German Court fines FA over 2026 World Cup-related payment
FRANKFURT, Germany, June 25 (Reuters) - A German Court on Wednesday fined the German Football Association (DFB) just over 100,000 euros in relation to a World Cup 2006-related payment which had been at the heart of a years-long scandal that tarnished the reputation of the tournament.
The DFB said it took note of Frankfurt Regional Court's decision on Wednesday, adding that an appeal was possible but it would first study the written verdict once published.
The case regarding a payment of 6.7 million euros ($7.8 million) made two decades ago damaged the image of the global showpiece event held in Germany.
At the heart of the case that dragged through the legal system and involved several other separate investigations is the payment linked to a 2006 World Cup-related event that never took place.
The tax return included a 6.7 million euro payment from the DFB to world soccer's governing body FIFA for the 2006 World Cup, although the funds were actually used for another purpose and should not have been offset against tax, prosecutors had said.
"According to the ruling, the court assumes that the DFB fully declared and taxed its income from the 2006 World Cup. However, it believes that the 6.7 million euros should have been deducted for tax purposes in 2002, not in 2006," the DFB said in a statement.
"The Regional Court imposed a fine of 130,000 euros on the DFB because it ruled in isolation on the year 2006 and did not take into account the excessive tax paid for 2002," the DFB said.
"The DFB only has to pay 110,000 euros because the court deducted 20,000 euros due to the excessive length of the proceedings.
In April, the same court had discharged former DFB President Theo Zwanziger after ordering him to pay a 10,000-euro fine.
The payment in question had triggered investigations over allegations it had been used as a slush fund to buy votes in favour of Germany's bid to host the 2006 tournament.
A DFB-commissioned investigation in 2016 had said the sum was the return of a loan via FIFA from former Adidas chief Robert Louis-Dreyfus.
The German tax office ordered the DFB in 2017 to pay more than 20 million euros in back taxes related to the year 2006.
The tournament was nicknamed the "summer fairytale" because of the home team's run to the semi-finals, and the sold-out stadiums and outdoor viewing areas across the country which attracted hundreds of thousands of fans.
($1 = 0.8621 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Cristiano Ronaldo 'to sign new contract' after awkward transfer tease falls flat
Cristiano Ronaldo is close to extending his contract with Al Nassr despite the forward claiming his "chapter is over" and FIFA boss Gianni Infantino hinting he could be on the move Cristiano Ronaldo is set to extend his deal with Al Nassr, which will keep him at the Saudi Arabian outfit despite the player himself hinting at a move elsewhere. It is understood that discussions are ongoing over a new contract that could see the five-time Ballon d'Or play on with Al Nassr for another two years, taking him until 2027. The 40-year-old has been at the Middle Eastern club since January 2023 after leaving Manchester United when his contract was terminated. Despite being paid fortunes, with his salary in excess of £100million per year, he's been unable to deliver the title. He scored recently as Al Nassr finished their season with a 3-2 defeat by Al-Fateh to leave them with a third place finish in the Saudi Pro League. His social media activity then hinted at the Portugal icon looking to head elsewhere as he said: "This chapter is over. The story? Still being written. Grateful to all." Many saw that as a subtle goodbye to Al Nassr, who have endured a relatively poor return in terms of silverware since Ronaldo joined. Nevertheless he's now set to remain, despite FIFA president Gianni Infantino also claiming he could be on the move so that he could play in the Club World Cup recently. Al Nassr did not qualified for the tournament, with the only Saudi Arabian representation being Al-Hilal, who recently held Real Madrid to a draw and have been their country's dominant force domestically. Infantino suggested that Ronaldo could put pen to paper with one of the clubs playing at the Club World Cup - albeit that never came to fruiton. 'Ronaldo might play for one of the teams as well at the Club World Cup,' he told IShowSpeed, the American YouTuber and online streamer. 'There are discussions.' He added: 'Yeah, Cristiano Ronaldo might play in the Club World Cup, yeah. There are discussions with some clubs, so if any club is watching and is interested in hiring Ronaldo for the Club World Cup…who knows, who knows.' Ronaldo has scored 99 times in 111 games for Al Nassr but his individual contributions have not led to team success. It has now been five years since he played in a team that won the league title, which takes him back to his Juventus days. His mammoth financial demands and age profile will also have put off a number of suitors despite Ronaldo insisting he has no plans to retire just yet. Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Coin Geek
25 minutes ago
- Coin Geek
SEC accused of fraud on court in explosive filings
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... Embattled digital asset influencer Reggie Middleton has accused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of fabricating evidence and lying to the courts in the regulator's securities case against his company, according to a series of bombshell legal filings. In what the filing calls a 'profound betrayal of the judicial process,' the SEC is accused of fabricating and concealing evidence to secure an asset freeze against Middleton's company Veritaseum—a freeze which ultimately forced Middleton to prematurely settle the case. Middleton, was originally sued by the SEC along with his firm Veritaseum in 2019 over their VERI coin offering, calling it an unregistered securities offering and based on false and misleading statements made to investors. Veritaseum's business accounts were frozen early in the litigation. Following the asset freeze, Middleton and Veritaseum settled with the SEC for $9.5 million in 2019. $7,891,600 of this was disgorged profits, which was then topped up by $582,535 in interest and a $1,000,000 penalty applied to Middleton personally. The court also granted a series of injunctions that practically banished Middleton from the digital asset industry. SEC lied to the court about money transfers That would have been the end of the matter, but now Middleton has asked the court to vacate the 2019 settlement on the basis that the SEC has 'committed fraud on the court through a calculated scheme that undermined judicial integrity.' When it initially took action against Middleton and Veritaseum, the SEC demonstrated the urgency of the case by claiming that Middleton was secretly dissipating investor assets to his personal accounts. According to Middleton's latest filings, this was a complete fabrication. At the freeze hearing following the SEC's initial enforcement action, SEC attorneys pointed to monetary transfers worth $2 million that were made by Middleton to what they said were personal accounts shortly after the SEC issued him with a Wells Notice (which notifies SEC targets of impending enforcement action). Middleton's attorneys said that these transfers were routine and had been occurring every six months for the past 18 months—something Middleton says the SEC knew but chose to dishonorably omit in its submissions to the court. Additionally, they said the accounts were not personal at all, but in the name of the company. Unfortunately for Middleton, the SEC was successful in persuading the Judge, who froze Veritaseum business assets. However, at a subsequent hearing, the SEC made further filings, which included additional evidence that Middleton now says corroborates his story about the payments. This includes a report filed by the SEC's blockchain expert Patrick Doody: buried at the bottom of a sworn statement canvassing VERI trading volumes, Doody admits that he was incorrect to previously characterize the destination accounts for the £2 million ($2.7 million) as belonging to Middleton when in fact the accounts were in the name of Veritaseum LLC. This allegedly never got the chance to come up to court at the time, as Middleton and Veritaseum reached a settlement agreement with the SEC shortly thereafter. According to Middleton's latest filing accusing the SEC of fraud on the court: 'Defendants contend this outcome was coerced by the SEC's misconduct before the Court, which froze Defendant's assets based on a lie, that rendered Defendants unable to afford to be able to proceed with legal fees to continue its fight. In effect, but for the SEC obtaining the asset freeze, Defendants would have been able to defend the allegations and proceed in the normal course of due process.' Further, Middleton accuses the SEC of fraudulently suppressing evidence in the case, including by intimidating witnesses who were willing to provide statements in support of Middleton and Veritsaeum. One Veritaseum community member and Youtuber, Michael Sheahan, was subpoenaed by the SEC after submitting an affidavit in support of Middleton. 'The session turned 'aggressive, abusive and threatening', with threats of felony charges for his support and YouTube activity, halting his public advocacy and costing him channel ownership.' The SEC also attempted to seize Sheahan's devices. Another supporter, Lloyd G. Cupp III, was approached by SEC attorneys and asked to testify against Veritsaeum. Cupp declined and insisted that VERI was a utility token and not a security. Middleton says the SEC then pressured Cupp to reconsider. 'Though not explicitly threatened, this coercion reflected the SEC's dishonourable attempt to shape testimony.' Is it enough to vacate the Middleton-Veritaseum ruling? Under U.S. civil procedure rules, a judgment obtained by fraud on the court can be vacated under Rule 60(d)(3). That wider section describes the court's authority to set aside previous judgments: critically, it says that any such request must be made within a reasonable time and no later than a year after the date of the judgment in order to be considered. However, what Rule60(d)(3) does is specify that nothing in those rules affect the court's ability to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Fraud on the court is a high bar to reach. Though no hard-and-fast definition exists, several U.S. cases have teased out the concept. SEC v ESM Government Securities Inc in 1981 analyzed Rule 60(d)(3) and ruled that for there to be fraud on the court, the misconduct must threaten the integrity of the judicial process itself and not just affect the merits of one party's case. Mere perjury or attorney misconduct is not by itself enough to qualify. U.S. v Buck in 2002 ruled that fraud in the court must include 1) a deliberate scheme to defraud the court, 2) with intention to deceive, and 3) which corrupts the impartial functions of the court. Middleton's latest filing argues that the SEC conducts satisfy all of these requirements. He says the conduct by SEC attorneys was intentional misconduct: they knew at the time of the asset freeze hearing that the destination of the fund transfers was a Veritaseum account rather than a Reggie Middleton account. This was done 'to create a sense of urgency to obtain the relief they desired – the asset freeze.' He also says that the conduct was such that it corrupted judicial integrity: the SEC attorney knew both that the information being presented at the freeze hearing was false and that the Judge was specifically relying on it in making her determination to freeze Veritaseum assets. The filing also points to the witness intimidation. This all pressured the defendants to settle: the frozen funds would have otherwise been used to mount a robust legal defense, but with the funds frozen, Middleton and Vertisaeum suffered fairly severe penalties due to his settlement with the SEC. In addition to the nearly $10 million worth of monetary penalties, he and his companies were barred from participating in virtually any securities-related activities, and Middleton was banned from serving as an officer or director of any securities issuer. Between those prohibitions, Middleton was practically frozen out of the digital asset industry. SEC's response The SEC filed their response to Middleton's motion to vacate last week. First, they deny any such fraud took place. They point out that at the time the Judge granted the asset freeze, she had explicitly noted that there was ongoing uncertainty regarding the distinction between Middleton's personal accounts and Veritaseum accounts and that the parties would have the opportunity to present arguments over this before the expiry of the freeze. There was no further argument, as the defendants chose to settle the case. Secondly, they say that in any case, there is no legal basis to vacate because case law shows that 'relief for fraud on the court is available only where the fraud was not known at the time of settlement or entry of judgment.' Quoting Philips Lighting Co v Schneider , the SEC argues that 'examples of conduct that reaches this high standard include bribery of a judge, jury tampering, or hiring an attorney for the sole purpose of improperly influencing the judge.' In this case, the SEC argues, that standard is clearly not met. Why target Middleton? Assuming all of what Middleton says is true, the SEC's conduct is flagrantly dishonest and appears to have influenced the ultimate course of the enforcement. If true, it does raise the question of why the SEC would go to such lengths to secure a successful outcome in the Veritaseum case. On the one hand, such aggressive pursuit wouldn't be out of the norm for the SEC. Indeed, Middleton's latest filing seems at least partly inspired by another recent case in which the SEC was sanctioned for misleading the court. In SEC v Dig Licensing, the SEC pursued a blockchain project called Debtbox. In attempting to freeze Debtbox assets, the SEC told the court that Debtbox had 1) closed 33 bank accounts in 48 hours, 2) liquidated $720,000 of investor funds, and 3) were moving operations outside of the U.S. to avoid regulators. On that basis, the court granted the freeze. However, after complaints by Debtbox, the court ruled that the SEC's representations to the court were materially false and misleading: in reality, only 13 of DebtBox's bank accounts had been closed and were, in fact, closed by the banks themselves. There was no evidence of the $720,000 withdrawals, and the contention that the company planned to flee the reach of U.S. regulators had been based on a statement taken completely out of context. The court was not impressed: it hit the SEC with sanctions worth $1.8 million. Still, as a target for SEC overreach, Middleton is an interesting one. Middleton is clearly not averse to making powerful enemies: in 2022, his firm sued Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) for $350 million, accusing the exchange of violating a Veritaseum patent for blockchain infrastructure services, specifically 'devices, systems and methods for facilitating low trust and zero trust value transfers.' Coinbase responded by challenging the relevant patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPTO), broadly alleging that the subject matter of the patent was not patentable. The UPTO denied Coinbase's attempt. The Middleton lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed in 2023, suggesting an out-of-court settlement. Indeed, Middleton has been something of a champion of intellectual property protections in the digital asset industry. He went on record to say that BSV is undervalued, pointing to the massive blockchain patent portfolio held by nChain. Middleton would know: he revealed in 2024 that 74% of the patents cited by his company come from nChain: 74% of our patent's cites come from @nChainGlobal – a testament to the prolific nature of nChain's IP program. This makes me think that #BSV may have significantly more value than many are realizing since nChain is stating that BSV users will be licensed through its use. Others… — Reggie Middleton US11196566 US11895246 US12231579 (@ReggieMiddleton) March 6, 2024 Further emphasizing the importance of the IP to the BSV proposition, Middleton said this when asked about the well-publicized delisting attacks aimed at BSV in the past: That shouldn't matter. Which is more valuable, IP packets traded on exchanges or the ownership of the Internet, itself. Prudent investors, owners and operators are best served by keeping their eyes on the prize. — Reggie Middleton US11196566 US11895246 US12231579 (@ReggieMiddleton) March 6, 2024 Depending on how far Middleton's case gets, we may be given more context around the SEC's handling of the case via discovery. For now, the SEC has asked that the request be denied. Watch: Breaking down solutions to blockchain regulation hurdles title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump responds to NATO head's ‘daddy' remark: ‘I think he likes me'
Donald Trump has responded to being called 'daddy' by Nato chief Mark Rutte during a summit in The Hague on Wednesday (25 June). Mr Rutte defended the US president's expletive outburst against Iran and Israel on Tuesday (24 June), where he said both nations 'don't know what the f*** they're doing'. The secretary general excused the rant, saying: 'Daddy has to sometimes use strong language.' Asked by a journalist if he regards his Nato allies as children, Mr Trump laughed and said that Mr Rutte was being 'very affectionate' and thinks that he 'likes him'. He said that his allies 'need a little help at the beginning' but is hopeful that they will be able to defend Europe themselves.
