Activists want Scotland to investigate how Donald Trump paid for a luxury golf resort in Scotland.
Says Scotland has no authority to launch such an investigation – activists disagree.
A judge held a hearing this week to determine which side was right.
The judge will determine the fate of the lawsuit that led to Donald Trump buying a luxury golf course in Scotland for $60 million. Activists called it suspicious,
The housing campaign team asked the Scottish authorities Inquire about Trump’s $60 million buyout from Turnberry Using a so-called “undeclared money order” (UWO), it claims there is a “cloud of doubt” about the transaction.
When the government refused, Avas filed a lawsuit, which Craig Sandison heard earlier this week in the Court of Session in Edinburgh. a senior Scottish judge,
In this case, Awas argued that the state had the authority to launch an investigation, while prosecutors argued that it did not. There is no set time frame for the end of Sandison.
UWO allows UK authorities to investigate foreign individuals who believe they may have embezzled funds through the UK.
Awas thinks Trump’s purchase of Turnbury in 2014 is questionable because he has spent much of his career on sizable loans to fund his vast fortune. Before paying Turnbury $60 million,
The Scottish Government has rejected a request for an inquiryTo provoke Awas’s case and to emphasize that he has no authority to open such an investigation.
A representative for Awaaz told Insider that it usually takes three months for a Sandison-like decision to come. Although there is no deadline, the team hopes to have a solution by Christmas.
The investigation is important because its outcome could play a key role in determining whether the Scottish government continues its investigation into Trump.
The government has so far shown little interest, arguing that only the Lord Advocate, Scotland’s senior legal officer and a politically independent chief counsel could form one.
But Avaaz’s lawyer, Aidan O’Neill, argued this week that Scottish ministers had illegally postponed the decision, arguing that the law is forcing Scottish ministers to seek suitable UWOs.
Awas also argued that it is illegal for the Scottish government to refuse to disclose whether it wants to continue the investigation, a position that is still unclear.
Ruth Crawford, a Scottish government lawyer, disagreed with Awas’s claims, saying that the Lord’s Attorney, as a Scottish minister, could make this decision. The Lord Advocate is technically a minister, but acts independently unlike the others.
Crawford said the ministers have nothing “allowed” in their position to obey the order. Scott reported,
read original article business Insider
Amateur web specialist. General food junkie. Typical zombie enthusiast. Avid music trailblazer. Lifelong explorer.