Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:33 pm  

1315trinity wrote:

On the other hand, if by some reason the sale does become void we might get the chance to purchase it again at the true price!

Lets hope there's no advice suggesting we stay out of the bidding to allow a "White Knight" to step in and help.

Re: Manni Hussain : Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:29 pm  

Crickey, sounds like he is in a pickle.

Scroll down to point 102 for the interesting stuff.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:27 am  

1315trinity wrote:

I do know PT that in Criminal Law, the true 'owner' of property remains such, even if the property is stolen and sold on to an innocent purchaser.
Motor vehicle thefts are rife with such purchases and if the vehicle is recovered it is usually removed from the innocent purchaser and returned to the true owner.

In the case of land though, surely deeds provide proof of ownership? and I would have thought the sale to Manni from the BOI and subsequently to WT would have been handled by a solicitor?

On the other hand, if by some reason the sale does become void we might get the chance to purchase it again at the true price!

Yeah, because if you think about it logically, if the sale is voided, someone ends up with an asset they don't want anymore, taken from the people who do want it.

What the enquiry will really involve re Belle Vue is where he got the money from to buy it, and it is likely to help him slightly, as the profit he made will explain away some of his assets.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:34 am  

Dunkirk Spirit wrote:

Just browsing through the court documents. Amongst all the properties registered or connected to Mr Hussain. Is this one, I wonder if any part of Belle Vue land.

iv) freehold property consisting of land on the south side of Doncaster Road, Wakefield, registered at the Land Registry under Title No WYK912235, the registered owner of which is Jayco88 Limited, despite that company having been dissolved by voluntary strike-off on 20 March 2018;

You can do a "detailed search" on the Land Registry site and get the title plan for £3. I'm too tight to pay it, but it's there. More likely to be the Superbowl site than Belle Vue.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:08 pm  

1315trinity wrote:

I do know PT that in Criminal Law, the true 'owner' of property remains such, even if the property is stolen and sold on to an innocent purchaser.
Motor vehicle thefts are rife with such purchases and if the vehicle is recovered it is usually removed from the innocent purchaser and returned to the true owner.

In the case of land though, surely deeds provide proof of ownership? and I would have thought the sale to Manni from the BOI and subsequently to WT would have been handled by a solicitor?

On the other hand, if by some reason the sale does become void we might get the chance to purchase it again at the true price!

Its a massive grey area and often comes down to a judge making a call on whether original owner still retains title or has lost it.
Massively frustrating at company i work for.
As an example we have title to an asset,that has been rented by another party,the other party has "sold" the asset (which he wasn't legally entitled to do).
The asset in a short space of time has passed through 3/4 people and ended up being purchased by an innocent party.
Now you would think the sensible outcome is that the asset is returned to its rightful owner.Very rarely the case,if innocent purchaser convinces/proofs to judge they were a victim we lose title to asset.So even though we were the rightful owners of that £300k asset,we can't get it back and instead have to pursue the original renter who has effectively stolen our property.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:16 pm  

Just for once it would be nice for Wakey if everything was straightforward and simple and we were not associated with the financial skullduggery of others (Slightly understated use of words if the charges are proved).
However I do believe the current board acted in the best interest of the club.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:39 pm  

TURFEDOUT wrote:

Its a massive grey area and often comes down to a judge making a call on whether original owner still retains title or has lost it.
Massively frustrating at company i work for.
As an example we have title to an asset,that has been rented by another party,the other party has "sold" the asset (which he wasn't legally entitled to do).
The asset in a short space of time has passed through 3/4 people and ended up being purchased by an innocent party.
Now you would think the sensible outcome is that the asset is returned to its rightful owner.Very rarely the case,if innocent purchaser convinces/proofs to judge they were a victim we lose title to asset.So even though we were the rightful owners of that £300k asset,we can't get it back and instead have to pursue the original renter who has effectively stolen our property.

Thanks. Know very little about property laws but I should have known nothing can be taken for granted!

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:51 pm  

TURFEDOUT wrote:

Its a massive grey area and often comes down to a judge making a call on whether original owner still retains title or has lost it.
Massively frustrating at company i work for.
As an example we have title to an asset,that has been rented by another party,the other party has "sold" the asset (which he wasn't legally entitled to do).
The asset in a short space of time has passed through 3/4 people and ended up being purchased by an innocent party.
Now you would think the sensible outcome is that the asset is returned to its rightful owner.Very rarely the case,if innocent purchaser convinces/proofs to judge they were a victim we lose title to asset.So even though we were the rightful owners of that £300k asset,we can't get it back and instead have to pursue the original renter who has effectively stolen our property.

This not a straight forward decision on who owns a property this is under the Proceeds of Crime Act. In essence the investigation is to identify that assets have been obtained through or linked ro criminality without going into detail as this is a live investigation it's going to be very interesting to see what comes out in relation to the source of the funds used to buy BV by the subject of the order and in particular financial declarations made at that time and then of course the sale of BV at a high price in effect creating legitimate funds that transaction will be interesting. The NCA of course are looking at many such issues so it could be a while before anything comes out. There is the possibility that all identified assets involved could be restrained not sure if this is the case but it could be a factor in getting any work done at the ground.

Re: Manni Hussain : Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:42 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

This not a straight forward decision on who owns a property this is under the Proceeds of Crime Act. In essence the investigation is to identify that assets have been obtained through or linked ro criminality without going into detail as this is a live investigation it's going to be very interesting to see what comes out in relation to the source of the funds used to buy BV by the subject of the order and in particular financial declarations made at that time and then of course the sale of BV at a high price in effect creating legitimate funds that transaction will be interesting. The NCA of course are looking at many such issues so it could be a while before anything comes out. There is the possibility that all identified assets involved could be restrained not sure if this is the case but it could be a factor in getting any work done at the ground.

Totally agree,was generalising around issue of title holders actually getting their assets back from innocent purchasers.
The business I'm involved in(just happens to be a target/avenue)for laundering,don't think a week passes without NCA cropping up over some issue,whether it be us reporting or them asking for information.