Madeleine Fund end of year accounts 2016-2017 delayed.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Please provide evidence that the McCanns asked for donations from the public for the purpose of starting a fund  before any donations from the public had been received.     If there is no such evidence - then it's obvious IMO that it was the donations being received and offered by the public which resulted in the McCanns starting a fund in order to deal with that money.   IMO they had no idea until they were told that people were making donations and others were enquiring how to do that.

With regard to Amaral's fund.      I have merely expressed the difficulty I have in understanding why the decision not to publicise his accounts was taken.   Claiming that it was because they were not obliged to by law is hardly an adequate explanation IMO.

AIMHO

It is adequate in the sense that the Amaral fund stated what the  money was going to be used for- just what it says on the tin.  Let us not forget he is the injured party here,with no funds to defend himself against a couple who made an absolute fortune out of the sad situation they created by neglecting their children. And used that money to pursue him for more money AND make him suffer!

Who needs to know about the account- the people running it would soon shout out if something was a miss as unlike the McCann Fund where ALL the people looking after the money are friends and family  AND guess what  the parents.

A bit rich to state all will be transparent then hide things... why would that be do you think? I would suggest it would enrage people to know their money was not being use d to 'search for Madeliene Beth McCann, but paid for lawyers, pr gurus media consultants and staying in 5 star hotels -not looking for Maddie at all- just visiting lawyers.

[Alice Purjorick]

It is adequate in the sense that the Amaral fund stated what the  money was going to be used for- just what it says on the tin. Let us not forget he is the injured party here,with no funds to defend himself against a couple who made an absolute fortune out of the sad situation they created by neglecting their children. And used that money to pursue him for more money AND make him suffer!

Who needs to know about the account- the people running it would soon shout out if something was a miss as unlike the McCann Fund where ALL the people looking after the money are friends and family  AND guess what  the parents.

A bit rich to state all will be transparent then hide things... why would that be do you think? I would suggest it would enrage people to know their money was not being use d to 'search for Madeliene Beth McCann, but paid for lawyers, pr gurus media consultants and staying in 5 star hotels -not looking for Maddie at all- just visiting lawyers.

About 54 grand was raised by crowd funding in UK.
So what do the regulations say about publishing crowd funding accounts if anything?

1) Donation-based crowdfunding e.g. You Caring
This structure is best for social benevolent enterprises with investors pledging money without expecting anything in return.
2)  Donation and reward-based platforms are usually outside the scope of authorisation, although issues can arise depending on how payments are processed (see Payment Processing section below) or if any reward offered starts to look like a return on investment (for example, a profit share from a successful creative enterprise).
3) [Payment]This is a complex area and due to the effect of the PSR, CFP operators often opt to use third party online processing providers (like WePay, PayPal and Stripe) to process payments on their behalf.

https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_crowdfunding.html

The situation with The Foundation is simple. Since the first year accounts it has published the bare minimum required by law. There are some really clever convoluted bits about it though.

[Miss Taken Identity]

About 54 grand was raised by crowd funding in UK.
So what do the regulations say about publishing crowd funding accounts if anything?

1) Donation-based crowdfunding e.g. You Caring
This structure is best for social benevolent enterprises with investors pledging money without expecting anything in return.
2)  Donation and reward-based platforms are usually outside the scope of authorisation, although issues can arise depending on how payments are processed (see Payment Processing section below) or if any reward offered starts to look like a return on investment (for example, a profit share from a successful creative enterprise).
3) [Payment]This is a complex area and due to the effect of the PSR, CFP operators often opt to use third party online processing providers (like WePay, PayPal and Stripe) to process payments on their behalf.

https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article_crowdfunding.html

The situation with The Foundation is simple. Since the first year accounts it has published the bare minimum required by law. There are some really clever convoluted bits about it though.

Thank you Alice.... Looking at the type in bold...

[John]

Can you give any indication at all exactly where and how perusal of the 'End of Year Accounts' will contribute to solving Madeleine's case?

It has nothing to do with solving the case but everything to do with the McCann's credibility and accountability.

Both the Madeleine Fund and the Amaral Defence Fund should have made public what the funds have been spent on, it does neither of them any favours by avoiding doing so imo.  Their refusal to account for every last penny rightly attracts suspicion.

[Lace]

Have you given up on justifying secrecy for one fund while demanding transparency for the other? Good, that was an unsupportable position imo.

They did like collecting boxes though, didn't they?. Wasn't the Ocean Club adorned with them after the Fund was set up?

Well it seems that Amaral's fund can stay secret as it was crowd funding,    can you imagine if the McCann's had done that?     They HAD to set up a fund as there was so much money coming in for them to help them,  that was the only way the public could help search for Madeleine.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Ocean Club was adorned with boxes,   as I said people felt helpless and wanted to help.

In the case of April Jones people felt the same helplessness,   the only thing they could do to help was to give to a fund for the parents.

[Lace]

I can't think of one fund set up for a missing child that has as it's directors the child's parents nor one fund that has been used for litigation, can you ?

The McCann's are two of the directors.

I believe there was a separate fund for litigation.

[jassi]

Do you know the source of funding for this litigation fund?

[Lace]

snipped -   "Fund directors have decided not to pay for Kate and Gerry's legal defence costs," said Esther. "We stress that the family has not asked for these costs to be paid, however, people have already called in offering their financial support.

[Lace]

Do you know the source of funding for this litigation fund?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm

[jassi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7008872.stm

Thanks. That's way back in 2007 though. No mention of him at all these days, nor of Branson, another one time supporter.

Wasn't it Mitchell who was claiming that their loss in the Portuguese courts would empty the search fund ?
No mention of a separate fund then.

[Lace]

Thanks. That's way back in 2007 though. No mention of him at all these days, nor of Branson, another one time supporter.

Wasn't it Mitchell who was claiming that their loss in the Portuguese courts would empty the search fund ?
No mention of a separate fund then.
[/quote

2009 Clarence Mitchell -


I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.
 

[faithlilly]

Well it seems that Amaral's fund can stay secret as it was crowd funding,    can you imagine if the McCann's had done that?     They HAD to set up a fund as there was so much money coming in for them to help them,  that was the only way the public could help search for Madeleine.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Ocean Club was adorned with boxes,   as I said people felt helpless and wanted to help.

In the case of April Jones people felt the same helplessness,   the only thing they could do to help was to give to a fund for the parents.

April Jones fund was set up as a charity with her parents playing no part in how the money was distributed. At the time the OFM fund was set up there was a police investigation in full swing which could have borne fruit. There was no need for the McCanns to 'search' for Madeleine. There was no reason to set the fund up as a business. The Charity Commission were willing to work with the McCanns to enable the fund to be given charitable status but interestingly the offer was never taken up.  All the stranger when you consider that the fund could have added 25p for every £1 donated by U.K. tax payers, a tidy amount.

[Mr Gray]

April Jones fund was set up as a charity with her parents playing no part in how the money was distributed. At the time the OFM fund was set up there was a police investigation in full swing which could have borne fruit. There was no need for the McCanns to 'search' for Madeleine. There was no reason to set the fund up as a business. The Charity Commission were willing to work with the McCanns to enable the fund to be given charitable status but interestingly the offer was never taken up.  All the stranger when you consider that the fund could have added 25p for every £1 donated by U.K. tax payers, a tidy amount.

the fund could not be set up as a charity as it was for the benefit of only one person...what you are saying is untrue....you have no idea of ny discussion between the fund and the charity commission so that part of your post is pure invention

[faithlilly]

the fund could not be set up as a charity as it was for the benefit of only one person...what you are saying is untrue....you have no idea of ny discussion between the fund and the charity commission so that part of your post is pure invention

When the fund was set up there was a full scale police investigation in progress and therefore no need for the McCanns to fund a search. There really was no need to set up the fund for one person.

[Eleanor]

We are getting far too much Opinion as Fact.  I will have to delete if it doesn't stop.