More shenanigans with Mr. Cryne...

If and I stress IF, Cryne has done what he is accused of, then he deserves everything he gets. Just because he owns (partly) BFC, it does not mean we should be easy on him.

 

It sounds like they are trying to put a brave face on it and send a message to wider business world, that they're no push-overs.

 

Doesn't he own the whole club, just half the land bricks and mortar, turf, broken glass on top of the wall etc?

 

It's the FRC which is the body regulating accountancy. Like most professional occupations if your conduct is suspect you face disciplinary action. He'll be struck off as an accountant is all. Whilst this is a blemish against his character he aint going to jail over it.

 

The reason that most cases of financial fraud collapse when they reach court is that it is extremely difficult to get a jury (picked because of their absence of experience of accountancy and financial wrong doing) to understand the subtleties of the argument. It is akin to explaining the theory of relativity and asking the man in the street to judge its accuracy. Whether Cryne did, or did not break the law will never be decided, and the act of disqualifying an infirmed, 62 year old from claiming to be a qualified accountant is akin to attacking a tank with a pea shooter. Of course, the fact that the case is no longer sub-judice allows the Guardian to sling their long matured mud, with little fear of the retribution that a case of libel against the paper would bring. If the full force of the law could not prove Cryne's guilt, the chances of Cryne proving his innocence in a libel case, in order to win damages against the Guardian, are low to zero. Do not forget that in our glorious country, a man is innocent until it can be proved otherwise, except in civil cases, when the guy with the most expensive lawyer usually wins.

 

The burden of proof would be on the Guardian to show that what they printed was accurate.

 

Call their bluff, with a harassment case.

 

What in that article could be construed as libel?

 

You know a lot about civil law?

 

If Mansfield Red is correct, no, I know very little.

 

Because the court case has failed, the Guardian, who first revealed the alleged fraud, is seeking to continue their case against Cryne in the court of public opinion. I have no doubt that some of the mud that they are throwing will stick. If Cryne wants to clear his name, for a second time, he has no choice but to challenge the Guardians view that he falsified the accounts. That could only be done through the civil courts by at least threatening a libel action.

The real bad guys in this case, in my opinion, are the auditors, Robson Rhodes. They took a hefty fee for checking the accounts and they provided a clean audit certificate. If they had any doubts, they should have issued a qualified report, or in the worst case, refused to provide a certificate. They were asleep on the job and the partner concerned must suffer the consequences if the accounts are proved to be incorrect.

 

What did the Guardian say that makes it look like they are placing the matter in the court if public opinion?

They have reported a story that the body that governs Accountants may look into the matter.

 

This post is probably more open to legal action than the newspaper piece itself.

 

"The Financial Reporting Council – the accountancy watchdog with powers to fine and strike off accountants – has told the Guardian it is considering reopening its investigation into the iSoft accounting scandal. The news follows the FCA's decision to abandon any prosecution of Cryne and other former iSoft directors. The FRC can only pursue disciplinary actions against accountants, such as Cryne, who are members of certain accredited professional bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales."

It's a professional body regulating accredited accountants such as PC. They can fine him or strike him off or both, not send him to prison. Nothing to do with the FSA or it's replacement the FCA or the PRA. People should read stuff properly

 

I doubt whether the possible referral of an accountant to such a body would normally rate a mention in the Guardian. Accountants are dull people in a arcane profession. The raking up of old details concerning a failed prosecution would also fail to raise the temperature of the normal reader. So what might the motives of the Guardian be for linking the failed prosecution to a possible ('may' being the operative word being used here) investigation by the said governing body (not even the body that provides accreditation to Mr Cryne by allowing him to use its proscribed initials after his name). May I venture to suggest that having invested time and money into the story, The Guardian has decided, in its opinion, that Mr Cryne is guilty, and has decided to chuck some mud in his direction, which they hope will ruin his reputation.

Now it is quite possible that you will disagree with my analysis of the motives behind this character assassination. You may also disagree that reporting a possibility, rather than a fact is mischievous. But you surely cannot disagree that having been cleared of wrong doing (admittedly because it was decided that a prosecution was unlikely to succeed), Mr Cryne's reputation is once again damaged by this story.

 

I suppose yea, amongst the chattering classes maybe. I think any businessman who runs scared of the Grauniad or indeed any Liberal egalitarian who cowers at the thought of the Telegraph really need thicker skin. It's the press, it's what they do.

 

F@cking charming.

 

Arcane people in a dull profession ?

 

For 36 years, I was one of those dull people in an arcane profession.