We are not in the clear yet.

666 & Elmo · Apr 5, 2014

If anyone wants to see the actual discussion in the actual ruling on dishonesty -if you can't be bothered to read it all, jump to my next post and then to para 118 and read the final conclusion:

The third issue: can Mr Cellino’s conviction reasonably be considered to fall within the category of an offence involving a “Dishonest Act”?

77. I have to determine this issue on the evidence before me, which does not include the forthcoming reasoned decision of the judge, Dr Lepore. Understandably in view of the background to this case, the parties require a decision as soon as reasonably possibl e and I therefore do not have the luxury of adjourning the appeal to await Dr Lepore’s reasoned decision.

78. For Mr Cellino, Mr Owen submitted that there is no or insufficient evidence to
support the conclusion that the conviction (as I shall now call it) was for an offence involving a “Dishonest Act”, i.e. one that “would reasonably be considered to be dishonest”. He developed that argument by making the following further points.

79. He submitted that the judge has made no finding about Mr Cellino’s mental state. There is sufficient mens rea, according to Professor Maffei, if the defendant’s state fmind is that of dolo eventuale, i.e. in the Professor’s words, if “the person, albeit not specifically directing his conduct to commit the actus reus, willingly takes action while accepting the risk that the offence may occur”.

80. Mr Owen submitted that the judge may well have convicted Mr Cellino on that
basis and, if she did, his conduct would not reasonably be considered to be dishonest. The League’s contrary conclusion did not address the quality and degree of the defendant’s dolo, wrongly equating dolo in general with dishonesty and contrasting it with colpa (fault) which everyone agrees is not enough to amount to dishonesty.

81. Mr Owen relied upon Professor Maffei’s support for that view and argued that I
had no good reason to reject his expert evidence. Professor Maffei had actually gone further and (as explained above) reasoned that dolo eventuale was the most likely form of mens rea here, given the reference in the summary decision to mitigating circumstances (attenuanti generiche), the relatively low amount of the fine and the complexity and sophistication of the mechanisms of VAT and customs duty.

82. The League’s challenge to Professor Maffei’s view in oral cross-examination, said Mr Owen, did not lead him either to alter his view, nor succeed in undermining the cogency of his reasoning. It was not proved wrong merely because no case prosecuted under article 292 of PD43/1973 with identical facts could be found; nor
by the fact that two other learned academic lawyers, Professors di Amato and Padovani, whose publications were put to Professor Maffei, had referred to dolo generico and not mentioned dolo eventuale as sufficient for crimes charged under article 292.

83. Mr Owen submitted that the Supreme Court decision of 18 March 2014, referred to above and sent to me by Professor Maffei after the hearing, is clear authority that
dolo eventuale is sufficient mens rea for the crime of non-payment of VAT at least in some cases, and that Professor Maffei had also cited good authority for the same mental element in other comparable offences such as false invoicing (Galasso on
fatture per operazioni inesistenti (false invoicing), citing a passage from a Supreme Court decision of 27 April 2000, (third session, number 6228).

84. That, said Mr Owen, was a sufficient basis to support Professor Maffei’s view
that dolo eventuale was sufficient here. Mr Owen and Mr Watkins put their
point thus in their written reply to the League’s skeleton argument (emphasis in
original): “[t]here are no available findings of fact from the Italian court at all.
Either relying upon the ingredients of the offence as conduct or speculating
about findings the judge may have made is obviously insufficient.” They submitted that a reasonable person would not regard Mr Cellino’s conduct as dishonest without knowing what it was.

85. The League, for its part, mounted a sustained attack on the quality and credibility of Professor Maffei’s expert evidence, in addition to the attack on his
impartiality which I have rejected for reasons already given. Mr Taylor challenged his authority to speak to questions of substantive criminal law, given that his specialist field was criminal procedure. He submitted that the judge’s finding of guilt necessarily entailed a finding of dishonesty. He invited me to reject the Professor’s contrary view. In support of the League’s position, he made the following main
points.

86. He agreed with Professor Maffei’s opinion that the charge was criminal in nature and that negligence (colpa) was not enough to establish the offence charged.
However, he criticised the absence from his report of any mention of dolo generico
and dolo specifico and submitted (at paragraph of his main skeleton argument, emphasis in original) that the League’s Italian lawyers had advised the authorities “tend[ed] to suggest that dolo eventuale would not be sufficient to convict a person of a tax crime, rather dolo generico is required”.

87. Mr Taylor noted that in answering one of the questions asked of him (“... has
there been a finding in the ardinian court that Mr Cellino has been dishonest?&#8221, Professor Maffei had answered by noting that “[d]ishonesty is a concept alien to Italian criminal law” and had gone on to consider the concept of dishonesty in English law and clearly expressed the view that a finding of dolo diretto, but not one of dolo eventuale, would satisfy that English law test.

88. Mr Taylor criticised the Professor’s foray into English law, which is outside his
expertise; but the Professor had no Italian law standard by which to answer the
question and was therefore driven to answer it by reference to the English law
concept of dishonesty (see R. v. Ghosh [1982] QB 1053, per Lord Lane CJ at 1064),
which he approached with circumspection and did not misstate. I do not think Professor Maffei can be criticised for straying beyond his brief. He was merely doing his best to interpret a question infused with English law.

89. In any case, it turned out to be common ground that the test of dishonesty in the League’s rules could be approximately equated with the first, objective, limb of Lord Lane’s test in Ghosh, but not the second, subjective, limb; and that a finding of
dolo diretto would satisfy the requirement of dishonesty in the League’s rules. Mr Owen, rightly, did not contend that dolo diretto was less than dishonesty in the objective sense set out in the League’s rules (“any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest&#8221.

90. Mr Taylor’s main submission was that dolo eventuale (an expression not
appearing in the Italian penal code) was not sufficient mens rea for the offence
charged against Mr Cellino, despite Professor Maffei’s view that it was. His alternative, fallback submission (at paragraph 37.3 of his main skeleton) was that
if dolo eventuale was enough to sustain a finding of guilt: “a reasonable person would consider that it was dishonest for Mr Cellino to submit a false statement that his boat was only entering Italian waters temporarily (or to make it false by failing to update it when that entry stopped being temporary and became permanent for tax purposes) in order to claim a tax exemption to which he was not in fact entitled, where (even if he did not know with certainty) he was aware of the clear risk that what he was doing amounted to unlawful evasion of tax properly due, and accepted that risk and went ahead anyway”.

91. Mr Taylor submitted in the further alternative that if that was reading too much
into the summary decision, Mr Cellino should “not be considered to have passed the OAD Test until he can demonstrate that the Judgment only involves a finding of
dolo eventuale and no finding of dolo diretto. Otherwise, he might be installed as a director only to be forced to stand down two months later” (main skeleton, paragraph 37).

92. He relied on the point that neither Professor di Amato nor Professor Padovani in their publications - respectively, Diritto Penale dell’ Impresa (5th edition, 2003) dealing with criminal law in the field of business enterprise, and Leggi Penali complementari, dating from 2007 - mention dolo eventuale in their description of the mental element required for crimes charged under article 292.

93. In a brief passage in the 2003 edition of his book, dealing with the mental element (elemento soggettivo) required for article 292 offences, Professor di Amato described the required mental element as dolo generico, citing a passage from a Supreme Court decision in November 1974 to the effect that the required mental element can be inferred from the fact of “subtracting” the goods from payment of the tax due, committed voluntarily and with awareness of not performing the tax obligation.

94. Professor Padovani wrote in his book that the dolo is that of (as approximately
translated) intending consciously and willingly to import goods into the national territory, evading the customs duty owed to the state, which (according to a Supreme Court decision in 1983) in the context of imports of cars manufactured broad, can be inferred from a false declaration of foreign residence made for the purpose of obtaining the exemption for temporary imports enjoyed by foreign residents but not Italian residents, and achieving the purpose using such fraudulent means.

95. At the oral hearing, when that passage was put to Professor Maffei, he said that
in Italian legal parlance, the notion of consciousness and willingness referred to, can include or embrace the notion of acceptance of risk forming part of the concept of
dolo eventuale. He did not therefore accept that he necessarily had a profound disagreement with Professor Padovani. He said that if Professor di Amato intended to exclude dolo eventuale in the passage cited, which he does not expressly state, then Professor Maffei disagreed with him.

Click to expand...

lifecheshirewhite · Apr 5, 2014

MIGHTY said: ↑

Chesh if that document and its wording is true IT changes everything not me clutching straws

And i swear i never photoshopped anything

Oh and the WALL are staying up
Click to expand...

The Italian courts are not going to add or take away anything to there rulings so far,as the case is on going and Cellino will be cleared anyway in time.Berlusconi has shown if you have money you can do anything in Italy.Hope you do stay up m8,give us a few of your straws to clutch on your behalf.

666 & Elmo · Apr 5, 2014

Part 2

96. In written submissions after the hearing, Mr Taylor produced (at my request)
the relevant extract from the most recent edition of Professor di Amato’s “seminal work”, as Mr Taylor described it. This was the 7th edition of 2011, rather than the 5th edition of 2003 produced at the hearing. The brief passage referred to at the hearing had not been updated and the 1974 authority (cited in slightly different format) remained the same, eight years later.

97. As to the Supreme Court’s decision of 18 March 2014, Mr Taylor submitted in
writing after the hearing that a distinction was to be drawn between the mental
element required for tax offences and that required in the case of customs offences.
He produced the index to Professor di Amato’s book to show that it treated tax offences (reati tributari) separately from customs offences (reati dogonali). He submitted that the Supreme Court decision could not be relied on as authority in respect of the mental element required for an article 292 offence.

98. In his supplemental written submissions Mr Taylor sought to isolate article 292
offences from tax offences and cited general provisions of Italian law, the penal
code and even the Constitution to support his thesis that it was impermissible to
apply the mental element for a tax offence to that required for a customs
offence such as enacted by article 292. He pointed out that there is no case law
later than the 1974 Supreme Court decision (dealing with the materially
identical predecessor to article 292) directly addressing the mental element
required for article 292 offences.

99. In answer to Mr Owen’s point that the League should have awaited the reasoned judgment before concluding that Mr Cellino failed the OAD test, Mr Taylor submitted that Mr Cellino had not even told the League or myself what his defence was, nor what evidence, if any, was called on his behalf at the hearing in Cagliari; and that
if necessary I should be prepared to draw an inference against Mr Cellino’s honesty as a result. Mr Owen said in response that I would be wrong to do so as Mr Cellino is not obliged to help the League by filling the gap in its knowledge which invalidates
its conclusion.

100. I turn to my reasoning and conclusions on this issue. First, I accept the evidence of Professor Maffei that the concept of dolo eventuale, while not
appearing in the penal code, forms part of Italian law and has done since 1982.
The very words were used by its highest criminal court only last month and are
found in learned commentaries and case law. I do not think there is room for any argument that the concept is unrecognised in Italian law.

101. Secondly, I accept that the scope of dolo eventuale and its applicability or
otherwise to various kinds of offence is a matter of debate in Italian legal circles, both in its relation to colpa at one end of the spectrum, and in its relation to
dolo generico and dolo diretto at the other. It is not surprising that the calibration of mens rea should generate debate about where the boundaries lie between more and less blameworthy states of mind. This is also a familiar feature of English law and probably of all developed legal systems.

102. Next, I derive from the Supreme Court judgment of 18 March 2014 the proposition that, for the offence of non-payment of VAT, dolo generico is enough and
dolo specifico is not required. This is clear from the passage which, in a translation helpfully provided by the League’s Italian lawyers, states: For the crime to have occurred, it is also necessary to find in the active subject the existence of intent, which needs not be specific, as dolo generico is enough (see, in particular, what has been convincingly stated by Joint Sessions, judgement no. 37424 of 28/03/2013, filed on 12/09/2013, Romano, in the reasons for the decision). The law therefore requires no other aims, as it is instead the case with many other offences referred to in Legislative Decree No. 74 of 2000, in which an evasion purpose for oneself or others is required.

103. Next, I derive from the same Supreme Court decision the proposition that, for
the offence of non-payment of VAT, the person presenting the VAT declaration
and the person who omits to pay the VAT must do so with what is called by the
Supreme Court coscienza e volontÃ , which the League’s Italian lawyers translate as “awareness and will”, in the (translated) passage immediately following in the judgment: Therefore, it is necessary and, at the same time, enough that the active subject submits with “awareness and will” a VAT declaration and omits to remit within
the set term, i.e., within 27 December of the following fiscal period, the amounts
indicated in it in favour of the revenue agency. Moreover, the active subject must
be aware that such amounts exceed the threshold of Euro fifty thousand, the
exceeding of which has been considered by the abovementioned Joint Sessions as
a constitutive element of the crime, which calls for a demonstration of intent also
on this element.

104. It seems to me that this description of the mens rea for this particular crime is
similar to the description of Professor di Amato in the 5th and 7th editions of his
book of the dolo generico required for an offence under article 292. It is also similar to Professor Padovani’s description of the mental element required for an article 292 offence, supported by a case law example where import duty was evaded by obtaining an unjustified exemption for temporary imports by means of a false declaration of foreign residence. Both learned commentators refer to the concepts of consciousness and will in their expositions.

105. Next, I accept the evidence of Professor Maffei founded on the same Supreme
Court decision, that it supports the proposition that dolo eventuale is sufficient mens rea for the tax offence of non-payment of VAT, although this could only
be, as the court held, in cases where the person who makes the relevant VAT
declaration is the same person as the one who fails to pay the VAT due.

106. This is clear from the words of the decision itself. The Supreme Court clearly
contemplated that such a person who fails to pay VAT would be guilty on the
basis of dolo eventuale, in the following circumstances (again in the same translation):
... cases in which, for example, the non-payment is in order to overcome temporary liquidity crisis of the company or to create undue financial resources for the commission of other offenses....Article 10 ter (Non-payment of VAT), is punishable at the presence of dolo eventuale in the case of sameness between the subject which submits the VAT declaration and the subject which fails to pay the declared VAT within the terms. Consequently, the criminal liability shall be excluded in the event that the person obliged to the fiscal fulfillment (ie, to pay declared VAT) is an entity different from which has submitted the VAT declaration, except that the Public
Prosecution did not prove either the existence of an unequivocal subjective foreknowledge of criminally relevant conduct in relation to the omission provided by the Article 10 ter of the Legislative Decree n. 74 of 2000.... .

107. Although Professor Maffei’s evidence was to the effect that dolo generico
is normally understood to fall within the concept of dolo diretto rather than dolo
generico, it appears from the translated passages just quoted from the Supreme
Court’s decision that the “residual category” of dolo generico, as Professor Maffei described it, would co-exist with dolo eventuale in such a case. This tends to support the Professor’s assertion that the notion of “consciousness and will” is understood to embrace, in appropriate cases, the acceptance of risk and willingness to run it which is the hallmark of dolo eventuale.

108. In the light of the above, I conclude that the extent of disagreement between
Professor Maffei and other commentators is probably overstated by the League.
I do not think Professor Maffei’s view can properly be characterised as eccentric or maverick. It seems to me to fall within the mainstream of Italian legal discourse. However, as Mr Taylor rightly pointed out, the fact remains that there is no case law directly supporting a conviction under article 292 on the basis of dolo eventuale.

109. I accept Professor Maffei’s evidence that case law on mens rea is relatively
common in tax offence cases and rare in article 292 cases. Professor Maffei told me that prosecutions under article 292 are rare. This is supported by the fact that Professor di Amato’s cited authority on the point dates back as far as 1974. That was before 1982 when (according to Professor Maffei’s evidence which I accept)
dolo eventuale emerged from the Supreme Court. It is also supported by the fact that the passage in Professor di Amato’s book citing the 1974 authority remains unchanged through eight years from 2003 to 2011, and two editions of his book.

110. I ask myself whether there is a satisfactory basis for Mr Taylor’s submission
that the Supreme Court’s decision last month does not assist Mr Cellino because it deals with a tax offence and lacks all authority in the case of a customs offence. I accept that the index to Professor di Amato ’s book shows that he treats the two categories of offence in different chapters. However, it seems to me that absent a crime - specific requirement of dolo specifico, the notion of dolo generico is a feature common to both tax offences and customs offences.

111. This is demonstrated by a comparison between the Supreme Court decision of
March 2014 and the commentary of Professor di Amato on article 292 offences. As I have said, they are similar; both refer to consciousness and will; and both refer to
dolo generico. Yet one is about tax offences and the other is about a customs offence.

112. This tends to undermine Mr Taylor’s constitutional argument founded on the
right of the defendant not to be fixed with the transposition of the mental element of one crime, to the mental element of a different crime with which the defendant is charged. I cannot see any reason in principle why some tax offences should not share the same mental element with some customs offences. If it be the law already that they do, no constitutional right of a defendant is violated by so holding, merely because no previous case has so decided.

113. Further, despite access to expert Italian law advice, the League did not rely on
this argument until confronted with the March 2014 Supreme Court decision. Mr Taylor’s questions to Professor Maffei did differentiate between tax offences and
customs offences, but he did not suggest to the Professor there was a qualitative
or principled difference between tax offences and customs offences rendering only the former and not the latter suitable for dolo eventuale. Nor did he put to Professor Maffei that Mr Cellino had a right under the provisions subsequently cited not to be punished on the basis of dolo eventuale.

114. In the light of the jurisprudence discussed above, there was surely scope for
legal argument before the Cagliari judge about the nature of the mens rea which
the public prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt. I think it unlikely
that Mr Cellino was in a strong position before the Cagliari court to secure an acquittal on the basis that his dolo was only eventuale and not diretto. His interest before that court was, presumably, to argue for that proposition, which is the opposite of what he is arguing now.

115. But I venture to doubt whether the argument would impress Dr Lepore. If widely accepted, (as Professor Maffei pointed out) acquittals could be too easily secured. As to the facts, much would also depend on the case put by the prosecution and the defence, the evidence called by both sides, and the extent to
which the judge believed that evidence. Of these matters, I know next to nothing.

116. I see force in Mr Taylor’s forensically attractive proposition that I should draw
an adverse inference against Mr Cellino’s honesty because of his omission to tell me what happened in the Sardinian court proceedings. But after careful thought I have concluded that I should not do so; firstly, because Mr Cellino is entitled to bring his appeal on the basis of the same factual information about the case as that which was before the League when it made the decision appealed against; and secondly, because it is not for me to retry the issues in the Cagliari proceedings and second guess the judge’s decision.

117. In my judgment, it is quite possible that the judge’s detailed reasons may
include a decision that dolo eventuale is enough to establish the mental element
of the offence. For the reasons given above, the prospect of such a decision is
far from fanciful and would not be obviously unsustainable in law.

118. As to the facts: the judge may find that Mr Cellino, or someone acting on his
behalf or on behalf of Freetime Miami LLC, failed to correct a statement that
importation of the NÃ©lie was temporary; that Mr Cellino knew that tax could be
due depending on the circumstances; or that he knew it would be due but only
after a certain period; or that he knew it would become due but not when; or
that he knew it could be due but did not trouble to enquire about the scope of
the exemption in article 216 of PD 43/1973 (to which I was not referred, though
Professor Maffei mentioned it); or that he did not care whether it was due or not, and so forth.

119. The €600,000 fine was, for some unexplained reason, less than the apparent
minimum of double the amount of tax avoided. The factual permutations are numerous. Some of the possible factual scenarios would amount to conduct which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest. Others would not. If the facts were along the lines indicated above, I am far from persuaded that Professors di Amato and Padovani would argue for an acquittal, or that the Supreme Court, if seised of the matter, would allow an appeal against conviction.

120. For those reasons, Mr Cellino has satisfied me that on the facts before me, what he was convicted of was not conduct which would reasonably be considered to
be dishonest. There is not enough factual information to reach the conclusion
that what he was convicted of was conduct which w ould reasonably be considered to be dishonest. I do not accept Mr Taylor’s submission that the case against him, even put at its lowest, would be regarded by reasonable people as a case of dishonest conduct.

121. Still less do I accept his alternative submission that he ought to be taken to have failed the OAD test pending receipt of the judge’s full reasons, in order to avoid
him having to stand down in a short time once they become available. That is
not what the rules say. If the League had wanted to secure that outcome, it
could have asked for an adjournment of the appeal, but it did not do so.

122. I add by way of postscript that I do not reach my conclusion with particular
surprise or regret. The notion of criminal liability founded on dolo eventuale
or its common law equivalent, recklessness, is a very familiar one. The 2015
World Anti-Doping Code will, from 1 January next year, treat as a “cheat” any
athlete who “engage in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk”.

123. Similarly, in England there is an offence where a person “dishonestly... makes
a false statement or representation... with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage under ... relevant social security legislation...” (Social Security Administration Act 1992 section 111A, as amended); and a similar but lesser offence, not requiring proof of dishonesty, under section 112, as amended. Degrees of mens rea are commonplace in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

124. I conclude that it would not be reasonable on the evidence before me to
consider Mr Cellino’s conduct to be dishonest and that accordingly he is not subject to a Disqualifying Condition. It follows from my reasoning above that if the reasoned ruling of the court in Cagliari discloses that the conduct of Mr Cellino was such that it would reasonably be considered to be dishonest, he would become subject to a
Disqualifying Condition. But that is not a matter that is before me.
Click to expand...

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

You 73 guests from twitterland, by joining (its free by the way) all the advertising crap disappears.

Come and have your say.

Join

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

Surely, if the FL appeal, it will be shown to be a personal vandetta?

MIGHTY · Apr 5, 2014

124 is the problem

Chippy / Glory · Apr 5, 2014

ellandback said: ↑

Surely, if the FL appeal, it will be shown to be a personal vandetta?
Click to expand...

Elland he passed the test he owns the club. He didn't buy it with the proceeds of crime. Even if he got clink after the appeals the fl cannot retrospectively take it off him. Please give it a rest now. Ur scaring the horses and it ain't like you.

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

666 & Elmo said: ↑

Part 2
Click to expand...

I'm having to read it two or three times to understand it. My head hurts. I need a beer

666 & Elmo · Apr 5, 2014

Read the transcuipt, and read between the lines - the QC is scathing of the FL's lawyers' naive, juvenile, personal and tv-inspired attempts to discredit the impartial Italian Professor. The FL had few arguments and tried the case on discrediting others' testimonies, and the QC didn;t buy it.

Having read the transcript, it is very well written and I'm not surprised it took so long

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

MIGHTY said: ↑

124 is the problem
Click to expand...

Not sure it is. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on whether Cellino was intentionally defrauding customs duty or whether he thought he didn't have to pay it for one reason or another.

It would be hard to prove that Cellino deliberately tried to deceptively defraud their customs

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

666 & Elmo said: ↑

Read the transcuipt, and read between the lines - the QC is scathing of the FL's lawyers' naive, juvenile, personal and tv-inspired attempts to discredit the impartial Italian Professor. The FL had few arguments and tried the case on discrediting others' testimonies, and the QC didn;t buy it.

Having read the transcript, it is very well written and I'm not surprised it took so long
Click to expand...

Was a good find pal

lifecheshirewhite · Apr 5, 2014

ellandback said: ↑

Not sure it is. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on whether Cellino was intentionally defrauding customs duty or whether he thought he didn't have to pay it for one reason or another.

It would be hard to prove that Cellino deliberately tried to deceptively defraud their customs
Click to expand...

Its over let it go Elland let the wallies clutch the straws while we move on and up.

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

glory hunter 2013/14 said: ↑

Elland he passed the test he owns the club. He didn't buy it with the proceeds of crime. Even if he got clink after the appeals the fl cannot retrospectively take it off him. Please give it a rest now. Ur scaring the horses and it ain't like you.
Click to expand...

Horses are fine. They're watching Neeeighhhh-bours.....

I'm just concerned by Popeys comments

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

lifecheshirewhite said: ↑

Its over let it go Elland let the wallies clutch the straws while we move on and up.
Click to expand...

Are we going up Chesh?

lifecheshirewhite · Apr 5, 2014

ellandback said: ↑

Are we going up Chesh?
Click to expand...

Tomorrow we will be owned by a Millionaire dell boy.

esteponawhite · Apr 5, 2014

sing this song to the theme tune of only fools and horses.

no income tax no VAT
been hiding yachts in Italy
blue or white
wer'e no longer poor
well be LEEDS UNITED FOREVER MORE!!!!
GOD BLESS MASSIMO
GOD BLESS MASSIMO

Talking of delboy,,
Borrowed from another forum

MIGHTY · Apr 5, 2014

ellandback said: ↑

Not sure it is. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on whether Cellino was intentionally defrauding customs duty or whether he thought he didn't have to pay it for one reason or another.

It would be hard to prove that Cellino deliberately tried to deceptively defraud their customs
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what the Italian court has to decide

READ IT

The QC has said the Fl could have waited for that ruling but chose not to postpone the hearing. the QC made his ruling on the evidence he has today 124 "CLEARLY" states if Cellino is found guilty of "dishonesty" they CAN boot him out

I know you are Leeds fans and im a wallie but thats what it says

The very last sentence says HE WOULD become subject to a disqualifying condition (NOT COULD)

PS the wall ARE staying up

DamnedUnited · Apr 5, 2014

666 & Elmo said: ↑

Part 2
Click to expand...

Cheers for digging those out mate

ellandback · Apr 5, 2014

lifecheshirewhite said: ↑

Tomorrow we will be owned by a Millionaire dell boy.
Click to expand...

Phew, I feel a lot better

666 & Elmo · Apr 5, 2014

MIGHTY said: ↑

Thats exactly what the Italian court has to decide

READ IT

The QC has said the Fl could have waited for that ruling but chose not to postpone the hearing. the QC made his ruling on the evidence he has today 124 "CLEARLY" states if Cellino is found guilty of "dishonesty" they CAN boot him out

I know you are Leeds fans and im a wallie but thats what it says

PS the wall ARE staying up
Click to expand...

Let's see: a guy who trie to interpret the laws in Italy and got his fingers burnt with a lower-then-minimum-fine and confiscation of his boat (as a maximum), versus a guy who has been jailed for years in Thailand? I don;t see Birmingham getting booted out of the FL. Clutching, Mighty, clutching.

We are not in the clear yet.

666 & Elmo New Member

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

666 & Elmo New Member

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

MIGHTY Del-Boy

Chippy / Glory Senior Member

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

666 & Elmo New Member

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

esteponawhite Well-Known Member

MIGHTY Del-Boy

DamnedUnited Well-Known Member

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

666 & Elmo New Member

Share This Page

About Us

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

We are not in the clear yet.

666 & Elmo New Member

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

666 & Elmo New Member

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

MIGHTY Del-Boy

Chippy / Glory Senior Member

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

666 & Elmo New Member

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

lifecheshirewhite Cheese

esteponawhite Well-Known Member

MIGHTY Del-Boy

DamnedUnited Well-Known Member

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

666 & Elmo New Member

Share This Page

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator