Bluff and bluster fails.

[motorbiking]

Looks like arrest on basis of conspiracy to commit fraud. What do you do in those circumstances, with a presumption of innocence to protect your rights? No comment or sing like a canary? Tough and stressful position to be in, almost like being stretched from both ends. Lets hope its judged on its facts and doesn't become a political prosecution.

Man, 46, arrested in connection with criminal investigation into PPE Medpro

Suspect understood to have been arrested on suspicion of offences including conspiracy to commit fraud

www.theguardian.com

if he sang like a canary, there would have been further arrests. I don't recall any charges, they are possibly out of time now, but nothing stops them coming back. The problem with these types of cases is that it's called a supply chain for a reason, it may well be hard to trace the origin and even if there was a fraud. "I thought you'd got the approval, oh I thought you'd done it etc."

 

[blup]

if he sang like a canary, there would have been further arrests. I don't recall any charges, they are possibly out of time now, but nothing stops them coming back. The problem with these types of cases is that it's called a supply chain for a reason, it may well be hard to trace the origin and even if there was a fraud. "I thought you'd got the approval, oh I thought you'd done it etc."

Lots of regulations around company structures and disclosures of true ownership so maybe some leverage there. Public and political pressures definitely influence plod.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It was a reply to your comment in 253.

Except they didn't source correctky

Barrowman and Mone cannot be held criminally responsible for someone else's Fraud, if they were not involved in the deception. Hence:

Or deliberately mis reoresented

is your lack of understanding, which I have been trying to help you with for the last couple of pages.

No lack of understanding here. As I've pointed out, it's you trying to create misrepresentation.

What facts are you referring to? You clearly haven't read/understood what the judgement is about.

Let's hope if they are involved in any other government contracts they lose our on them

Taking the money and going cynically into liquidation is the point .

 

[motorbiking]

Except they didn't source correctky

Not a crime

Or deliberately mis reoresented

of which we have not seen any evidence

No lack of understanding here. As I've pointed out, it's you trying to create misrepresentation.

righto

Let's hope if they are involved in any other government contracts they lose our on them

Taking the money and going cynically into liquidation is the point .

cynically into liquidation. Had they carried on trading, they would have broken the law.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not a crime

Bad business practice at the very least. And they didn't supply what was requested.

of which we have not seen any evidence

See above

righto

You suggested something about business practice and I corrected you, with examples of my busibess

cynically into liquidation. Had they carried on trading, they would have broken the law.

Not if they were profitable. Were they not profitable ?

 

[motorbiking]

Not if they were profitable. Were they not profitable ?

What bit of being insolvent do you need help with?

It has nothing to do with being profitable. Its your ability to pay your debts.

if you are aware that your company cannot pay its debts, you must cease trading or risk the consequences

Insolvency Act 1986

An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to company insolvency and winding up (including the winding up of companies that are not insolvent, and of unregistered...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It has nothing to do with being profitable. Its your ability to pay your debts.

Do you want to read this back to yourself ?

And we all know why it was cynically wound up, with or without any proof.

Well most right minded folks do

 

[motorbiking]

Do you want to read this back to yourself ?

It's not about being profitable it's about being unable to pay your debts. This is correct.

And we all know why it was cynically wound up, with or without any proof.

other than the company accounts which by law have to be, and have been published.

Well most right minded folks do

This does seem to be your weakness. Perhaps an example will help:

Carman runs a successful car maintenance business, his accounts show he has £600k net assets. both his gross profit (Margin) 50% and net profit 25% are healthy. His business is profitable. Carman loses a big claim in the high court, for £100M, it wasn't his fault, a supplier let him down. His business has net assets of £600k, he cannot pay the debt, his business is insolvent. Carman risks being personally liable for the debts, if he does not immediately wind the company up. He is duty bound to protect his creditors. Carman does not want to be prosecuted for wrongful trading and immediately takes legal advice and winds the company up.

This is obviously a different Carman to you. This Carman, knows about his legal obligations.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's not about being profitable it's about being unable to pay your debts. This is correct.

Try again. Profitable means ability to make a profit after expenses. Buy at a low price, sell at a higher price to cover all expenses. It's the basic part of any business

Were they not profitable ?

other than the company accounts which by law have to be, and have been published.

This does seem to be your weakness. Perhaps an example will help:

Carman runs a successful car maintenance business, his accounts show he has £600k net assets. both his gross profit (Margin) 50% and net profit 25% are healthy. His business is profitable. Carman loses a big claim in the high court, for £100M, it wasn't his fault, a supplier let him down. His business has net assets of £600k, he cannot pay the debt, his business is insolvent. Carman risks being personally liable for the debts, if he does not immediately wind the company up. He is duty bound to protect his creditors. Carman does not want to be prosecuted for wrongful trading and immediately takes legal advice and winds the company up.

This is obviously a different Carman to you. This Carman, knows about his legal obligations.

Yes, because this man supplies what he says he does, sources correctly with traceability and insurances in place.

Maybe a big tory ran a business that didn't supply what they said they did.

But they took the money and ran

They did take the money, didn't they ?

 

[noseall]

It was a reply to your comment in 253.

Barrowman and Mone cannot be held criminally responsible for someone else's Fraud, if they were not involved in the deception. Hence:

is your lack of understanding, which I have been trying to help you with for the last couple of pages.



What facts are you referring to? You clearly haven't read/understood what the judgement is about.

You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?

Don't forget they are big tory supporters.

And apparently couldn't run a profitable business

 

[motorbiking]

Try again. Profitable means ability to make a profit after expenses. Buy at a low price, sell at a higher price to cover all expenses. It's the basic part of any business

Were they not profitable ?

Being profitable has no effect on your insolvency. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you in a way you understand. It's clear that you don't understand being profitable can still mean you are insolvent.

Yes, because this man supplies what he says he does, sources correctly with traceability and insurances in place.

and none of this helps if a 3rd party let you down, or if a supplier to that 3rd party let him down

Maybe a big tory ran a business that didn't supply what they said they did.

But they took the money and ran

They did take the money, didn't they ?

The obvious question you are failing to ask, is if they made a profit. How do you know that the £120M cost included substantial profits?

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to think the judgement exonerates them from further investigation/prosecution, correct?

No it was a claim for breach of contract against a now insolvent company.

 

[motorbiking]

Don't forget they are big tory supporters.

And apparently couldn't run a profitable business

How do you know they weren't profitable did you read their accounts?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Being profitable has no effect on your insolvency. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you in a way you understand. It's clear that you don't understand being profitable can still mean you are insolvent.

Turnover is vanity. Profit is sanity.

It is really simple. Did they make a profit, or not? The argument is just about where the money has gone. Unless you really believe they didn't make a profit.

and none of this helps if a 3rd party let you down, or if a supplier to that 3rd party let him down

Irrelevant. Either they sources correctly, via a traceable paper trail, or they didn't. Which is it? Was it accidental or deliberate is the only question, but I think the judgement has been made in court.

The obvious question you are failing to ask, is if they made a profit. How do you know that the £120M cost included substantial profits?

How much money has been transferred to trust funds etc, it's been all over the press

Might I suggest you take a look ?