Ward payment 'was properly agreed fee'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THOMAS WARD, the former Guinness director accused of stealing pounds 5.2m from the company, claimed that a payment made to him for that amount was a fee 'properly agreed and properly earned', a court at the Old Bailey heard yesterday.
Mr Ward was a principal adviser to Ernest Saunders, former chief executive of Guinness, during the takeover bid for Distillers in 1986. He is charged with theft, false accounting and procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, but insists the payment was a success fee.
Michael Dee, a company administrator in Jersey who dealt with Mr Ward's company, Marketing and Acquisitions Consultants, said he had been asked by Mr Ward to submit a pounds 5.2m invoice to Guinness for payment.
'He said this invoice was principally for his services but also for one or two third parties,' Mr Dee told Andrew Trollope QC, for the defence. He said the same explanation was given during a subsequent conversation with William Dwyer, Mr Ward's lawyer.
The phrasing of the invoice had been suggested by Mr Ward but Mr Dee agreed with the defence that it appeared a 'perfectly proper transaction' and there was nothing unusual in the wording.
The court also heard that in February 1987 Mr Dee approached the regulators of company administration in the Channel Islands, after being warned by Mr Ward of possible 'high profile litigation' brought by Guinness.
'So they knew perhaps there was a storm brewing about a large sum of money?' Mr Trollope asked. 'Exactly,' Mr Dee replied. He said he understood at all times that Mr Ward would vigorously dispute any legal action.
The trial continues today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments