VxPoD (219) : PAYING TO WALK FREE?

Bernie Ecclestone is a very rich man. He has an estimated net worth of US 4.8 billion. Highly involved in the management of Formula 1 motor racing, Ecclestone and his various companies "manage the administration, setup and logistics of each Formula One Grand Prix. Ecclestone is also the ex-majority owner of the English football club Queens Park Rangers". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone

Over the past three months, Ecclestone has been the centre of a court case in Germany. As reported by the BBC he was charged with alleged bribery; the courts deciding whether he was guilty of giving a US $45m bribe to a German banker. "Ecclestone allegedly made the payment in order to secure the sale of a stake in the F1 business for a company he favoured." www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/27132906

Now, some three months later the German court has agreed to stop the trial in exchange for the 83 year old Ecclestone making a US $100 million payment.

"The ruling means he walks free from the district court in Munich and can continue running the sport. It also means Mr Ecclestone is found neither guilty nor innocent.
If found guilty, he could have faced a 10-year jail term and the end of his decades-long dominance of motor racing." www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28656050

"Prosecutors said Mr Ecclestone's advanced age and other mitigating circumstances gave grounds to accept the $100m offer."

Watch this short clip for further background and commentary:

So, what are we to make of this ruling?

Under German law, "the legal proviso exists in order to ease the burden on the courts and to deal with cases where reaching a judgment could prove difficult".

Does this then suggest that Ecclestone's alleged crime could be seen by the courts as burdensome, compared to other trials that could be taking place instead? Should it be the case that bribery and corruption should be seen by the courts and society as less serious that other crimes?

Is there an argument that if an alleged crime has taken place then there is a responsibility on the courts to undergo due process, irrespective of what crime has been committed, or the status of the alleged perpetrator?

The BBC reports: "Former Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, of the Liberal FDP party, criticised use of the loophole in the Ecclestone case, saying it was "not just bad taste - it's really insolent". She said it allowed rich people to go free, whereas the less well-heeled could face prison".

But Ecclestone doesn't walk away completely scot- free. He does need to part with US $100million dollars. "Judge Noll ruled that $99m would go to the Bavarian state coffers while $1m would be donated to a children's hospital. The sum is believed to be a record for such a payment."

One could ask what would be achieved by Ecclestone going to jail? Could this large amount of money actually make a difference to the lives of others? Is contributing to saving the lives of others less fortunate, a form of justice?

What is the best way for society to deal with people like Bernie Ecclestone? Should we be adopting more broad forms of criminal justice? Rather than taking way people's freedom is taking away their money an alternative worthy of consideration?

Image: www.grandprix247.com