him that surely…so long as he ensures the survival of this golden goose
Others were involved.
Actually, the F1 that I know and love predates Bernie by quite a few years. What he created was a great business; the great sport already existed.
Bernie’s on record in a newspaper interview several years ago declaring he pays something like £25m a year then in tax to HMRC, just for the privilege of living in the UK.
When you think he could base FOM in any country to lessen his tax burden.
Can’t help feeling there’s more to come on this and the real culprits are the financial advisors.
Where does it say that he pays as much as 25 millions in tax? I’ve been looking but can’t find it anywhere. I did come across this story though and it suggests he is paying a lot less.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/9292444/Formula-One-drives-its-tax-rate-down-to-5pc.html
Why would the British government let F1 do this? Do they employ enough people that they could threaten to leave Britain unless the tax man agrees to their scheme?
In real terms though…..so what?
The impact here is surely going to be quite minor. The sports owners will dissassociate themselves from Bernie, ostensibly for reasons wholly disconnected from these charges (innocent until proven…..etc), probably retirement given the ringmaster’s age and the need for leadership to take the sport forward for the next decade.
F1 therefore won’t suffer
Bernie as a rich old fella will state his innocence and use expensive lawyers to cause delay after delay til he is either too old and sick to be prosecuted or is 6 feet under. It will be then a minor stain on his very, very long life and legacy.
and please let us not forget that allegations are easy to make and certainly don’t assure that Bernie is guilty
So Gribkowsky told the truth about his own crimes, but lied about Bernie’s crimes?
Why? He didn’t receive a deal for testifying against Bernie, Bernie hasn’t even been charged. . . Yet.
Don’t forget that Gribkowsky purportedly had documentary evidence for at least some of his claims. As yet, it’s not known whether his recent confession included documentary evidence of his other claims.
The evidence we know about apparently proved Bernie had control of the Bambino trust, even though Bernie denied this in official UK tax documents and perhaps to the German court. The fact that the trust directly paid a portion of Gribkowsky’s bribe is just additional evidence of Bernie’s control.
The trust issue alone could drive any number of legal actions in the UK and perhaps in Germany. This is completely aside from all the other trouble Gribkowsky has made for Bernie in Germany.
As for the influence this will have on the sport, one can only wonder. How bold will the teams become upon Bernie’s departure? Will Bernie’s replacement share has ability to divide an concur the teams? It’s hard to see how unless this new man shares Bernie’s intrinsic knowledge of the sport and its players.
The big question will be revenue. It is now customary for sporting teams to receive 80% to 90% of their sport’s revenue, not the 50%ish the F1 teams currently receive. Will the F1 teams make such a demand? Without Bernie to pit them against one another, will they stand their ground? Perhaps?
Bernie’s departure could produce the largest challenge the sport has seen since the FISA–FOCA war.
The teams could take the opportunity and demand a slighty bigger slice of the cake, so it would be no problem for them to pay the estimated higher price of about 20 millions for the V6 turbo engines in 2014. This would be a perfect solution for the sport. I think this could be one reason why Ecclestone acts against the new engines?
NDC nails it in his comment about this being the best soap. Not since Dirty Den . . though this has more of the calamity that was Auf Wiedersehen, Pet.
What if you are up against so much, you will loose even if innocent? Badly enough copping a plea might make sense?
There’s some heavy characters gunning for Grib.
Maybe, once the dust settles, he appeals his term and is released?
If I need to be even more suspicious, there’s a little boast by some Bernie boosters:
“”the only way this strategy could be of any use to Gribkowsky would be if he made a full confession so the verdict of the case could come sooner than expected.”
a day before.
Now what’s that thing about interfering with witnesses, or some such? Well, anyhow, I think it the lowest taste to have a insider pre-release what the court should in their own time. Contempt?
Also, I thought the law was it’s illegal to bribe someone, for any reasons.
This is bribery, not blackmail, is it not?
And Grib says he had the power to refuse Bernie’s commission. Okay, bad move, but that means Bernie was demanding money from the outset. Why does he need a commission on a sale he sold before?
. . .
Peter Forbes asks about US Visas. You loose the visa waiver privilege for simply being arrested and not even charged. But you can go interview and get references. Presumably not Tony George . . and doesn’t this offshore lark smack of money laundering, something the authorities there are keen to stamp out?
. . .
F1 is a headache machine. Chopping random heads doesn’t look like a solution.
The fee to Bernie is not that suspicious on the face of it. The Bayern board knew about it and approved it, so it’s all above board. Deals of this magnitude often result in a commission for somebody who facilitated things. In this case, according to Bernie anyway, CVC wanted certain financial data and guarantees that Bayern could not provide but he could. So without his involvement Bayern would not have sold the shares, or would have got a lot less for them.
Good point, Bobster, finders fees and all that. Maybe I am carried away with the whole murkiness of this. I’m no stranger to messed up morals in business. But although I am way outta shape today, so throw some salt, it looks to me more like Grib asked a piece of Bernie’s finder fee or whatever it was action. That would be more benign, surely?
Latest tin foil hat conspiracy: Gribkowsky Cops Plea For Cartel Against Bernie: Is Unsung Hero of Saving F1.
all for fun, of course, but you heard it here first, that Ron plumped Grib’s pension fund
Little observation about the finders fee thing, my pal who trades oil is beset with would be middlemen, and we have a hilarious time weeding through the BS’ers. So many people asking a cut, commission inflation pretty much kills half the deals outright. That’s why I didn’t think finder fee, because to me that game sucks. Nah, I’d not take my advice either, not a billionaire speaking!
Not sure where Germany is on bribery these days but it used to be acceptable accountancy practice to put items of bribery on your accounts. Usually these would be to an overseas party to facilitate an order, but we would have to dress it up a bit with terms like commission or consultancy fees. Whereas in Germany it was OK just to have the entry as bribery. Probably got changed when the American went on their anti-corruption drive 15 odd years ago. No one else is allowed to bribe officials except us legislation.
I don’t see an tax worries for Bernie here. If Gribkowsky continues to assert that Bernie bribed him then that’s not a matter for the tax man. Tax troubles start if it’s proven that Bernie does actually control the trust. Bernie says he doesn’t but Gribkowsky threatened to say that he did and it was quicker and cheaper to just pay him to go away (though stupid as well, I think, because what’s to say he won’t open his mouth again?). Gribkowsky has said that it was bribe related to the sale to CVC. Sure, Bernie got a commission on that, but that was not hidden.
The question must be if there is a credible case to be made that Bernie bribed Gribkowsky. If we go that route then where is the motive? CVC were the highest bidder.
On the face of it I don’t see Bernie sharing a cell with Jimmy Carr any time soon.
You forget that Gribkowsky apparently had documentary evidence that Bernie had control over the trust.
Remember, Gribkowsk’s official job was to untangle the spaghetti map of companies that Bernie had created so they could be packaged and sold. In that role, he had free run of the companies house documents in the tax havens in which the F1 companies resided. That very document, the one proving Bernie controlled the trust, is the document that purportedly earned Gribkowsky the 50 million dollar bribe.
With such proof, not only might Bernie be on the hook for tax avoidance, but perhaps fabrication, perjury, fraud?
Germany exchanges data with the UK on a number of matters. If he had data that Bernie controlled these offshore – Trust’s, then he could have done a deal months ago, but hasn’t. Also the UK taxman would have asked to have sight of them, which they haven’t.
Also the legal issue on how he got the documents in the first place, unless he was a Director of them, which I don’t think he was, then he could be charged with theft in the UK, but then again the German and UK courts would need to be assured that the documents are real – genuine, and here I do know that a lot of false offshore documents are circulating in the finance world.
These tax havens – Shelters are not going to confirm that the documents are real or copies of, as it would destroy their whole business – revenue for that country.
That’s not accurate. How could Gribkowsky have “done a deal” to help himself in Germany with info on crimes in the UK? It simply isn’t done.
The truth is that Bernie HAS been under investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue for some months. It was even brought up on the floor of the house of commons. Investigators could have had the documents all this time and still be building a case. Then again, they may only have received them today, who’s to say?
As for Gribkowsky’s right to have those documents, his investigations were being done in his role as representative of a bank that actually owned part of the F1 companies. In that role, he had ever right to have such documentary evidence.
The defenses you’ve brought up would be a good start towards a “Pinochet defense”, but I don’t see how they keep Bernie from being indicted. If he’s indicted, he’s out of the sport, for good, forever.
Gotta have a Jimmy Carr style try:
Bernie sold some shares for 500 Million, after tax that’s almost a Billion.
It looks like a German GP could be off the books for a while then.
Hmmm…. if Bernie does directly control the Bambino trust, and Gribkowsky can prove it then why is Bernie admitting to being shaken down? Why did Gribkowsky ‘fess up to a bribe? Why did Gribkowsky not just bring the whole house of cards down to teach Bernie a lesson?
Also Gribkowsky was acting for Bayern LLB, not for Bernie nor for any of the groups in the F1 company. Bayern had ended up with shares in F1 as a consequence of the Kirsch melt down. They didn’t want those shares and Gribkowsky, a Bayern employee, was tasked with finding a buyer.
The Handelsblatt ran an article today about possible repercussions of the Gribowsky-confession on Daimler’s F1 participation. Apparently their own statues do not allow them to do business with corrupt people, and Bernie could be now seen as such.
There is a long way to go before that is proven, and in any case, even if it is proven, it is doubtful that the owners of the commercial rights would make the choice of an 80+ year old over a major car manufacturer. These people are investors remember. Their goal is to make money and anything that affects the profits is removed, or if they cannot remove it, they remove themselves.
Well, they are still negotiating the CA, so my first thought was, that they are mabye trying to put pressure on Bernie, if that is possible at all.
The company’s own rules state:
“Daimler duldet keine unmoralischen oder korrupten Praktiken durch Mitarbeiter oder seitens der Geschäftspartner.”
Roughly translated, it means that they do not tolerate corrupt behavior by either their employees or their business partners.
Apparently, it depends on whether Ecclestone is actually charged with bribery. In that case, a lawyer is quoted, they might have to withdraw from F1 or as you suggested, Bernie might be withdrawn.
Maybe a storm in a tea cup, maybe not..