FORUMula1.com

[operaman]

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/200436/1/e ... -case.html

[CookinFlat6]

You do realise this London case was a civil action

The criminal case in Germany is yet to come, if anything facts from this case have weaqkened his position in Germany

Mr Justice Newey, after hearing both sides give evidence over a seven-week spell that ended in mid-December, opted to reserve judgement on the case and retired to deliberate on what had been presented. In the end, however, he decided that BayernLB's shares were not undervalued as a result of Ecclestone's involvement with Gribkowsky, although he did believe that Ecclestone's payment to Gribkowsky constituted a bribe.

"The payments were a bribe, [and] they were made because Mr Ecclestone had entered into a corrupt agreement," Mr Justice Newey said in his summary, "It was no part of Ecclestone's purpose for the shares to be sold at an undervalue, [and] no loss to Constantin has been shown to have been caused by the corrupt arrangement with Dr Gribkowsky. That fact is fatal to the claim [for damages]."

The decision only serves a temporary reprieve for Ecclestone, who still looks set to face similar legal battles in Germany and Switzerland. The 83-year old had already been indicted on bribery charges by the German courts, while both Swiss authorities and, more recently, BayernLB had made it clear that they were considering the possibility of separate actions. The German bank gained access to the High Court documents as it considered its case.

Even though bernie won a case for undervaluation, the judge said he made a bribe, that is what he is charged with in Germany

therefore this case would have been better not to have been won or lost at all

[sagi58]

In making those comments/assertions, isn't this judge creating a "bias" or "prejudice" in the case in Germany?
Could the prosecutors there use his comments as evidence? Could he be summoned to appear as a witness?
Too much politics, between the two countries for there to be any sort of co-operation (for lack of a better word)?

[CookinFlat6]

In making those comments/assertions, isn't this judge creating a "bias" or "prejudice" in the case in Germany?

You think justice should not be exercised for fear of prejudicing future cases? in different countries? This is not the media creating bias that might influence an upcoming trial. The whole idea of the courts is that everything can be said under oath. Everything that transpires under oath is the reality for that case. You dont try a guy for murder and then say, 'lets not discuss the fact that he owns a gun as this might predujice future cases'

Could the prosecutors there use his comments as evidence? Could he be summoned to appear as a witness?

Summoned as witness?, he is the star witness for the prosecution, he is the defendant in a criminal case

Too much politics, between the two countries for there to be any sort of co-operation (for lack of a better word)?

Uhhh? Do you want to rephrase that. You want co opperation between 2 courts in different countries, but you also mentioned predjudicing one case by another. Or do you mean they should get together outside the legal process? maybe form a kangaroo court to collude and bring a joint verdict

Either way, despite bernie buying a German race track or declaring the German Nico rosberg likely to win this years WDC, the fact the German courts want to prosecute him means its in their inetrests to scour the ends of the world looking for evidence, and what better place to get stuff than inside the court room in a legal system with similar standing. So the last thing they would want is to hold back or give benefit of doubt over the findings of a judge in British court.

The big question now is how come he has not been immediately sacked by CVC now that it has been proved (in a British court) that he took a bribe i.e. the deal that makes them owners was fraudulent, if they dont sack bernie then they are admitting they were aware of the fraud

[racechick]

Here's the judge 13's take on the situation. And I must admit, even before I read it, I thought the real prosecution in Germany didn't bode well for Mr. Wheeler dealer Ecclestone.............


Ecclestone ‘win’ is fairly hollow

Ecclestone may have ‘won’ the case against Constantin Medien AG, but he won on a technicality. As TJ13 reported yesterday, Justice Newey ruled that Ecclestone had paid a bribe to Mr. Gribkowsky as part of a ‘corrupt agreement’ to make sure that the Formula One shares of BayernLB were sold to someone he preferred. Newey stated that Ecclestone wanted to get rid of F1 shares in the hands of Banks and therefore bribed Gribkowsky to make sure that the shares were sold to the right bidder. He also ruled that even in light of his advanced age, Ecclestone wasn’t an honest and reliable witness. In non-legalise: A lying (insert expletive here).

So how could he ‘win’ that case then? That’s very simple. Constantin Medien had sued him for damages, because they say that due to Ecclestone’s meddling the shares were sold under value, which Newey said “was not part of Ecclestone’s goals”.

Mr. E should enjoy it while it lasts, because for the Munich case this verdict doesn’t bode well, as Newey basically ruled that the major accusation of bribery is true and that’s what he stands trial for in the Bavarian capitol. In that case it won’t matter what his motives were, it will only matter if he paid a bribe or not and Justice Newey said – he did. It is unlikely that the Munich court will come to a different conclusion. I bet you look good in stripes, Mr. E.

[sagi58]

In making those comments/assertions, isn't this judge creating a "bias" or "prejudice" in the case in Germany?

You think justice should not be exercised for fear of prejudicing future cases? in different countries? This is not the media creating bias that might influence an upcoming trial. The whole idea of the courts is that everything can be said under oath. Everything that transpires under oath is the reality for that case. You dont try a guy for murder and then say, 'lets not discuss the fact that he owns a gun as this might predujice future cases'

Actually, I wasn't referring to the witnesses or their testimony. Nor to the verdict reached.
I was simply wondering if it was necessary for the Judge to have made those comments, i.e.:

...although he did believe that Ecclestone's payment to Gribkowsky constituted a bribe...

That sounds more like he was offering an opinion than making a statement of fact.

Could the prosecutors there use his comments as evidence? Could he be summoned to appear as a witness?

Summoned as witness?, he is the star witness for the prosecution, he is the defendant in a criminal case

My comments/questions were in reference to Judge Newey's statements, NOT Ecclestone's testimony!
Obviously, Ecclestone will be summoned!!

Too much politics, between the two countries for there to be any sort of co-operation (for lack of a better word)?

Uhhh? Do you want to rephrase that. You want co opperation between 2 courts in different countries, but you also mentioned predjudicing one case by another. Or do you mean they should get together outside the legal process? maybe form a kangaroo court to collude and bring a joint verdict

Actually, at the risk of repeating myself, my comments/questions were about the Judge's statement and NOT Ecclestone's testimony.

I was simply curious as to whether the German prosecutors would even entertain allowing the Judge's comments into "evidence" or if they'd be concerned that defence would challenge the Judge's statement citing it as inadmissible because it bias/prejudice the courts against Ecclestone.

[CookinFlat6]

In a German court trying a guy for bribery, you think they would not refer to a JUDGEs findings/conclusions/beliefs in a legal system of similar standing?
Thats the whole idea of a court under oath, everything is meant to be the truth according to that legal system, there is no higher authority than saying 'this judge said so under oath'
Its not the same as saying it was the opinion of this judge - it was said in court and ofcourse will be offered in evidence
Its like saying a guy got done for murder in one country of similar legal standing and integrity and that will not be brought up in another court
Maybe Im wrong, maybe Im missing something here

edit: maybe you mean will the German court wuill only rely on 'that judge said this', its more like they will use the same evidence and logic to come to the same conclusion and point out that the other came to the same conclusion

[sagi58]

What I mean is that the Judge said he """""believes""""" that Ecclestone's payment constituted a bribe.
That's NOT the same thing as saying it ""was""!! Semantics? Maybe...

And, since the two countries aren't exactly bosom buddies, I was curious about the politics involved!

[CookinFlat6]

Sagi, the judge was not ruling on if Bernie made a bribe. In making his ruling about if Bernie undervalued the stake, he concluded that Bernie had made a bribe. Whats he supposed to say? 'I know Bernie made a bribe?' What about a jury when they make a verdict, do they say 'we know he did it' or do they say 'we believe he did it'

That should illustrate due legal process. Everything is transparent in court, both sides present and the case is found upon the evidence. Believe beyond doubt from the evidence that so and so is the case

The judge believes Bernie is a liar and made a bribe. That means any media or any person can now legally call Bernie a liar, why because the judge has found this to be the case under the legal process that would otherwise protect bernie from others making that statement

And whats the 2 countries history gotta do with it? A court in Germany are trying Bernie, and they will present a case based on things they feel is relevant. Now if it was a court in Italy that said something then their might be a defence to say the legal system has been found to be flawed at some stage and that cannot be admissable (just using Italy as an example because of your affinity for Ferrari, but it could be any court anywhere that the defence might try to discredit)

Surely you cant be saying that because an English court rules Bernie made a bribe, then a German court will say 'Achtung, ve have a cunning plan to make ze English look bad, ve vill acquit him, hehehe'

Dunno, we got any lawyers in the house?

[zurich_allan]

Rather than quote anyone on the thread specifically, I thought that perhaps it might help if I tidy up and clarify a few issues that I've seen on the thread:

- No, the criminal case in Germany will use absolutely no part of either the judgment, opinion or statements from this case. Although not legally restricted by evidential rules as they would be in the UK (it would be illegal if it was a further UK trial for them to use it - it would result in a mistrial), it would be horrendously bad practice. Quite the opposite - any past evidence relating to any other trials ought to be utterly ignored, and ONLY direct, oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence relating to the issues in question in the case in Germany should be used, even if that means people repeating testimony they have already given in the UK case, or evidence already presented in the UK being presented again in Germany. There should be no mention whatsoever of the decided case.

- The implications of this case aren't as poor as they may look on the face of it - although the legal system is not the same as the uk, the general rule in German criminal cases is that the Judge hearing the case has to be convinced that there is no doubt in the case (pretty much identical to 'beyond all reasonable doubt' in the UK). The case being discussed in this thread that Bernie has just 'won' is a civil case where any judgment is based on the standard of 'the balance of probabilities' having been met - i.e. it is more likely than not.

If anyone wants any explanation on any of the above feel free to ask and I'll happily answer.

Oh - and one point of interest that you made Sagi - relating to 'bias' in judges statements / judgments: Currently, judges can say literally anything they want during the course of a trial they are hearing as they have what's known as judicial immunity. Even if the judge has commented with malice that usually wouldn't be enough to make them liable for their words - usually there would have to be evidence of actual corruption (ironic given the subject matter of the trial), and even then it might not be enough. I've been carrying out research on biased judicial statements from judges in court cases since 2007 and am in the process of preparing a paper for publication based on it, hopefully in the next 6 months or so.

[CookinFlat6]

Nice post Zurich, so to cut a long story short do YOU think the German court are more likely to find Bernie guilty of making a bribe now the civil case judge has, yes or no

especially as we know that evidence from the english case has been requested by the Germans

[zurich_allan]

Nice post Zurich, so to cut a long story short do YOU think the German court are more likely to find Bernie guilty of making a bribe now the civil case judge has, yes or no

Hmm, I'll be careful how I word this.... Yes, I think it makes it more likely, because what will be broadly the same evidence as has been individually presented to the UK court will more than likely be presented to the German court, and given that the Judge in the UK case has examined and concluded in the manner they have, the indications will likely be similar to other judges hearing the case. There are subtle differences between a German criminal case and a British one, and some of the evidential restrictions that are in the place are not in Germany (they have a greater freedom when choosing what they deem to be admissible), so it could be that borderline evidence that was declared inadmissible pre-trial in the UK would actually be admissible in Germany. The additional accumulation of evidence could be enough to persuade a judge beyond doubt.

So in an evidential sense, I think the case will be very strong against Bernie - what I'm NOT sure about is the strategy his own defence counsel will adopt - will they try to:

1. discredit ALL of the evidence, or,
2. are they looking to one key area to attack.

It depends what Bernie wants out of the trial - does he want to 'clear his name / reputation' or is he only interested in winning and doesn't care whether everyone still thinks he did it. If it's the former then he adopts the first strategy, but if it's the latter then it's strategy number two. Remember HE doesn't have to prove his INNOCENCE beyond all doubt, he only has to introduce ANY basic doubt, so putting all resources into attacking one key area might make sense (given that most everyone already knows that he isn't the most clean cut of characters!!).

[racechick]

Going on Bernie's past form, I don't think he cares what people think, in fact I think he gets a kick out of being outrageous. I think he'll go for the winning at all costs option , pretty sure he will.

[CookinFlat6]

I do not think he will get off on a technicality or strategy 2. His defence team in the English cases were leaning on a defence that the prosecutions case was flawed because there was no testimony from banker Gribosky - Who was inconvenielty in prison in Germany for accepting the bribe

[zurich_allan]

Going on Bernie's past form, I don't think he cares what people think, in fact I think he gets a kick out of being outrageous. I think he'll go for the winning at all costs option , pretty sure he will.

That's what I think too. And I actually think he'd get a kick out of there still being unanswered questions. This is why I suspect that his team will choose one area of the evidence (not so much one piece of evidence, but one area), and go all out attack on it, whilst putting very little effort into addressing the other areas.

The problem is that the media won't necessarily understand that strategy and there may be reporting along the lines of:

Day One: 'The first day of the trial against Bernie didn't look good for him as the prosecution led a number of key pieces of evidence to which Mr Ecclestone had little response'

Day Two: 'The second day of the trial picked up where day one left off, with the prosecution presenting yet more evidence against the F1 supremo, things are beginning to look grim for the 132 year old who also starred as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy'

Day Three: ' In the morning session at court today, Bernie Ecclestone's defence team finally made a strong rebuttal of two of the issues raised by the prosecution, however in the afternoon it was more of the same from days one and two'

Day four: 'BERNIE INNOCENT - the majesty of motorsport somehow managed to escape conviction - was it corruption?!?'

Could be wrong - we'll see...