Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[jassi]

Would you care to share your concerns ?

[Alfred R Jones]

As to any suggestion of outside influence, my first thought when I read the judgement was that it read as if Isabel Duarte had dictated it to her. JMO.

Didn't you once inform this forum that there had never been a miscarriage of justice in Portugal? Now suddenly your legal system is bent as a 9 bob bit and all because of one ruling in favour of a couple of people you don't happen to like very much.   

[misty]

Would you care to share your concerns ?

Normally, GoFundMe donations are made directly into the bank a/c of the fundraiser, but Leanne has chosen to have them paid into the Santander a/c.
If it is discovered the funds are not being used as intended, ie, for legal expenses, who will be liable should contributors wish to sue for fraud?

[misty]

As everything is open and transparent someone will post a reply to that any moment now, Misty.  Probably with a statement of ingoing and outgoing sums.

I'm still waiting. The sceptics are unusually quiet on this one.

[jassi]

Normally, GoFundMe donations are made directly into the bank a/c of the fundraiser, but Leanne has chosen to have them paid into the Santander a/c.
If it is discovered the funds are not being used as intended, ie, for legal expenses, who will be liable should contributors wish to sue for fraud?

Afraid I don't know what the Santander  a/c is.
Does this mean that by so doing, she has removed herself from all liability? If so, it sounds a wise move.

[Alfred R Jones]

If the money is not used for the purpose for which it was intended then the donor can apply for a refund I think from GFM I think, but would have to provide proof.  My bet is that the majority of the Ammy Barmy Army will be happy regardless of what the money is spent on, even if it's a new hat and another diamond earring. 

[Carana]

Almost every aspect of Madeleine McCann's case is unprecedented.  Perhaps this will be reflected in the unprecedented level of the award against Mr Amaral being allowed to stand, either by refusal of an appeal (and I think it is the only avenue of appeal open) or at appeal.
I think the danger of an appeal is that it is possible the award could be increased rather than decreased.

That would appear to be a risk, although I expect that in a country in which appeals appear to be so commonplace that appeals are expected.

I can understand that it appears to be a huge award in Portuguese terms, but then so were his gains of several hundred thousand euros. And that was what could be proven - but his gains appear to be conveniently forgotten for some reason when raising the issue.

[Alfred R Jones]

So do I take it no appeal was lodged today?  I guess it will be tomorrow then, or Monday.

[misty]

Afraid I don't know what the Santander  a/c is.
Does this mean that by so doing, she has removed herself from all liability? If so, it sounds a wise move.

Sorry, meant the BPI, not Santander (too much sun!).
Any contract is between Leanne & GoFundMe, not the recipient of the benefactions. She has asked for donations to be made via an organisation which charge a fee for their services.
I'm not questioning Leanne's motives or trustworthiness in all this. All I want to know is her legal position regarding the donations, should the a/c not be being used for the purposes it claims.

[Jean-Pierre]

As to any suggestion of outside influence, my first thought when I read the judgement was that it read as if Isabel Duarte had dictated it to her. JMO.

So you don't think much of the Portuguese justice system, Montclair? 

Is that in general, or just when the judgement goes against "your boy"?

[Alfred R Jones]

So you don't think much of the Portuguese justice system, Montclair? 

Is that in general, or just when the judgement goes against "your boy"?

Montclair was always a great champion of all things Portuguese, even claiming there had never been a miscarriage of justice there - country's obviously gone to the dogs in the last few weeks!

[pegasus]

Sorry, meant the BPI, not Santander (too much sun!).
Any contract is between Leanne & GoFundMe, not the recipient of the benefactions. She has asked for donations to be made via an organisation which charge a fee for their services.
I'm not questioning Leanne's motives or trustworthiness in all this. All I want to know is her legal position regarding the donations, should the a/c not be being used for the purposes it claims.

She has stated in black and white exactly what the fund is for - legal costs.
Now where is the equivalent statement of what the other fund is for?
There was a statement by a spokesperson on NZ radio stating it would not be used for legal costs.
It is the ultimate in transparency - so transparent that it is invisible.
Does it mention being used to influence foreign local elections - I don't know - where is it?

[Jean-Pierre]

Sorry, meant the BPI, not Santander (too much sun!).
Any contract is between Leanne & GoFundMe, not the recipient of the benefactions. She has asked for donations to be made via an organisation which charge a fee for their services.
I'm not questioning Leanne's motives or trustworthiness in all this. All I want to know is her legal position regarding the donations, should the a/c not be being used for the purposes it claims.

The legal position is that gofundme operates under Californian law.  All donations are in the nature of an outright gift, and the money can be used for any purpose whatsoever.

That nowithstanding I would expect contributors to this and to the PJGA to be made aware of the financial position of fund. Transparency was promised but so far has been observed in the breach.

It is interesting that so many of those who complain about lack of transparency in the "find madeleine" fund (which is subject to independent scrutiny and audit) are sanguine about the total lack of transparency in the PJGA.   

[Alfred R Jones]

The legal position is that gofundme operates under Californian law.  All donations are in the nature of an outright gift, and the money can be used for any purpose whatsoever.

That nowithstanding I would expect contributors to this and to the PJGA to be made aware of the financial position of fund. Transparency was promised but so far has been observed in the breach.

It is interesting that so many of those who complain about lack of transparency in the "find madeleine" fund (which is subject to independent scrutiny and audit) are sanguine about the total lack of transparency in the PJGA.

It's been suggested by the resident forum know-it-all that all one needs to do is write to the fund manager and ask for details of the accounts - are you game?

[Jean-Pierre]

She has stated in black and white exactly what the fund is for - legal costs.
Now where is the equivalent statement of what the other fund is for?
There was a statement by a spokesperson on NZ radio stating it would not be used for legal costs.
It is the ultimate in transparency - so transparent that it is invisible.
Does it mention being used to influence foreign local elections - I don't know - where is it?

She can state what she likes.  The minimum standard I would hope for would be an independent scrutiny of the accounts and income and outgoings.