Patisserie Share Discussion Threads

[thegreatgeraldo] 12/10/2018 10:51

If I was going to transfer the cash out of the country, I'd be on the next flight after it!!

[montyhedge] 12/10/2018 10:50

Always amazed how this company made those profits.

[hpcg] 12/10/2018 10:49

Interesting looking at CAKE discussion in other places. Possibly consensus here that this is terminal and the money was never there. Other discussion boards are focused on a massive theft since the interims. Some go a bit Lord Percy - 'Oh come now Baldrick, a piffling million? Pay the taxman, Luke, and damn his impudence.'

[thegreatgeraldo] 12/10/2018 10:49

I'm not an accountant, but presumably, as at 31st March - the record date for the interims - CAKE had £28.8 mill in the bank? Yet presumably had a larger amount of undeclared liabilities at that date. That's some feat, given that the main company outgoings are presumably staff & property costs ....& a few quid for cake making stuff

[snoopy12] 12/10/2018 10:45

A prime example of creative accounting.

[ny boy] 12/10/2018 10:45

Poor Madame Valerie, she would be horrified, is she still around?

[cockneytrader] 12/10/2018 10:44

Phone call:

Cakeman: I've been sentenced to ten years at Wormwood.
Wife: oh my darling.
Cakeman: do you think I should get my bum hole hair bleached?

[ny boy] 12/10/2018 10:44

Case of who stole all the cakes

Not pies

[jotoha2] 12/10/2018 10:43

HMRC are very good at helping short term cash problems with companies , there is no VAT on takeaway food goods , so it was not VAT , most likely it was the payroll , could have been massive amount owing , looks like he was using the workers paye to keep the empire going , would expect 10 years for that , rightly so , greedy sod.

[sleepy] 12/10/2018 10:40

Page 1 of the last Annual Report states “All new stores profitable from first day of trading” !!!

[pj0077] 12/10/2018 10:38

Mr TenpercentFraud is hidden, theft is not.So for example, bank robbery is theft while bank embezzlement is fraud.For this reason, the CAKE CFO is being investigated for fraud rather than theft (even the auditors would have noticed theft!).

[thegreatgeraldo] 12/10/2018 10:38

Marsh has been FD since Johnson took over, so presumably had no little say in how the various reporting systems were set up?

[danny baker] 12/10/2018 10:37

Mr10% all the police need to do at this stage is arrest him on suspicion of a straightforward crime for which there is clear prima facie evidence such as reporting a false cash position to the board. It could be days or even weeks before charges can be brought especially if he refuses to co-operate with the Company or the police.

[kemche] 12/10/2018 10:34

The auditors must have checked the bank confirmation letters for all the accounts held as well as a random sample of bank recs during the period surely?

Apart from fat margins nothing leaps out from the accounts as obviously awry. So how was it done?

[cockneytrader] 12/10/2018 10:33

' I am sentencing you to ten years of taking it up the CAKE hole '

[thegreatgeraldo] 12/10/2018 10:33

Still wonder if Marsh might have done a small tweek to the accounts some years back (to hit some personal or company target?) & to cover that has been doing bigger & bigger tweeks every 6 months.... until it all fell apart.

[mrtenpercent] 12/10/2018 10:31

Like others here I am concerned by the omission of the word "theft" in the police statement. If it was theft it would imply that the company is generating profits and cash but it is suspected that these have gone missing. A one-off black hole that can be filled. But if there has not been theft then sadly it does imply that the money was never there in the first place, which would be very bad news for shareholders, and (I would hope but not with much conviction) the end of the road for Grant Thornton.

One scenario that might be consistent with the police statement is that the fraudulent misrepresentation related to profitability which supported the share price which gave value to his share options.

[monte1] 12/10/2018 10:29

He has also dealt in shares and profited from insider knowledge that there was (and he created) a false market in the company shares

[hernando2] 12/10/2018 10:28

If you have worked very closely with someone for 10 years and they have proven themselves to both loyal and capable, you have to trust them.

IMO it would be very difficult for Johnson to imagine that there was something amiss, if your trusted FD brings you numbers you believe them.

[snoopy12] 12/10/2018 10:26

If the money was not there then the auditors were overstating profits in the previous years. Technically meaning the company was trading insolently. If the director is aware then it is criminal.

[cockneytrader] 12/10/2018 10:25

PC Plod: you what done it
Cake man: it wasn't me guv, I swear on almighty Christ
PC Plod: who was it?
Cake man: come to think of it, it must have been the intern
PC Plod: and the share option money?
Cake man: paid off the mortgage with that, lifetime membership of the National Trust (one must keep up appearances), a yearly subscription to Razzle and a week in the Canaries (nice this time of year)
PC Plod: do they still sell Razzle?

[danny baker] 12/10/2018 10:24

I think the crime he was arrested on suspicion of was allegedly reporting a false cash position to the board knowing that if he told the board the true position he would lose his job. That would satisfy the requirements for arrest on suspicion of fraud by false representation. Obviously the forensic accountants need to establish the full facts to present to the police and the CPS in due course for any charges to be brought.

[sleepy] 12/10/2018 10:23

Given Mr Johnson’s experience and expertise in catering businesses I wonder why he would not be aware of fraudulent misrepresentation here?

[phowdo] 12/10/2018 10:23

Grant Thornton - first GBO and now CAKE.

What an unlucky run they are having, eh?

[hpcg] 12/10/2018 10:21

Profitaker - indeed what most of us suspect I think is that the books did not show the true state and eventually and inevitably crashed into cash reality. Surely if this is the case then it is as serious for Grant Thornton as anyone because that is the undisputed role of an audit? It would beg questions beyond competence as well, were it to be the case.