David Hillary at Lost Soul has a comprehensive post on aspects of ‘L’Affaire Hubbard’. His comments repay careful reading .
One aspect of his post I would take issue with is when David comments:-
So Mr Hubbard is getting the benefit of the doubt, in the court of public opinion, and by the pundits. Some commentators such as this one are even giving him the benefit of the rumour that the whole affair could be a storm in a tea cup
The commentator referred to is myself and my post of Wednesday when I drew attention to reports that Hubbard may not in fact be charged with fraud.
I see how David reached that conclusion, what I was trying to point out was the fact that if Hubbard is not charged, then a number of difficult questions will be raised. Regarding giving him the benefit, it is journalists such as Fran O’Sullivan who are speculating that fraud charges will not be laid.
My intent was not to imply that governance issues and paperwork were not significant, indeed the Grant Thornton interim report clearly points out that there are significant paperwork deficiencies and concerns over the nature and extent of related party transactions. I find the Grant Thornton comments very concerning.
Yet I think that should the circumstances be such that the SFO decides that legal proceedings should not be initiated, then many will be inclined to overlook the issues raised by Grant Thornton and take the view that Hubbard is vindicated.
Interestingly the tenor of media comments re Hubbard seems to have changed recently, leading me to wonder whether he is receiving professional communications advice.