Bernie troubles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

It's rare that a person can settle out of court if there is any strong case against them. Knowing BE has money, it would cost huge amounts to take his case to trial, at the risk of no recovery of money if he isn't proven guilty. Likewise Bernie knows being tied up in courts all costs him a great amount of money, time, frustrations, etc.

If you got charged with a traffic ticket for a minor offense would you waste countless time proving your innocence, or pay the small fine the way many people do? Being someone with a lot of money, Bernie's life is a lot easier just settling things out of court. He doesn't have much time left to spend his billions as it is, why waste some of that time?

---

Settling out of court is something you do if you're being sued. Bernie wasn't being sued, he was being tried for a criminal offence. A criminal offence for which the penalty would be years in prison, not a fine. I'm amazed to learn that a civilised country allows this kind of "settling out of court" for criminal trials.

Well 'realpolitik' is a German invented concept, after all ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

Settling out of court is something you do if you're being sued. Bernie wasn't being sued, he was being tried for a criminal offence. A criminal offence for which the penalty would be years in prison, not a fine. I'm amazed to learn that a civilised country allows this kind of "settling out of court" for criminal trials.

---

It was settled in court by the court, not out of court, as the court found the case was way too sloppy to get anywhere soon. A case of 100 mill in hand versus millions in the bush...

A lady on the radio summed it up nicely for me yesterday; Bernie paying his way out of a bribery conviction is akin to an arsonist getting off by burning the court down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

Settling out of court is something you do if you're being sued. Bernie wasn't being sued, he was being tried for a criminal offence. A criminal offence for which the penalty would be years in prison, not a fine. I'm amazed to learn that a civilised country allows this kind of "settling out of court" for criminal trials.

---

could not have said it better myself.
excellent post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

It was settled in court by the court, not out of court, as the court found the case was way too sloppy to get anywhere soon. A case of 100 mill in hand versus millions in the bush...

---

wrong
if he was convicted, all the money in the world would not have mattered
this was not a civil suit, and the penalty for conviction was not a monetary fine
it was jail.
occasionally rich people do go to jail (usually club fed) when they are found guilty of criminal conduct, such as bribery, stealing money, severe tax evasion, and other nefarious crimes.
and for as corrupt and rigged as the US justice system is, at least they don't have the option to walk into court, pay a sum of money and be home in time for a fancy dinner and the private jet to st. tropez.

Not entirely right ;)
the court maybe thought the chances of an 84 year old being convicted on such flimsy evidence in his lifetime were pretty low.
ze law is ze law
ask Uli Hoeness if rich people can just walk into Bavarian courts and buy themselves out...

other than that, I obviously also think it's a disgrace. But I have seen much worse :)

If the evidence was good enough to convict Gribkowsky for receiving the bribe, how is it now too flimsy to convict Ecclestone for paying it? Bernie himself has admitted he gave Gribkowsky the money, so that part of it is surely not in dispute.

As I understand it , Gribowski came to court originally trying to screw Bernie to save his own skin and got sentenced to eight and a half years .
When he came to Bernie's trial , he became forgetful , trying to save Bernie's skin , as that would have had his trial revisited .

But , alas , Bernie , with some of the main evidence forgotten , was still a man with the means to give the court a way to end the trial completely , and so he did .

Gribowski's ethics regarding this change of heart tells a lot about his character , and somewhat reinforces the claim that Bernie made him being an extortionist .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

If the evidence was good enough to convict Gribkowsky for receiving the bribe, how is it now too flimsy to convict Ecclestone for paying it? Bernie himself has admitted he gave Gribkowsky the money, so that part of it is surely not in dispute.

---

In dispute was whether Bernie knew he was a public servant or not. Try proving that with two potential amnesiacs as your only source of proof.
And the possibility that gribkowsky would also have to be let off, if the case against Bernie went the wrong way, apparently also played a part in the willingness to settle...