Mitchell: McCanns move funds from Madeleine Fund to another account.

[pegasus]

Hypothetically if there was any amendment on the 2nd that requires registration at CH we would see it by the 18th.

[faithlilly]

You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some.  They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.

If all money from all sources was supposed to be used to search for Madeleine why would you need to ring - fence any of it ?

[Alfred R Jones]

If all money from all sources was supposed to be used to search for Madeleine why would you need to ring - fence any of it ?

No you wouldn't but clearly not ALL the money was intended for that specific purpose.  There have been other expenditures as you well know.

[Carana]

You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some.  They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.

If you want to ensure that money is available for a specific purpose, does it even need a separate bank account? If the directors know what that amount (that must not be touched) is, then they can presumably bear that in mind.

I would have thought it sensible, once the Met investigation was underway, to place some of it into a time-limited interest-bearing account if that was all that was available in view of the banking crisis.

[Alice Purjorick]

You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some.  They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.

It would appear in the SAME set of annual financial statements as "Restricted Funds". There may have been one or more bank accounts for the company from the word go we don't know. Whatever it will all be bundled up in one set of annual financial statements. The MSM article suggests money is being held without the company.
Who knows for sure ?

[faithlilly]

No you wouldn't but clearly not ALL the money was intended for that specific purpose.  There have been other expenditures as you well know.

So why the necessity now to ring-fence money when it has never been necessary before ?

[faithlilly]

If you want to ensure that money is available for a specific purpose, does it even need a separate bank account? If the directors know what that amount (that must not be touched) is, then they can presumably bear that in mind.

I would have thought it sensible, once the Met investigation was underway, to place some of it into a time-limited interest-bearing account if that was all that was available in view of the banking crisis.

And if the SY investigation was closed prematurely what then ?

BTW where is the evidence of the movement of any such money in the accounts ?

[Alfred R Jones]

It would appear in the SAME set of annual financial statements as "Restricted Funds". There may have been one or more bank accounts for the company from the word go we don't know. Whatever it will all be bundled up in one set of annual financial statements. The MSM article suggests money is being held without the company.
Who knows for sure ?

No one knows for sure, but one thing that is for sure is - it's really nobody's business but the McCanns and the Fund's and HMRC or whoever it is that cares about these things.  If it really is a matter of such pressing import then a "sceptic" journo like Natasha Donn or Sonia Poulton should go harangue Clarence until he gives them what they want.

[Alfred R Jones]

So why the necessity now to ring-fence money when it has never been necessary before ?

I don't know Faithlilly - why don't you write to the McCanns or the Fund and ask for clarification as this matter obviously vexes you quite considerably.

[faithlilly]

I don't know Faithlilly - why don't you write to the McCanns or the Fund and ask for clarification as this matter obviously vexes you quite considerably.

So can I take it from your answer that you have no reasonable explanation Alfie ?

[Alfred R Jones]

So can I take it from your answer that you have no reasonable explanation Alfie ?

I do, but it would be speculating and that's (allegedly) frowned upon on this forum.

[faithlilly]

I do, but it would be speculating and that's (allegedly) frowned upon on this forum.

So if it's only allegedly you won't mind bending the rules too.

[pegasus]

You can keep funds back for a specific purpose within The Fund by ring-fencing it but this doesn't seem to be a very popular explanation to some.  They'd much rather believe that the McCanns have set up a separate bank account in their names to siphon off cash for some nefarious purpose.

IMO any money ring-fenced within TMF or transferred out of TMF should still only be spent on TMF's two stated objects.

[Alice Purjorick]

No one knows for sure, but one thing that is for sure is - it's really nobody's business but the McCanns and the Fund's and HMRC or whoever it is that cares about these things.  If it really is a matter of such pressing import then a "sceptic" journo like Natasha Donn or Sonia Poulton should go harangue Clarence until he gives them what they want.

Presumably The Mirror thought it was a public interest story. Unless Tracy Kandohlar(?) went UDI.

[Carana]

And if the SY investigation was closed prematurely what then ?

BTW where is the evidence of the movement of any such money in the accounts ?

What was the original title of this thread and who started it?