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

[pegasus]

What on earth is this about?

Its a purposely ridiculous post to try to get someone to answer this:
The gofundme appeal clearly states its purpose: "for legal costs".
Where is the equivalent statement of the other fund? What does it say?

[Carana]

In most jurisdictions.  Certainly throughout Europe.

I don't understand, JP.

I expect that the girl who set up this fund is genuine and sincerely hopes to support her hero, Amaral.

My question isn't about her, but is more general: can anyone set up a gofundme account and raise and send money in this day and age without it being questioned anywhere?

Aside from potential laundering scrutiny, wouldn't there be a tax liability or two somewhere along the line?

[Jean-Pierre]

I don't understand, JP.

I expect that the girl who set up this fund is genuine and sincerely hopes to support her hero, Amaral.

My question isn't about her, but is more general: can anyone set up a gofundme account and raise and send money in this day and age without it being questioned anywhere?

Aside from potential laundering scrutiny, wouldn't there be a tax liability or two somewhere along the line?

Why would there be?  If I were to say Carana, my dear, I really like you (I do) and I want to give you £1000 (Not going to happen - sorry) - there are no tax consequences for either of us.

I cannot claim any tax relief (it is not wholly / necessarily / exclusive) in relation to a trade or profession and you are not a charity - I am paying you the money as a gift (not in return for some service - don't go there...) so you have no tax liability.  There is no VAT liability.  There may be some transfer tax - but the amounts are way below the limit.

Leanne is merely acting as a collecting agent -so not liable.

There may possibly be some money laundering issues if the value of a single transaction were more than 15k euros.  But as this is a gift, and transactions are channelled through a bank - very very unlikely.

The only issues that I can see would be if Leanne took the money (over 10k euros) cross border in cash without declaring it.

So that's the position - you may not like it but there you go

[pegasus]

Here are the official objects of the other fund.
The struck out clause was there up to about Dec 2011 when it was removed.

***********************************
The objects of the Foundation are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
***********************************

[Jean-Pierre]

Here are the official objects of the other fund.
The struck out clause was there up to about Dec 2011 when it was removed.

***********************************
The objects of the Foundation are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
***********************************

Oh dear Pegasus.

Your really do seem to have some problem with reality.

Fund Objectives

The full objects of the Fund are:
To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

I am sure you have a simple explanation.........

[pegasus]

@jean-pierre
It appears looking at your definitive up-to-date source that you are right
The third object is stiill there

[Carana]

Why would there be?  If I were to say Carana, my dear, I really like you (I do) and I want to give you £1000 (Not going to happen - sorry) - there are no tax consequences for either of us.

I cannot claim any tax relief (it is not wholly / necessarily / exclusive) in relation to a trade or profession and you are not a charity - I am paying you the money as a gift (not in return for some service - don't go there...) so you have no tax liability.  There is no VAT liability.  There may be some transfer tax - but the amounts are way below the limit.

Leanne is merely acting as a collecting agent -so not liable.

There may possibly be some money laundering issues if the value of a single transaction were more than 15k euros.  But as this is a gift, and transactions are channelled through a bank - very very unlikely.

The only issues that I can see would be if Leanne took the money (over 10k euros) cross border in cash without declaring it.

So that's the position - you may not like it but there you go

Ok. I was just curious. So what you're saying is that as they are transactions between private accounts below a certain threshold, there's no tax? Until presumably the money reaches the destination, presumably either the court or the lawyer who would have to declare the income - as he/she would have to do anyway? Is that correct?

[Jean-Pierre]

Ok. I was just curious. So what you're saying is that as they are transactions between private accounts below a certain threshold, there's no tax? Until presumably the money reaches the destination, presumably either the court or the lawyer who would have to declare the income - as he/she would have to do anyway? Is that correct?

Yes - amaral paying the lawyer for services would be taxable income.

[Alice Purjorick]

@jean-pierre
It appears looking at your definitive up-to-date source that you are right
The third object is stiill there

Is it in the company's Articles of Association? They appear to be as follows according to Companies House following amendment December 2011.
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.


The powers are interesting.
You can buy the document from CH WebCheck if you fancy 

[G-Unit]

Is it in the company's Articles of Association? They appear to be as follows according to Companies House following amendment December 2011.
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.


The powers are interesting.
You can buy the document from CH WebCheck if you fancy 

Does that mean that the clause about supporting the family was removed? It's still on the website though?

[pegasus]

Is it in the company's Articles of Association? They appear to be as follows according to Companies House following amendment December 2011.
Objects
2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.


The powers are interesting.
You can buy the document from CH WebCheck if you fancy 

Yes I know.
Did you not detect the hint of sarcasm when I referred to the site as "definitive" and "up-to-date"?
Here is the official website ..
And here is the document from company house ..
The third "object" was deleted at the end of 2011.
So the site has been wrong for how many years? Over 3? Is that possible?
 

[Jean-Pierre]

I do apologise Pegasus - the mem and arts do not include assistance to the McCanns - you were quite right.

So the fund cannot be being used to fund legal action against Amaral. 

They are quite clear as to the uses the fund monies can be put to.

Which puts a rather different perspective on the financial equality question, does it not.

[pegasus]

Thanks. So probably there is a seperate fund for legal expenditure?

[Jean-Pierre]

Thanks. So probably there is a seperate fund for legal expenditure?

Well either the McCanns are funding it themselves, or have negotiated contingency fees with their lawyers.  In my opinion this is the most likely.

[pegasus]

Does that mean that the clause about supporting the family was removed? It's still on the website though?

Yes, officially removed at end of 2011, but still on website today.
Probably it will be gone tomorrow.
The ears have walls.