Return to Main Page

44. Only 13% of the McCanns’ Find Madeleine Fund has been spent on searching for Madeleine. The Fund is a private company, not a charity. Much of it has been used on the McCanns’ legal expenses.

Verdict - False and Misleading.

Source - Media reports and Internet forums.

Summary of Verifiable Facts

1. The figure of 13% corresponds roughly to the percentage of the total income in the first year which was spent on detective search fees.
2. It does not take account of the fact that the total expenditure for the first year was a fraction of the total income.
3. It does not take account of other methods of conducting a missing person's campaign, such as distributing awareness posters, merchandising and information via the website which generated 97 million hits in two weeks!

Discussion

As with the MMRG's other “facts”, there is no source for this claim.  However, it is believed to be the detailed accounts of the fund's expenses for its first financial year 2007-08.  These were published in a Daily Mail article dated 29th January 2009 and on the website called Pamalam.  The figure is often quoted on anti-McCann Internet forums.

Let’s look at the MMRG's “FACT” in more detail. There are three statements in it.

1. Only 13% of the McCann’s Find Madeleine Fund has been spent on searching for Madeleine.
2. The fund is a private company, not a charity.
3. Much of it has been used on the McCanns’ legal expenses.

1) Only 13% of the McCann’s Find Madeleine Fund has been spent on searching for Madeleine

As with all company accounts, the Madeleine Fund accounts are published each year as a legal requirement and these have been uploaded on to the Internet. There are currently three years’ accounts published (2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10), however, only one (2007-08) includes detailed accounts.

Now with regard to the 13% claim.  Percentages do not constitute any part of the accounts, therefore, this figure must have been calculated by the person making the claim.

In the detailed accounts of 2007-08, there is an entry called “Search fees including private detectives” and the sum is a round £250,000. The only figure this comes close to being 13% of is the “Total Income” figure which is £1,879,602. The McCanns' total expenditure for that year was less than one third of their total income.

What constitutes "Searching for Madeleine?"

Assuming that the claim of 13% HAS been calculated from the £250,000 as a percentage of the Fund's "Total Income", then the MMRG’s 13% claim covers the cost of the detectives but completely disregards the £118,975 which funded the website, posters and adverts.  It also disregards a further £39,982 which was spent on producing and distributing Find Madeleine merchandise.  These are essential activities which reap valuable dividends in raising awareness and soliciting further donations.

For example, Gerry McCann posted on his blog Website Update at 19:18PM on 19th of May 2007 97 Million hits! Does the MMRG assert that running a website which generates 97 million hits in two weeks is NOT contributing to the search for a missing child?  Does the MMRG assert that distributing awareness posters and campaign merchandise is NOT contributing to the search for a missing child?

The Sums

If you take the £250,000 + £118,975 + £39,682 in combination (£408,957) and as a percentage of the total expenditure for the year (rather than total income), then it constitutes 50.17%, not 13% . The remainder of the expenditure comprising 49.82% was used to cover unavoidable expenses such as professional fees for the campaign, overheads, bank fees, insurance and legal fees (see point 3). As one of their prominent members is a former solicitor, the MMRG should be aware of the initial set up costs of a new company as well as the necessity for legal advice and auditing - all of which the Fund had to pay.

Verdict - False

2) That the Madeleine Fund was set up as a company rather than a charity

This is true, but there was no choice in this because of the legal requirements for charitable status. As the Fund was established for the search of one missing child, it did not meet the requirements for charitable status. The MMRG member who is a former solicitor should be aware of this fact.

What is a Charity?

The following definition is from the Charity Commission website:-

Quote:

Verdict-True, but in no way leads to any suspicion of the McCann's actions. 

3) Much of the Fund has been used on the McCanns’ legal expenses.

This is very misleading.  It is true that substantial sums of money were spent on legal expenses, but the detailed accounts of 2007-08 specifically point out that these were NOT the McCanns’ legal expenses but rather for the FUND’s legal expenses. Of all people, the MMRG member who is a qualified solicitor should be aware of the necessity for legal requirements involved in setting up a company (or indeed a charity).

The following are the appropriate entries for the 2007-08 detailed accounts:-

Quote:

Statement from Clarence Mitchell TV Interview - Primary Source (starts at 5.45)

Quote:

Verdict-Misleading.

Additional Notes

Letter from Cater Ruck to the Secretary of the "Madeleine Foundation"

In a letter to the secretary of the "Madeleine Foundation" from Carter Ruck dated 3rd August 2010, they say:-

Quote:

This letter can be found on the "Madeleine Foundation" website under the "Newsletters" link.

McCann Benefactors

We also know this Times Online article that Richard Branson contributed £100,000 to their legal costs:-

Conclusion

With regard to the McCann's ongoing legal expenditure, it is sad that parents trying to find their missing child have enough with which to contend without having to take legal action against the vexatious slurs and defamations of people who base their slurs on tabloid misinformation and Internet gossip. It should be noted that the McCanns have only taken action where these have threatened to hamper the search for their missing daughter.

If the Madeleine McCann Research Group have any evidence to the contrary then the legal burden is upon them to produce it instead of making defamatory claims.