Boris Becker is JAILED for 2½ years: Judge slams
tennis ace for showing 'no remorse' as she jails him for £700,000 bankruptcy
fraud... before 'humiliated' star's girlfriend blows him a kiss as he's taken
to the cells
Three-time Wimbledon champion and ex-world number one
tennis star was declared bankrupt in 2017
Becker, 54, owed creditors almost £50million over an
unpaid loan of £3million on his estate in Mallorca
Transferred around £390,000 from his business account
to others, including those of his ex-wife Barbara
BBC commentator found guilty on April 8 of four
Insolvency Act offences between June and October 2017
By MARK
DUELL and JAMES FIELDING and HENRY MARTIN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED:
15:46 BST, 29 April 2022 | UPDATED: 21:17 BST, 29 April 2022
Three-time
Wimbledon champion Boris Becker was today jailed for two years and six months
for flouting the terms of his bankruptcy by hiding £2.5million worth of assets
and loans to avoid paying his debts.
The former
world number one tennis player was led to the cells at Southwark Crown Court in
London as his girlfriend Lilian De Carvalho Monteiro blew him a kiss, after he
was blasted by a judge for showing no remorse.
Becker, 54,
was declared bankrupt in June 2017, owing creditors almost £50million over an
unpaid loan of more than £3million on his estate in Mallorca, Spain. The BBC
pundit transferred around £390,000 from his business account to others,
including those of his ex-wife Barbara Becker and estranged wife Sharlely
'Lilly' Becker.
He also
failed to declare his share in a £1million property in his home town of Leimen,
Germany, hid a bank loan of almost £700,000 - worth £1.1million with interest -
and concealed 75,000 shares in a tech firm, valued at £66,000.
Becker -
who got a two-year suspended sentence for tax evasion and attempted tax evasion
worth £1.4million in Germany in 2002 - was found guilty on April 8 of four
Insolvency Act offences between June and October 2017.
Each count
carried a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. This afternoon, Judge
Deborah Taylor sentenced the six-time Grand Slam champion to 30 months'
imprisonment, of which he will serve at least half.
Referring
to Becker's previous conviction, the judge said this afternoon: 'You did not
heed the warning you were given and the chance you were given by the suspended
sentence and that is a significant aggravating factor.'
And she
told father-of-four Becker: 'I take into account what has been described as
your "fall from grace". You have lost your career and reputation and
all of your property as a result of your bankruptcy.
'You have
not shown remorse, acceptance of your guilt and have sought to distance yourself
from your offending and your bankruptcy. While I accept your humiliation as
part of the proceedings, there has been no humility.'
As he was
led away, Becker was red-faced and appeared to struggle with his overnight bag.
His girlfriend Lilian De Carvalho Monteiro blew him a kiss before he
disappeared out of the court to the cells below.
Reacting to
the news, Becker's friend and fellow ex-tennis star Andrew Castle told LBC
today: 'Still reeling from the news this Friday afternoon that Boris Becker -
who's a great mate of mine, I've done many Wimbledon finals for him for the
BBC, I've sat alongside him, I've played with him, I've practised with him,
I've been out with him, I've been drunk with him, he's a good man - he's going
to prison for two and a half years. And I'm, look, I'm shocked because it's
close to me. I'm sad that his life has come to this and I hope he's able to
rebuild on the other side.
'If you
don't pay your creditors, you pay the price. It's the second time this had
happened after what happened in Germany back in 2002. I thought this was a
possibility, but I'm surprised and deeply shocked that I won't be working with
him at Wimbledon this year and that he's going to go to prison. And I feel
sorry for Lilian as well.'
And
Insolvency Service chief executive Dean Beale added: 'Boris Becker's sentence
clearly demonstrates that concealing assets in bankruptcy is a serious offence
for which we will prosecute and bring offenders to justice.'
Becker had
earlier arrived at court with Miss de Carvalho Monteiroa this morning, dressed
smartly in a suit and wearing a Wimbledon tie as he walked up the steps and
into the building while holding hands with her.
He then
entered the dock of the court, while his eldest son came into the courtroom
carrying a large Puma-branded bag, which the tennis star had previously been
seen carrying outside his home.
This
morning, he was seen carrying a green Puma canvas holdall as he stepped out of
his West London home and into a black taxi to head to the court. Earlier in the
day, he also went out to buy a bouquet of flowers.
Yesterday,
Becker spent the day browsing Harrods and visiting an unknown woman in her
council flat. The father-of-four was photographed in Knightsbridge, Paddington
and Notting Hill.
'Humiliated'
Boris Becker has 'nothing' to show for 'glittering' career
Tennis
legend Boris Becker has been left with nothing to show for his 'glittering'
sporting career and will have to rely on charity to survive, his lawyer has
said.
The
three-time Wimbledon Champion, 54, was declared bankrupt in 2017 over a loan
from private bank Arbuthnot Latham against his estate in Mallorca.
His
barrister Jonathan Laidlaw QC said the bank now has the property, which Becker
said was worth about 50 million euros (£42 million) at the height of the
property market.
He said the
six-time grand slam champion will lose any interest he has in any other
property or asset he has.
'This
defendant has lost literally everything and he has already paid an extremely
heavy price both for the mismanagement of his financial affairs, which of
course he has nobody to blame but himself, but also for his offending,' he
said.
'Boris
Becker has literally nothing and there is also nothing to show for what was the
most glittering of sporting careers, and that is correctly termed as nothing
short of a tragedy.'
Mr Laidlaw
said Becker, who after retirement coached current world number one Novak
Djokovic, worked as a TV sports commentator for broadcasters including the BBC,
and acted as a brand ambassador for firms such as Puma, does not have a future.
'His fall
is not simply a fall from grace but amounts to the most public humiliation for
this man,' he said.
'The degree
of his suffering, and it will continue, is punishment that no other bankrupt in
this country is likely to ever experience.
'These
proceedings have destroyed his career entirely and ruined any further prospect
of earning an income. His reputation is in tatters.
'He will
not be able to find work and will have to rely on the charity of others if he
is to survive.'
Wearing a
grey jacket and a baseball cap, he was spotted taking a taxi to a council
estate in Bayswater to visit a woman before emerging 90 minutes later to go
shopping in Harrods – where a guard ushered him in through a side entrance. He
later walked home clutching the Puma holdall.
The
six-time Grand Slam winner now faces losing lucrative contracts with TV
networks around the world, including his job as a BBC pundit at Wimbledon.
On
Wednesday, Becker was embraced by his girlfriend as he took a cigarette break
during a meeting with documentary maker George Chignell in London.
And last
weekend, he was pictured with estranged wife Lilly and their 12-year-old boy in
south London before the father and son met up with Miss de Carvalho Monteiro.
The tennis
star, who lived in Monte Carlo and Switzerland before moving to the UK, had
previously told the court he had 'expensive lifestyle commitments', including a
£22,000-a-month rental house in Wimbledon, South West London.
Becker was
declared bankrupt on June 21, 2017 over an unpaid loan of more than £3million
on his estate in Mallorca. He had been accused of hiding millions of pounds
worth of assets, including two Wimbledon trophies, to avoid paying his debts.
He claimed
he had cooperated with trustees tasked with securing his assets, even offering
up his wedding ring, and had acted on expert advice.
Today,
Rebecca Chalkley, prosecuting, told Southwark Crown Court: 'Looking at the way
the case was put and the route to verdict it is the prosecution submission that
the jury rejected his case that he did not act dishonestly and must have found
that he did'
She
continued: 'None of the money in count four, the money transferred to third
parties, was in sterling £390,000. It is the prosecution case the full amount
is recoverable or should be accounted for and not just the 50 per cent that Mr
Laidlaw submits.
'It is
correct the jury has found the defendant didn't know about the prescribed period,
or they did conclude that the transfer to the other Boris Becker accounts was
not concealments but they did find him guilty on transfer to the third parties
which are these payments.
'The
transfer of all of the payments the jury must have concluded that it was
deliberate and dishonest.
'Applying
the way the case was put, there is a way to see the jury returned the verdicts
they did looking at the difference between the prescribed period and the
bankrupt period, the third parties and to the separate Boris Becker accounts.'
She said
the house in Leimen that has yet to be sold is worth £1.53million.
Ms Chalkley
said: 'The reason the full amount is listed is that he sought to deprive that
amount from the estate and at the moment that has not been returned to the
creditors.
'It will be
available yes, but there is a distinction to be drawn from the money lost, and
in regards to actual money lost is the £390,000 and what was sought to be lost
was the £1.53million.'
The life of former world tennis number 1 Boris Becker
Boris Franz
Becker was born in Leimen, a town in north-west Germany, in 1967.
He began
playing tennis at a young age with fellow tennis star and future world Number 1
Steffi Graf. Both of the pair are credited with making tennis a popular sport
in the country.
Becker
became a part of the German Tennis Federation in 1978 and turned pro in 1984.
A year
later he won Wimbledon at the age of 17 after beating Kevin Curren and became a
crowd favourite, affectionately nicknamed Boom Boom for his powerful ground
strokes.
Becker was
the only unseeded player and first German to do so at the time, as well as the
youngest male to win. The title of the youngest male to win a Grand Slam
tournament was later scooped from him by Michael Chang at the French Open four
years later.
He won
Wimbledon again a year later and in 1989, and was a finalist there in 1988,
1990, 1991, and 1995. He also helped his nation win the coveted Davis Cup in
1988 and 1989 and went on to win the Australian Open in 1991 and 1996.
Becker was
ranked world number one in 1991 following his first Australian Open win.
The tennis
star announced his retirement following a straight sets quarter final defeat
against Pat Rafter in 1999. He went on to become a coach and became head coach
for current world number 1 Novak Djokovic for three years from 2013.
During his
16-year professional tennis career, Becker was a six-time Grand Slam champion
and collected 49 singles titles out of 77 finals.
He married
Barbara Feltus in 1993 and the couple had two children - a son, Noah, who was
born in 1994, and a daughter, Elias, born in 1999.
In December
2000 the couple announced they were separating. A year later, Becker was forced
to concede that he was the father of Russian model Angela Ermakova's daughter
Anna following a High Court battle.
In 2002,
Becker was convicted for tax evasion and attempted tax evasion in Germany.
Seven years
later, he announced he was engaged to Dutch model Sharlely 'Lilly' Kerssenberg.
She gave birth in 2010 to a son, Amadeus. They announced their separation in
2018.
Becker, who
has lived in the UK since 2012, continued to make headlines with reports of
financial trouble after he was declared bankrupt in 2017.
Earlier
this month he was convicted of flouting the terms of the bankruptcy.
Becker was
found guilty of transferring hundreds of thousands of pounds from his business
account and failing to declare a property in his home town of Leimen, Germany.
The BBC
commentator was also convicted of hiding an 825,000 euro (almost £700,000) bank
loan and 75,000 shares in a tech firm.
The
Insolvency Service has confirmed Becker is still an undischarged bankrupt and
will stay that way until October 2031.
The court
was also told today that Becker has 'fallen from grace' and 'will have to rely
on the charity of others to survive'.
He has
suffered 'public humiliation' and has 'no future' following his conviction for
hiding assets from the Insolvency Service, his barrister said.
He added
that his actions were a tragedy, destroying a 'glittering' career and has left
him with 'literally nothing'.
Mitigating
today, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, said: 'I submit, and I hope this is not an
exaggeration, Boris Becker has literally nothing and there is nothing to show
for what was the most glittering of sporting careers.
'That is
nothing short of a tragedy. His fall is not simply a fall from grace but
amounts to the most public of humiliations for this man.
'His degree
of suffering is punishment at a level that no other bankrupt in this country is
likely to experience. So in terms of the defendant's future, in reality there
is not one.
'These
proceedings have destroyed his career, removed any future prospect of him
earning any income and his brand is in tatters. He won't be able to find work
and will have to rely on the charity of others if he is to survive.'
Earlier the
court heard he was in 'desperate financial straits' and chose who to give money
to rather than the trustees in charge of his bankruptcy.
His lawyer
has said that he transferred money to 'settle debts' and 'meet his obligations'
to his ex-wife and estranged wife.
He also
said Becker now has 'nothing' and 'nothing to show for what was the most
glittering of sporting careers'.
The court
heard the original bankruptcy including the British private bank Arbuthnot
Latham was £49,181,724. Excluding the bank, it was £40,067,065. What has been
realised to date is £3.184million.
Mr Laidlaw
QC said: 'He was in desperate financial straits and what in essence he has done
and this is the basis of his culpability.
'He has
exercised his own choice to which creditors to pay choosing or preferring to
pay monies to dependents allowing than allowing the trustees to choose how that
money can be applied.
'That is a
criminal offence, but...this is a very different basis for sentence than has
been contended before.'
He added:
'Would those payments out to others necessarily been disallowed by the trustee
in bankruptcy?
'Against
this background plainly the defendant had to continue to support his ex-wife
and that would have been consistent with the orders of the court.
'He was
estranged from his then-wife and furthermore with the consent of the joint
trustees he had been allowed to continue to work. Almost all of the money falls
into those categories.
'I accept
the point you make, and hope the court would also accept, that it is preference
the defendant is exercising which is plainly not something he should have done
but those payments may have been approved by the trustee in bankruptcy.
'We're not
concerned about the money being spent on a lavish lifestyle or gambling or
something like that.'
Mr Laidlaw
also invited the judge to reject that Becker got a mortgage on a house in order
to stop creditors from seizing it.
He said: 'I
invite you to reject in round terms the loan, the mortgage, was sought with
bankruptcy in mind. That is a submission that must fail.
'The
evidence was the loan was granted on 27 March. That was a month before the
petition was presented and two months before he was served with the petition on
28 May. It couldn't have been a device that the prosecution is suggesting.'
The
three-time Wimbledon champion, 54, was photographed in Knightsbridge,
Paddington and Notting Hill yesterday ahead of today's sentencing for a
£2.5million bankruptcy scam.
Wearing a
grey jacket and a baseball cap, he was spotted taking a taxi to a council
estate in Bayswater, west London, to visit a woman before emerging 90 minutes
later to go shopping in Harrods – where a guard ushered him in through a side
entrance.
On
Wednesday, Becker was embraced by his girlfriend as he took a cigarette break
during a meeting with documentary maker George Chignell in London.
Last
weekend, he was pictured with estranged wife Lilly and their 12-year-old boy in
south London before the father and son met up with his current girlfriend,
Lilian de Carvalho Monteiro.
Mr Laidlaw
said: 'It is about 200,000 euros and not at the much higher figure. Most
importantly however is about the court's assessment of liability. It is the
court's judgement is that has these had been declared of the intention of the
money it is likely this would have been permitted.'
He continued:
'There is no evidence of premeditation of the defendant to commit Insolvency
Act offences. It is in the evidence of the acquittals and it is clear that he
never contemplated to be made bankrupt at all.
'The
reality is the defendant's finances were a mess. They were chaotic. It is not
until mid-July, a month or so into the bankruptcy, that count 4 occurred.
'There is
no evidence of preparation of planning. He told his advisors about Schilling,
the loan, and the shares, and if they had been included in the PIQB
[preliminary information questionnaire for bankruptcy] he would not have found
himself in this court.'
Mr Laidlaw
continued: 'He is not a defendant who brought about his bankruptcy with the
intention of committing fraud. He was desperately seeking, however unrealistic
he may have been, to avoid such event and he hoped to avoid such event.
'The
culpability in our submission comes to this is he made choices to which debts
to pay rather than allowing the joint trustees to make that decision.'
He
concluded his mitigation by saying: 'The defendant has lost literally
everything. He has already paid an extremely heavy price in the mismanagement
of his affairs in which he has no one to blame but himself.
He added:
'Despite [Arbuthnot Latham] having been satisfied the defendant still finds
himself subject to what is essentially an indefinite bankruptcy order.
'He has
already suffered a heavy price due to the mismanagement of his affairs but also
due to this offending. He has or will lose any interest in any other property
or asset he has.'
Becker had
told jurors his $50million (about £38 million) career earnings were swallowed
up by an expensive divorce to his first wife Barbara Becker, child maintenance
payments and 'expensive lifestyle commitments'.
The German
national, who has lived in the UK since 2012, said he was 'shocked' and
'embarrassed' when he was declared bankrupt on June 21 2017 over an unpaid loan
of more than £3million on his estate in Mallorca.
He claimed
he had co-operated with trustees tasked with securing his assets, even offering
up his wedding ring, and relied on the advisers who managed his life.
However,
Becker, who was supported in court by his partner Lilian de Carvalho Monteiro
and eldest son, was found guilty of four charges.
The court
heard Becker received 1.13 million euros (about £950,000) from the sale of a
Mercedes car dealership he owned in Germany, which was paid into a business
account used as a 'piggy bank' for his personal expenses.
Becker was
found guilty of transferring 427,00 euros (£356,000) to nine recipients,
including the accounts of his ex-wife Barbara and estranged wife Sharlely
'Lilly' Becker, the mother of his fourth child.
He was
further convicted of failing to declare a property in his home town of Leimen,
hiding an 825,000 euro (almost £700,000) bank loan on the house as well as
75,000 shares in tech firm Breaking Data Corp.
Becker's
mother Elvira Becker, 86, begged a judge not to send her son to jail, saying
earlier this month that he is 'a decent boy overall', adding: 'I hope my son
doesn't have to go to prison.'
The German
national, who has lived in the UK since 2012, claimed he had co-operated with
trustees tasked with securing his assets, even offering up his wedding ring,
and relied on the advisers who managed his life.
However,
Becker, who was supported in court by his partner Ms de Carvalho Monteiro and
eldest son, was found guilty of four charges under the Insolvency Act by a jury
at Southwark Crown Court on April 8.
They
include removal of property, two counts of failing to disclose estate and
concealing debt.
Judge
Deborah Taylor had released Becker on conditional bail ahead of sentencing
today.
The jury
heard Becker received £950,000 from the sale of a Mercedes car dealership he
owned in Germany, which was paid into a business account.
Prosecutor
Rebecca Chalkley said he used the account as a 'piggy bank' for personal
expenses, including £7,600 on children's school fees, almost £1,000 at Harrods,
and payments made to Ralph Lauren, Porsche, Ocado and a Chelsea children's
club.
He was
found guilty of transferring £356,000 to nine recipients, including the
accounts of his ex-wife Barbara and estranged wife Sharlely 'Lilly' Becker, the
mother of his fourth child.
Becker also
paid £40,000 for an ankle operation at a private clinic and spent £5,000 at a
luxury golf resort in China, the court heard.
He was
convicted of failing to declare a property in his home town of Leimen, hiding
an £700,000 bank loan on the house as well as 75,000 shares in tech firm
Breaking Data Corp.
The 54-year-old commentator was declared bankrupt in
June 2017 after borrowing around £3.5 million from private bank Arbuthnot
Latham for this property in Mallorca
Becker was cleared of all other charges including
failing to hand over nine tennis trophies including those won at the 1985 and
1989 Wimbledon tournament, the 1991 and 1996 Australian Open and the 1992
Olympics. He could face a maximum seven years in jail
But Becker
was acquitted of a further 20 charges, including nine counts of failing to hand
over trophies and medals from his tennis career.
He told
jurors he did not know the whereabouts of the memorabilia, including two of his
three Wimbledon men's singles trophies, including the 1985 title that
catapulted him to stardom, aged 17.
The other
prizes were his 1992 Olympic gold medal, Australian Open trophies from 1991 and
1996, the President's Cup from 1985 and 1989, his 1989 Davis Cup trophy and a
Davis Cup gold coin which he won in 1988.
Becker was
cleared of failing to declare a second German property, as well as his interest
in the £2.5 million Chelsea flat occupied by his daughter Anna Ermakova, who
was conceived during Becker's infamous sexual encounter with waitress Angela
Ermakova at London restaurant Nobu in 1999.
Giving
evidence, he said he earned a 'vast amount' of money during his career, paying
cash for a family home in Munich, a property in Miami, Florida, and the estate
in Mallorca, which was worth about 50 million euros at the height of the
property market.
He was also convicted of trying to conceal the
ownership of his £1.8million villa (pictured) 'Im Schilling' in his native
Leimen, Germany, as well as his ownership of 75,000 Data Corp shares
A court
artist's sketch of Boris Becker (far right) in the witness box being questioned
by his barrister Jonathan Laidlaw QC (left). His partner Lilian de Carvalho
Monteiroover can be seen in the foreground, and prosecutor Rebecca Chalkley on
the left
But Becker,
who went on to coach current world number one tennis player Novak Djokovic,
work as a TV sports commentator and act as a brand ambassador for firms
including Puma, said his income 'reduced dramatically' following his retirement
in 1999.
He said he
was involved in an 'expensive divorce' with ex-wife Barbara in 2001, involving
high maintenance payments to their two sons, and had to support his daughter
Anna and her mother, in a deal which included the Chelsea flat.
Becker, who
was resident in Monte Carlo and Switzerland before moving to the UK, said he
had 'expensive lifestyle commitments,' including his £22,000-a-month rented
house in Wimbledon, south-west London.
He also
owed the Swiss authorities five million francs (about £4 million) and
separately just under one million euros (more than £800,000) in liabilities
over a conviction for tax evasion and attempted tax evasion in Germany in 2002.
The court
heard Becker's bankruptcy resulted from a £3.85 million loan from private bank
Arbuthnot Latham in 2013, and £1.2million, with a 25 per cent interest rate,
borrowed from British businessman John Caudwell, who founded Phones 4u, the
following year.
He said bad
publicity had damaged 'brand Becker', meaning he struggled to make enough money
to pay off his debts, while his QC Jonathan Laidlaw said at the time of his
bankruptcy Becker was too 'trusting and reliant' on his advisers.
The rise and fall of a tennis legend: How Boris Becker
went from Wimbledon teen sensation, to conceiving a child in a Mayfair
restaurant, bankruptcy and facing seven years in prison
Few spots
stars have ever hit the height of Boris Becker's tennis careers - and none as
young as the German ace.
Born in
Leimen, West Germany, in 1967, Becker, the son of an architect father and a
Czech immigrant mother, was thrust into the world of tennis from a young age.
His father
founded a tennis centre in the town, where Becker honed his skills early on.
By the age
of 10, in 1977, he was a member of the junior team of the Baden Tennis
Association.
He went on
to win the South German championship and the first German Youth Tennis
Tournament.
After
winning funding for training from the German Tennis Federation, he turned
professional at 16 in 1984, winning the Tennis World Young Masters at the NEC
in Birmingham in 1985, before claiming victory at Queens in June.
In July
1985, aged 17, he entered Wimbledon as an unseeded player and took the
tournament by storm, beating Kevin Curren by four sets in the final
Two weeks
later, in July, aged 17, he entered Wimbledon as an unseeded player and took
the tournament by storm, beating Kevin Curren by four sets in the final.
At just 17
years and 228 days old he became the youngest men's singles champion at SW19 -
and immediately became a household name.
The
following year he defend his title, beating then world number one Ivan Lendl to
secure back-to-back Wimbledon titles.
He appeared
in 77 finals and won 49 singles titles during his 16 years as a tennis pro.
But by
1993, facing criticism over his marriage to wife Barbara and tax problems with
the German government, had caused Becker to slide into a severe mid-career
decline.
In 1997,
Becker lost to Sampras in the quarterfinals at Wimbledon. After that match, he
vowed that he would never play at Wimbledon again.
However he
returned one more time to the prestigious west London tennis club, in 1999,
this time losing in the fourth round to Patrick Rafter.
Off the
court, his personal troubles continued. He had to pay £2.4million after he
fathered a daughter, named Anna, with a Russian model while married to wife
Barbara.
That
incident took place after he crashed out of Wimbledon to Rafter in 1999 and
decided to retire from the sport, aged 31.
Becker, in
his 2003 autobiography, Stay A Moment Longer, revealed how he 'cried my eyes
out' and felt the need to go out for a few beers with friends.
However his
then wife Barbara, seven months' pregnant with their second son, wanted him to
stay at their hotel with her.
But by
1993, facing criticism over his marriage to wife Barbara and tax problems with
the German government, had caused Becker to slide into a severe mid-career
decline
'She
couldn't and wouldn't understand that she suddenly wasn't first in my
priorities,' said Becker.
'I said,
'Just once more with the lads, Barbara, just once more to say farewell and then
it's only you'. That didn't work. We rowed for two whole hours. Suddenly she
was in pain and decided to check into hospital.;
Becker said
he told his wife to call him if the baby was really on the way, then hit the
town.
By 11pm he
was at the bar in Mayfair's Nobu and spotted Russian model Angela Ermakowa. The
pair had sex on the staircase in the London outpost.
The
following February his secretary handed him a fax in his Munich office. It
read: 'Dear Herr Becker, We met in Nobu in London. The result of that meeting
is now eight months old.'
He later
split from his first wife Barbara Feltus, a divorce which is estimated to have
cost him more than £15million, as well as their home in Miami.
Becker
found a new post-tennis purpose soon after, joining the BBC for its annual
coverage of Wimbledon - to great success.
But his
personal problems continued. He had a short engagement to Alessandra
Meyer-Wölden in 2008, before announcing that he and Dutch model Sharlely
'Lilly' Kerssenberg would marry in 2009.
After nine
years of marriage, and a child, Becker's fourth, the pair split in 2018.
A year
earlier, Becker had been declared bankrupt in June 2017 over an unpaid loan of
more than £3million on his estate in Mallorca, Spain.
His former
business partner, Hans-Dieter Cleven, also claimed that the former tennis ace
owed him more than £30million - though the case that was rejected by a Swiss
court.
Now Becker
faces another bump in the road - perhaps the most serious yet - after being
found guilty of four counts relating to the Insolvency Act earlier this month.
He faces up
to seven years in prison - with his freedom now left hanging in the balance
ahead of his sentencing tomorrow.
Full sentencing remarks by judge in Boris Becker
case
Sentencing Remarks
Her Honour
Judge Deborah Taylor
Recorder of
Westminster
R v Boris
Becker
1. Boris
Becker, you were found guilty after trial of four offences under the Insolvency
Act 1986. All of these offences arise from your actions after a Bankruptcy
Order was made on 21 June 2018 following a creditors bankruptcy petition
presented to the High Court by Arbuthnot Latham & Co. a private bank. You
were acquitted of 20 other offences, including all charges relating to your
conduct prior to the Bankruptcy Order being made.
Background
2.
Arbuthnot Latham lent you money in connection with development of The Finca, a
Spanish property that you owned in Mallorca. On 27 July 2016, after protracted
attempts by you and various sets of advisers to negotiate a settlement or to
raise money elsewhere to pay the debt, a Statutory Demand was issued by the
bank for the outstanding sum. You contested those proceedings. On 30th August
2016, you submitted a statement in opposition to the Statutory Demand. On 12th
April 2017 your application to set aside the Statutory Demand was dismissed,
and leave was granted for Arbuthnot Latham to present a petition . On 28th
April 2017 the Bankruptcy Petition was presented to the High Court for
£3,348,582.57. Your application of 16 June 2017 resisting the order was
dismissed and on 21 June 2017 the petition was heard at the High Court and the
Bankruptcy Order was made.
Relevant
evidence
3. On your
own evidence at trial you had not at any stage before 21 June 2017 expected that
the Bankruptcy order would be made. That was your position in the defence of
the bankruptcy proceedings. Despite the failure of the attempts to contest the
proceedings, your evidence was that you thought more time would be given for a
“White Knight” to assist you, or for you to raise money which would enable The
Finca to be sold at a proper market value such as would enable your debts to be
paid off.
4.
Nonetheless, you were informed by your acting lawyers that the Bankruptcy order
had been made on 21 June. You then immediately dispensed with their services,
and over the next few days gathered around you a new team, firstly on 23rd a
trusted team of friends and advisors, and then on 26 June, a specialist
insolvency team . On 22 June, you were sent a bundle of standard insolvency
material including the PIQB – the insolvency booklet setting out your assets -
and the NTB/1 and NTB/2 Forms which contained explanatory notes setting out
your obligations. You accept that those documents reached you, but your evidence
was that initially you did not open them, but took the envelope to the
insolvency practitioners on 26 June where the contents were discussed. Your
focus was on an annulment of the Bankruptcy Order. Thereafter, the PIQB was
filled in, not by you and never signed by you, and sent on 7 July 2017 to the
Official Receiver by one of your advisers, on your evidence, without your
consent.
Counts 10,
13, and 14: Failing to disclose properties and assets
5. Any
deficiencies in the PIQB document and discrepancies between what you had told
them, and what was in the document provided to the Official Receiver were
therefore said to be the responsibility of your advisers or as a result of
undue reliance on them. Similarly, any failure thereafter, to disclose the
assets which are the subject of Counts 10, 13 and 14 of which you have been
convicted, was as a result of a belief your advisers had disclosed these
assets, and of leaving that disclosure to them, or as a result of their advice
or interventions in interviews.
6. In
relation to Count 10, the failure to disclose Im Schilling , a property you
owned in Leimen, and Count 13 , failure to disclose a loan of E825,000 from the
Bank of Alpinum in Lichtenstein secured by a land charge on Im Schilling, you
relied on an email from your adviser to the Trustee dated 18 September 2017, as
evidencing that you had informed the adviser of your ownership of Im Schilling
and that there was a mortgage on the property. In relation to Count 14, failure
to disclosre ownership of 75,057 shares in Breaking Data Corp, you also gave
evidence that you ahd disclosed this to your advisers. In all instances, you
said that you coud not understand why the ownership of these assets had not
been disclosed to the Trustee.
7. Your
case on all of these counts was, as a result, that firstly that the prosecution
had not proved that you had not, to the best of your knowledge and belief
disclosed ownership to the Official Receiver or Trustee, and secondly, innocent
intention in that you had no intent to defraud or to conceal the state of your
affairs.
Count 4.
Removal of Property contrary to sections 354(20 and 350(6) of the Insolvency
Act.
8. You were
convicted of this offence which involved the removal of sums of money by
payments made to others on dates between 23 June and 28 September 2017 from the
BBPOL Euro Metro Bank Account, a company account which you used for both
business and personal purposes. The money in this account was part of the
second tranche of proceeds of sale of Mercedes Car Dealerships which had been
withheld and then released by the German Tax Authorities. You were acquitted of
Counts 1 and 2, concealing the proceeds of that sale in the BBPOL account both
before and after the Bankruptcy Order was made, and Count 3 Removal of property
by payment made to others before the Bankruptcy Order was made. You were also
acquitted of other counts 5-9 of concealing property by transfers both before
and after the Bankruptcy order to other accounts operated by you.
9. It was
agreed in relation to Count 4 that the moneys had been removed from the account
by you, and whilst it was not accepted that the sums were moneys which should
have been delivered up to the Trustee, that was not substantially disputed.
Your defence in relation to this count was, as with all counts, that of
innocent intention, that you had no intent to defraud or conceal the state of
your affairs.
Basis of sentence
Count 4.
10. The
clear indication from the Jury’s verdicts is that they drew a distinction
between offences alleging concealment, of which they acquitted you, and
offences of removal. In respect of the latter, there was a further distinction
clear from the verdicts between offences prior to the Bankruptcy notice, and
those after. This offence was both an offence of removal of assets and after
the Bankruptcy order. The jury concluded by their verdicts that you were unable
to discharge the burden of proving that it was more likely than not that you
had no intention to defraud or conceal in making these payments. The effect of
that is that they must have concluded that it was more likely than not that you
did have such an intention.
11. I have
considered the submissions made on your behalf that the Court should conclude
that there was a period after the Bankruptcy order during which the payments
made in Count 4 should be discounted as being before you realised that you
should not be making any more transfers. Some emphasis was placed an the
exchange with Mr Bint in the interview of the 11 July 2017 about the use you
could make of companies and company accounts. Not only was that after several
of the payments at the beginning of the period covered by this Count, but also
at a time when Mr Bint was unaware of the personal use you were making of the
company account.
12. I
reject the submission that there is any period within Count 4 in which payments
made to others should not be considered as subject to the verdict of the Jury
to which I have referred, the fact that a substantial sum was paid to
Mr.Moghadem and then his account used as a surrogate account is an additional
factual indication of the manner in which you were treating this money.
13. In the
circumstances I take into account in respect of this count that removal was
conducted over a period of 3 months and that the whole sum paid out has been
lost to the bankruptcy estate, to the detriment of your creditors, other than
those you chose to pay. The full amount of €426,930.90 was lost. At today’s
exchange rate that is approximately £390,000.
Counts 10,
13 and 14:
14. The
Jury convicted you of these counts, and were therefore satisfied that you owned
these assets and that they were assets which should have been disclosed. They
rejected the defence of innocent intention.
15. Whilst
I accept that you had advisers upon whom you relied, it is clear from the
evidence that you knew that the obligation was on you, not them, to disclose
the assets to the Official Receiver and Trustee. What was apparent from the
evidence was that increasingly you left communication with the Trustees to
others, showing little or no interest in engaging yourself, using them as a
shield against the requests from the trustees for information and compliance.
16. In
relation to Count 10, irrespective of the lack of disclosure in the PIQB, you
were told at the 13 September 2017 meeting that if you had a property, say in
France, that the Trustee had not asked about, it was incumbent upon you to say,
either, that you own the property, or it's owned in trust for these reasons.
The fact that , in relation to Im Schilling you had doubts about your mother’s
interests did not prevent you from raising this with the Trustee. You were able
and willing to accept ownership and use it to raise money or for purposes
advantageous to you, as is clear from the Habke/Cleven email in August 2008,
the Ennes email in January 2017 and the Jensen email in March 2017.
17. I
accept that the failure to disclose was of relatively short duration, being
between June 21 2017 and your letter on 27 September 2017 when you provided the
address of the Im Schilling property, and accepted co- ownership at least.
18. As far
as this Count is concerned the property has not yet been sold, but is available
to the estate. The latest valuation is £1,053,720.
Count 13
Bank Alpinum
19. In this
respect I accept the submissions that this loan was not taken out in a plan
ahead of bankruptcy. The loan was applied for, received and mostly spent prior
to the Bankruptcy notice. Two payments were however, made after the Notice in
July 2017.
20. The seriousness
of this offence lies in the concealment. I accept on the evidence that your
advisers may well have known about it, but it was again your duty to disclose
it and there were ample opportunities to do so, in particular as a result of
the extensive correspondence about the land charge.
21. None of
the loan was recovered. Therefore, the debt of the full amount €825,000 is lost
from the estate.
Count 14
the Breaking Data Shares
22. The
same considerations apply to this offence. The Jury rejected your defence of
innocent intention. The shares were sold £9,256 .25. Whilst the Prosecution say
that this was for less than the estimated sale price, there is no substantial
evidence that this was not a fair market price .
Approach to
Sentence
23. There
are no Guidelines for Insolvency Act offences. Whilst I have been referred to
decisions in other cases, including from the Court of Appeal I do not find them
of great assistance as all these cases are fact specific . Nonetheless, the
principles to be gained from these cases are to emphasis the importance of
adherence to the Insolvency regime and that in general cases involving failure
to do so will be the subject of a custodial sentence.
24. In the
absence of a specific Guidleins, the starting point is, the Sentencing
Council’s General Guideline Overarching Principles. In this respect I take into
account the statutory maximum, sentencing judgements of the Court of Appeal
(Criminal Division) for the offence, and definitive sentencing guidelines for
analogous offences. In this case some assistance can be gained from the Bribery
Fraud and Money Laundering Guideline, although care must be taken as the
offences are different in significant respects.
25. I start
by assessing the seriousness of the offences. In relation to all counts I
consider culpability and the harm. I have set out the basis upon which I
sentence. In relation to Count 4 these were payments made knowing of the
bankruptcy order. Whilst it has been suggested that your actions were merely to
make preferential creditors of those you paid, who may well have been paid in
any event had the Trustee been given the information, that was not a choice
they were given. This applies for example in relation to the payment made to
your former wife and second wife from whom you were separate. That fails to
take into account that it was not your choice to make and the result is that a
large sum, £390,000 has been lost to the estate permanently. This would be
category 2 in the Fraud Guidelines.
26. As far
as Counts 10, 13 and 14 are concerned, I assess the culpability as medium and
both Count 10 and 13 in Category 1 on value, although there are other features
of this offending which indicate that this is not the only factor, as the
assets have remained within the estate.
27. I
therefore take as a starting point, in relation to Count 4, a period of 2 ½
years imprisonment, which is for example in line with the category in the False
Accounting Guideline. Whilst the sums are greater, the offences in Counts 10,
13 and 14 have not resulted in the loss to the estate, and in relation to those
offences I take a starting point of 18 months for each count.
28. In
terms of aggravating features , I do not consider there was significant
planning. I accept that you were in chaos - having learned of the bankruptcy
order, you did what you could to pay those closest to you, which was not a
decision which was sophisticated or planned, The effect on others is taken into
account in the offending.
29. I also
take into account the previous conviction for tax evasion which I consider to
be a similar offence, although some time ago, it is of significance in this
case that you did not heed the warning you were given and the suspended
sentence which was imposed, that is a significant aggravating feature.
30. In
mitigation I take into account what has been described as your fall from grace.
You have lost your career, reputation and all of your property as a result of
your bankruptcy. I have taken into account the letters from your family and
your reference for charitable works. However, you have shown no remorse or
acceptance of your guilt, and have sought to distance yourself from the
offending in your bankruptcy. Whilst I accept the humiliation you have felt as
a result of these proceedings, there has been no humility.
31.
Overall, having regard to all the features of this case, and having regard to
the aggravating and mitigating features, and taking into account totality, I
impose the minimum sentence commensurate with your offending .
32. In
relation to Count 4 the sentence will be one of 2 years 6 months I impose
concurrent sentences of 18 months in relation to Counts 10,13 and 14. The total
sentence is therefore one of 2 years 6 months, The effect of that is that you
will serve half the sentence before being released from custody subject to
licence conditions. If you fail to comply with your licence conditions you may
be recalled to serve the remainder of the sentence in addition to any sentence
for any further offending,
33. I make
no Directors Disqualification order having regard to the fact that you remain
an undischarged bankrupt and therefore are unable to be a director. I make no
order for confiscation having regard to the fact that the bankruptcy is
continuing. I make no order for Prosecution Costs.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário