[jet]

It says the money was counted by 2 trusted courtiers before a person from Coutts bank collected it to deposit.

[Candy Annie Cane]

Originally Posted by jet

It says the money was counted by 2 trusted courtiers before a person from Coutts bank collected it to deposit.

Doesn't mean nothing was trimmed from it. Its wasn't declared through the proper channels, why is that?

I don't think Charles has his fingers in the till but definitely looks underhand, particularly being cash and the way it was passed. Its odd.

Obviously any money to charity is welcomed but it must be accounted for properly, otherwise it just seems underhand and seedy.

[jet]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Doesn't mean nothing was trimmed from it. Its wasn't declared through the proper channels, why is that?

I don't think Charles has his fingers in the till but definitely looks underhand, particularly being cash and the way it was passed. Its odd.

Obviously any money to charity is welcomed but it must be accounted for properly, otherwise it just seems underhand and seedy.

https://inews.co.uk/news/prince-char...se-row-1713735

……“[The money] was passed immediately to his charities and it was his charities who decided to accept the money – that is a decision for them. And they did so, and as they confirmed, it followed all the right processes, and the auditors looked at it.


“The Prince of Wales operates on advice. Situations, contexts change over the years.”
Clarence House said it had received assurances from the prince’s charity that the donations, first reported by The Sunday Times, had been the subject of “all the correct processes”.

In a statement, it said: “Charitable donations received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim were passed immediately to one of the prince’s charities, who carried out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were followed.
……..
It is said Charles will never again accept cash donations, (which was not illegal) and hasn’t for some years, lessons have been learned, so it’s a bit like beating a dead donkey. If it surfaces that there was indeed dodgy dealings going on, with Charles's knowledge, then that would be a different matter.

[jet]

When it comes to Charles, my take is that the Queen is an almost impossible act to follow, she was 'perfect' really. Charles hasn't been perfect, like most of us aren't. But he has done wonderful work for his charities, and while I'm not a particular fan and never have been, he deserves his chance even if he has made mistakes in the past. Haven't we all, without the spotlight always on our every move.

[bots]

that still doesn't mean that the whole thing wasn't dodgy. Passed immediately to the charities. Were they present when the money was given to the prince or were they in a completely different continent. The auditors just verify what they have been told, so again that means nothing

Money laundering has been banned in the UK for decades

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that still doesn't mean that the whole thing wasn't dodgy. Passed immediately to the charities. Were they present when the money was given to the prince or were they in a completely different continent. The auditors just verify what they have been told, so again that means nothing

Money laundering has been banned in the UK for decades

I admit I'm ignorant about money laundering and such, haven't a clue.