Regarding the Find Madeleine Fund...?

Question

According to www.findmadeleine.com:
"Madeleine’s fund is a non charitable not-for-profit company, which has been established to help find Madeleine McCann and to support her family and bring her abductors to justice. Any surplus funds will be used to help families and missing children in the United Kingdom, Portugal and elsewhere in similar circumstances. If there are surplus funds Madeleine’s Funds can be converted into a charity."

Based on these facts - can anyone explain to me how they think Gerry and kate McCann can possibly profit from this fund? They are not directors of the fund and cannot make decisions on how the money is spent.

Inevitably, some will say they are enjoying an extended holiday at the moment, wasting the money on trips, creches for the other kids... but does it strike you that they can possibly be enjoying this "new-found wealth" because they are always going to be questioned on how the fund is being spent.

Actually Heather, I think you'll find that there ARE laws covering the distribution of funds from a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee when public money is involved.

With respect - the Find Madeleine Fund is always going to have to be a bit more accountable than the local grocers, don't you think? There are regulatory bodies who are going to be on their backs permanently, given the level of public interest. Also the have declared an intention to seek charitable status, which will only come if their previous record is squeaky clean.

littleprofit - I suggest YOU read the question again. "Not-for-profit" is the clue. Declare that, and then make a profit, you will be held accountable.
It is not possible to become a charity as quickly as they set the fund up, hence why it isn't a charity.

justmeagain - whether they are child neglecters or not, this question relates to the Fund. I do not support the McCanns actions as parents, and if there is a criminal case to answer then I hope justice is done. This is a question regarding the money, not everything else.

Ok Heather, can you explain to me how the company is going to get away with "squandering" 900k of public money, when the public are following every penny spent? Its a bit unlikely?

You are missing my point Heather - the whole theme of the question was abt how it would be possible for them to use the money for their own means when the public is following everything as closely as they are, whether the fund is a charity or not.

If that's the case Heather, and you are certain that the company have and will continue to spend the money however they like - just answer yes or no - do you think the public are stupid enough to wear any exploitation?

nora, you say no-one should donate to such a fund - why have millions done so then? Do you not think these millions will want to know the minutae of what their money has gone on?

Answer 1

I've just explained why in the last question you answered.

'Fund' is just in the name of the Limited Company that has been set up. It is in no way a charitable trust and not subject to any of the legistlation charities are.

Legally it could vanish tomorrow and the McCanns need never explain what happened to the money. Morally they would be pretty low to do so but you just don't know....

My previous answer -

Funandgames I'm afraid you are away out. The McCanns can do whatever they like with the money. It is a Limited Company in their name with family members as directors. It can be wrapped up at anytime with no explanations offered and at no point are they under any legal obligation to state where the money has gone.

Morally they are but I don't fancy the chances of that happening.

What you are saying is completly right for a charitable trust of affiliated companies (ie charities that employ people and pay salaries) but at no point had the 'fund' been given charitable status excluding them from all the legistlation you mention.

You can call your own Limited Company whatever you want. I could open one called 'Buy Heather New Shoes Fund' or 'Save the starving babies fund' and either way if people were blind enough to donate into it they would have no right to know what I done with THEIR money as it was mine the minute it cleared in the bank.

The new information on the webstie - http://www.findmadeleine.com/fund/
was not there when the find started and is obviously in response to the criticism received. They are voluntaraly following a code of conduct which in reality means sweet FA.

EDIT

It is the McCanns or whoever is running the 'Fund' that named them a NON CHARITABLE not for profit organisation which is fine. But they are Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited: Company Registration Number - 6248215. Registerd the same as the local grocers round the corner. If you went in and started handing him fivers and he put them in the bank he wouldn't have to tell you what he done with them.

Wrong again I'm afraid - legally and technically there is no difference. Morally yes but that is the only obligation on them. Exactly who do you think is going to be monitering them? The Charities Commision has absoloutly nothing to do with them becuase it isn't a charity and has had to declare itself as a Limited Company from day one, albeit in very small writing after the *We're now accepting paypal* banner.

It was DENIED charitable status becuase a charity acts for the greater good of all, not one.

I give up, you are completly missing my point. The money in that account now is the Companies, not the publics becuase many gulliable members of the PUBLIC GAVE money to the COMPANY. Technically the company can do as it pleases with it.

I can't simplify the situaiton any more.

It would appear that a large chunk of the money has already been spent on lawyers and trips away for Gerry - we don't know how much and we never will and don't have any right to know. If you are keeping an eye on how they spend their money you aren't doing a very good job. But then again the Fund isn't accountable to anyone other than the directors it employs so your agrument is a non starter.

I don't know how the company has spent the money, no one here does for sure and no one has the right to know - that is the whole point.

And that was the hardest 2 points I've ever earnt!

Answer 2

If you had been following the fund, you would know that the information you are now showing from the site is very new - there was no such waffle earlier in the campaign, and the paypal signs were much more prominent...

The point is the McCann's can and are profiting hugely from the fund, quite legally, as one of the articles states that one of the purposes of the fund is to assist the McCann's financially, i.e. they are the beneficiaries of the fund. What else do you call that if not profiting? Worse again, because it's a non-profit outfit, they can apply for tax exemption for the total amount raised!
And purleese- they aren't directors, so can't decide on how the money is spent??? Have you seen the list of buddies that ARE the directors? You can't seriously think that Gerry isn't controlling exactly how the money will be spent...

By the way, not for profit companies CAN have profits, they just have to be careful about how much income they generate- hence £2 per wristband in the online store (I still can't say that without gagging) - but legally and ethically they are allowed to trade at a profit.

If they donate all the money they received to charity, and provide an itemised and transparent list of search-related expenditure, I'll eat my hat, and be glad to do it.

Answer 3

The reader comments in this text say all of it. What little public help the McCanns have left is evaporating before their eyes. As for Esther McVey, she is merely behaving genuine to style. She became between the 1st to leap directly to the McCann bandwagon (she re-sat her A ranges on a similar crammer college as Kate McCann), and now she desires to leap off it so as to maintain her political and media occupation.

Answer 4

Apparently they can profit from a limited company which this 'fund' actually is.

It was denied charitable status.

They and other members of their family can profit quite significantly as they are directors and as such are entitled to a salary etc.
One of the main objectives of this limited company (as you have written) is to 'financially support the family'.

You have stated: 'Madeleine's fund is a NON charitable not for profit COMPANY'

I would suggest you read your own question again - the answer lies within.

Answer 5

The McCanns are doctors, which means they can practice their craft anywhere.

Free money, regardless of the strings attached, is unearned cash. You stated that it was to 'find Madeline McCann and support her family' and I think that says it all.

Nobody should donate to such a fund. Of all the missing children in the world, one that had already been abandoned by her parents in a ground-floor room with immediate access to the seaside should be given a burial at sea ceremony . The child likely wandered out looking for her parents and drowned in the ocean. The parents should be taken in for arraignment instead of creating these self-aggrandizing distractions. All else is futile nonsense, including collecting money and spending it in any way at all.

Answer 6

you are quoting from the findmadeleine.com statement, it is a statement, it is not neccessarily a factual statement. Check with the register of directors on the companies register, and see who the directors are, and those directors can spend the money.

let us know when you have some facts about the fund, and not just what the statement says.

Answer 7

I doubt that people would have given so willingly if they had known the fund was not a charitable trust.

Answer 8

Who cares about the Cans--let go of it, it's over, get a life--there's more important news in the world.

Answer 9

'profit' is a tricky concept. how do you think so many companies lessen their tax liabilities. By making out they have less profit than they do. how many expenses and salaries do you think will come out of the fund, to lessen the 'profit' in the accounts??

Answer 10

I think it suits the McCann bashers to present the fund as the "Kate & Gerry get-rich-quick scheme" despite all contrary evidence (or the demands of reason, come to that). Thus, all facts that tend to contradict that view are glossed over and any morsel that can be twisted to suit the "anti-" agenda is magnified and repeated. I'm not persuaded.

I don't see them "enjoying" the money at all, not because they will have to explain how it is spent but because it has been raised to find their missing daughter. They're not having any fun and anyone who says they are is just being malicious, in my view.

I have a feeling that CT(original) has misunderstood you.