Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:46 am  

Yeah, for us the pertinent questions surround the initial purchase, the party's involved and how it came about.
Whilst nobody will be surprised if the businessmen involved turn out to be a cartel of crooks, it'll be interesting to find out the extent of WDC's involvement in that chain of events.

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:53 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Just thinking out loud, this doesn't necessarily have an impact on Trinity. Looking into a deal can mean so many things. It doesn't mean that Trinity can have the ground taken from them. It is perfectly possible that Trinity is the victim in all this. But of course the paper wants a story about a financial investigation and the phrase "loan from the taxpayer". The paper might know nothing but has created a story that doesn't actually tell you anything.

That depends on the ‘deal’ between the club and the council as well.

[PopTart]

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:40 pm  

We are certainly the injured party in this, having to pay twice the value for something, but my worry would be if the original sale becomes void, where does that leave us?

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:40 pm  

PopTart wrote:

We are certainly the injured party in this, having to pay twice the value for something, but my worry would be if the original sale becomes void, where does that leave us?

I'm not sure the courts can set aside transactions, as there are legitimate purchasers involved. What they can do is look at someone's assets and say, "tell us where it came from, and if you can't, we'll assume it came from criminal activity and seize it from you". Now, what someone can say, for example, is "a couple of million came from a really good land deal", which might cause the NCA to look into the deal to verify that this was the case.

What the NCA could also do is look at other players, to see whether there is anything improper, whether others are involved in creating a false profit in order to explain away someone's millions, but if there's nothing to see, there's nothing to worry about. We got shafted by being asked to step aside in the original purchase, and got shafted again by having to pay a higher value, but that doesn't mean there is anything to impact on the club.

The NCA are bound to look at all major transactions. It doesn't mean they amount to anything. But the Yorkshire Post has got plenty of people to look at a story that tells you precisely zilch, and they'll pick up the advertising revenue from it. Smart journalism. Creates clicks but says zero.

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:26 pm  

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 0dac31b1b1 This is a long but interesting read, wonder what the due diligence department at Bank of Ireland were doing when then sold BV to 88m ,

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 0dac31b1b1 This is a long but interesting read, wonder what the due diligence department at Bank of Ireland were doing when then sold BV to 88m ,

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:20 pm  

bellycouldtackle wrote:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5e5caf2e2c94e00dac31b1b1

This is a long but interesting read, wonder what the due diligence department at Bank of Ireland were doing when then sold BV to 88m ,

Bloody Hell your not kidding. There are some nasty criminals named at this hearing.
The first paragraph is why the court hearing takes place

The second paragraph about 2 hours later is the conclusion.
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY V HUSSAIN & ORS

Mr Justice Murray :
1. On 12 July 2019, at the conclusion of a hearing to consider without notice applications by the applicant, the National Crime Agency ("the NCA"), I made:

i) an unexplained wealth order ("UWO") under section 362A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain, whose identity, until today, was protected by an anonymity order made by Lang J on 4 July 2019, for reasons explained in this judgment; and

ii) an interim freezing order ("IFO") under section 362J of POCA against Mr Hussain and each of six corporate respondents ("the Other IFO Respondents").

Conclusion
118. For the foregoing reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing I was satisfied that:

i) it was strictly necessary to conduct the hearing of the NCA's applications for a UWO against Mr Hussain and an IFO against Mr Hussain and the Other IFO Respondents in private; and

ii) in all the circumstances, it was just, appropriate and proportionate to make:

a) the UWO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain; and
b) the IFO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain and each of the Other IFO Respondents.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

I hope I’ve got this right, but you’re all welcome to read the full hearing account. Good luck with that.

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:09 pm  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Bloody Hell your not kidding. There are some nasty criminals named at this hearing.
The first paragraph is why the court hearing takes place

The second paragraph about 2 hours later is the conclusion.
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY V HUSSAIN & ORS

Mr Justice Murray :
1. On 12 July 2019, at the conclusion of a hearing to consider without notice applications by the applicant, the National Crime Agency ("the NCA"), I made:

i) an unexplained wealth order ("UWO") under section 362A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain, whose identity, until today, was protected by an anonymity order made by Lang J on 4 July 2019, for reasons explained in this judgment; and

ii) an interim freezing order ("IFO") under section 362J of POCA against Mr Hussain and each of six corporate respondents ("the Other IFO Respondents").

Conclusion
118. For the foregoing reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing I was satisfied that:

i) it was strictly necessary to conduct the hearing of the NCA's applications for a UWO against Mr Hussain and an IFO against Mr Hussain and the Other IFO Respondents in private; and

ii) in all the circumstances, it was just, appropriate and proportionate to make:

a) the UWO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain; and
b) the IFO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain and each of the Other IFO Respondents.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

I hope I’ve got this right, but you’re all welcome to read the full hearing account. Good luck with that.

Hussain quoted as 'clean skin' some tasty associates named in this report, I am pretty sure any cops, ex cops or those associated with the Justice System will be familiar with the OCGs referred to.

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:51 pm  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Bloody Hell your not kidding. There are some nasty criminals named at this hearing.
The first paragraph is why the court hearing takes place

The second paragraph about 2 hours later is the conclusion.
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY V HUSSAIN & ORS

Mr Justice Murray :
1. On 12 July 2019, at the conclusion of a hearing to consider without notice applications by the applicant, the National Crime Agency ("the NCA"), I made:

i) an unexplained wealth order ("UWO") under section 362A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") against Mr Mansoor Mahmood Hussain, whose identity, until today, was protected by an anonymity order made by Lang J on 4 July 2019, for reasons explained in this judgment; and

ii) an interim freezing order ("IFO") under section 362J of POCA against Mr Hussain and each of six corporate respondents ("the Other IFO Respondents").


Conclusion
118. For the foregoing reasons, at the conclusion of the hearing I was satisfied that:

i) it was strictly necessary to conduct the hearing of the NCA's applications for a UWO against Mr Hussain and an IFO against Mr Hussain and the Other IFO Respondents in private; and

ii) in all the circumstances, it was just, appropriate and proportionate to make:

a) the UWO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain; and
b) the IFO sought by the NCA against Mr Hussain and each of the Other IFO Respondents.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

I hope I’ve got this right, but you’re all welcome to read the full hearing account. Good luck with that.

Just browsing through the court documents. Amongst all the properties registered or connected to Mr Hussain. Is this one, I wonder if any part of Belle Vue land.

iv) freehold property consisting of land on the south side of Doncaster Road, Wakefield, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK912235, the registered owner of which is Jayco88 Limited, despite that company having been dissolved by voluntary strike-off on 20 March 2018;

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:16 pm  

Pssssst! Wanna buy a rugby grarnd guv'nor??

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:26 pm  

PopTart wrote:

We are certainly the injured party in this, having to pay twice the value for something, but my worry would be if the original sale becomes void, where does that leave us?

I do know PT that in Criminal Law, the true 'owner' of property remains such, even if the property is stolen and sold on to an innocent purchaser.
Motor vehicle thefts are rife with such purchases and if the vehicle is recovered it is usually removed from the innocent purchaser and returned to the true owner.

In the case of land though, surely deeds provide proof of ownership? and I would have thought the sale to Manni from the BOI and subsequently to WT would have been handled by a solicitor?

On the other hand, if by some reason the sale does become void we might get the chance to purchase it again at the true price!