HMRC’s involvement is expected to be triggered by Mr Gribkowsky’s suggestions
Mr Ecclestone is too closely connected to his offshore family trust,
Bambino. Under UK law, if it were proved Mr Ecclestone controlled the family
trust he could be liable to pay UK tax on its income.
Mr Ecclestone told The Sunday Telegraph the money was paid to Mr
Gribkowsky to avoid risking a ruling against him by the UK tax authorities.
“Paying £8m is cheap compared to what it could have been — £2bn, or more,”
said Mr Ecclestone, adding: “The money was paid because there was this new
thing going on with tax people, who could have turned around and said we think
you owe us this money. That process could have taken two to three years. And
they find a way to make you pay.”
Mr Ecclestone’s lawyer, Sven Thomas, said a 200-page legal submission made
ahead of Wednesday’s testimony makes clear the payment was not a bribe. “You
could say Bernie has been the victim here. There was a hidden threat,
pressure — a sort of shakedown,” says Mr Thomas.
“Bambino wanted to ensure Bernie would continue as CEO because they believed
if he didn’t, the value of their assets would come down. That is why
separately they also paid Mr Gribkowsky,” said Mr Thomas.
Mr Ecclestone says: “If I was seen to be running the trust then they could
have made me pay.”
State-backed bank BayernLB, where Mr Gribkowsky had been the chief risk
officer, was a former creditor of F1. But in 2002, the bank took a 47.2pc
stake in F1 after KirchMedia, one of its former owners, collapsed.
In addition to the $44m alleged bribe, the case is also looking at a $41.4m
commission paid to Mr Ecclestone from the bank, which prosecutors suggest is
suspicious.
However, Mr Thomas says Wednesday’s court appearance will explain this
represents a 5pc payment in exchange for warranties and guarantees given to
CVC about the health of F1’s balance sheet. Mr Ecclestone was liable for up
to $100m because BayernLB was not prepared to be, says Mr Thomas. The $41.4m
included a retention payment to keep Mr Ecclestone as CEO while scrapping a
clause that effectively meant he could never be fired.
However, the 5pc commission rate suggests the sale price of F1 may have been
closer to $828m rather than a suggested $1.6bn. This lower valuation is at
the heart of the civil case against Mr Ecclestone in the High Court.
A former part-owner of F1, German-listed Constantin Medien, claims the F1 sale
was undervalued due to a conspiracy involving Mr Ecclestone and Mr
Gribkowsky. Constantin says it had an agreement with BayernLB that it would
net it 10pc of the value of the sale to CVC if the price exceeded $1bn,
which it claims it didn’t.
Mr Ecclestone strongly denies the accusation, asking: “Do you know the
reputation of the people involved in the case?”
Keith Oliver, partner at Peters Peters, the City law firm representing
Constantin Medien, declined to comment.
An HMRC spokesman said: “HMRC cannot comment on individual cases but we use
information from a very wide range of sources to ensure everyone pays the
right tax under the law.”