Madeleine’s Fund: A turn up for the books

Doctors McCanns you’re in legal trouble, oh dearie, dearie me.

It’s in relation to the Madeleine’s Fund.

I am not a bookkeeper (accountant), however, my task is not to add up figures. Rather, my job is to assess whether stated words add up upon examination in practice.

For example, “Madeleine’s Fund – ‘Leaving No Stone Unturned’ is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector“.

This is called “throwing a spanner in the works”…

Definition of Non-Commercial Companies

This policy, mainly extracted from law of Great Britain and Canada, addresses the conditions that an entity must meet to qualify as a non-profit organization for purposes of the non-commercial licensing. When determining whether an entity is a non-profit organization , the entity must meet all of the following conditions:

*

It was organized solely for non-profit purposes.
*

It is in fact operated solely for non-profit purposes.
*

It does not distribute or otherwise make available for the personal benefit of any member any of its income.

In case a group, company or individual does not meet all of the described conditions, it is automatically considered as a profit company, group or individual“.

It does not distribute or otherwise make available for the personal benefit of any member any of its income“.

Is receiving money, for example, to pay off the McCanns mortgage a personal benefit?

I am warming to this task already and I have hardly started 🙂

Update:

“the entity will probably not qualify as a non-profit organization if it is primarily involved, for example, in an activity that is directly connected with the sales of members’ goods or services and for such services receives a fee or commission computed in relation to sales promoted. Such an entity is normally considered to be an extension of the members’ sales organizations and will be considered to be carrying on a normal commercial operation. If the fees and commissions charged are well beyond the needs of the entity and these earnings are accumulated and invested as described below by the entity, this would be another reason why the entity would not qualify as a non-profit organization”.

Welcome To the Madeleine Online Store

My initial feeling is that the McCanns company is a for profit organisation.

Just a thought: If Madeleine is dead, the Fund is dead.

Quick doctor we need to resuscitate Madeleine…

…Surely a case for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO)? I would not want to tread on their size 12 plod feet if they intend to conduct an investigation into the allegations of fraud in relation to the Madeleine Fund. If there is official inaction, it clears the path for a private action.

Advertisements

Tags:

9 Responses to “Madeleine’s Fund: A turn up for the books”

  1. IRONSIDE Says:

    It feels good to have someone who knows the law on Madeleines side. Hows my friend Rocky?

  2. John Hirst Says:

    Ironside: Hi

    I’m just discovering other areas of law. Interesting subject. I wouldn’t have normally started digging in these areas…but I don’t want to leave no stone unturned to find Madeleine justice.

    I suspect that the McCanns and their PR guru and lawyers will find that cooking the books brings too much heat.

    Rocky just came up for some attention just as I read your comment about him.

  3. Spagbolandmayo Says:

    I had to force myself not to vomit on reading this poem – did they pay him to write this?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7081337/Madeleine-McCann-Simon-Armitages-poem-to-mark-1000-days-since-disappearance.html

    This pair are incredible – they’ll make one big mistake too far soon.
    People are getting wise

  4. jennifer Says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization#Non-profit_distinction

    I think it could be ‘interpretation:

    snipped:

    United Kingdom
    In the UK, many non-profit companies are incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. This means that the company does not have shares or shareholders, but it has the benefits of corporate status. This includes limited liability for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. The goals (“objects”) of the company are defined in the Memorandum of Association when the company is formed. The profits of the company (also referred to as the trading surplus) must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.[14]
    Alternatively, non-profit companies may be formed as a Community Interest Company. This is in many ways similar to a Limited Liability Company, but is intended specifically to ensure that the profits and assets of the company are used for public good.
    A charity is a non-profit organisation that meets stricter criteria regarding its purpose and the way in which it makes decisions and reports its finances.[15] For example, a charity is generally not allowed to pay its Trustees. In England and Wales, charities may be registered with the Charity Commission.[16] In Scotland, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator serves the same function. Other organizations which are classified as non-profit organizations elsewhere, such as trade unions, are subject to separate regulations, and are not regarded as “charities” in the technical sense.

  5. jennifer Says:

    I agree, but read the paragraphs.

    “must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.[14]”

    Then read (above that paragraph)

    This includes limited liability for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. (So if you ‘bought’ a house in it’s own name(mortgage) that would also be OK.

    It’s difficult. One of the criteria for the fund was to assist Madeleine’s family, surely you could interpret that as anything. (similar in a way to what happened with the MP’s expenses – they were claiming for stuff that legally they could, but maybe morally it wasn’t very good in a way).

  6. jennifer Says:

    The problem for me was, that in the begining it seemed to be described as a charity, even Justine McGuiness was saying that. Even to this day I truly believe people think it is.

    BUT and this is the truth, it is on the website the objectives of it. So it is like signing a contract, you have to read the small print. That’s the problem.

    Don’t get me wrong I totally disagree with setting up such a fund at the very start (what was it about 10 days after Maddie went missing). To me it was really unecessary. How many people as doctors need a fund to keep going. The police were looking for Maddie no fund was necessary at the start imo. But people did want to help. It’s so difficult with the fund.

  7. Redz85 Says:

    Nice post 🙂

    Thanks for sharing

  8. chris Says:

    this fund should have been frozen untill the mccanns produced congrete evidence that madeleine was abducted

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: