Rather than reply to individuals, this is my response to various replies here.
1) Warner admitted on the tape that he told bin Hamman not to bring silver trays as gifts, but to bring cash.
As far as I can discover, legitimate gifts (whether considered bribes or not) are declared. Donations to football projects are also acceptable. I believe that the giving of cash in brown envelopes is not considered acceptable. This debate is not about the ethics of FIFA or the English F.A. It is about stepping outside of the usual practices prescribed by FIFA. The difference is simple and is exhibited in governments and business. You are allowed to accept gifts if they are within a prescribed criteria. If you are unsure, you have to enquire with your relevent employer if the gift is accessible. For those of you who still can't understand this, please give me one verifiable instance where cash passed in secret is an accepted gift in the corporate or political world.
2) Whether the money was brought into the country under diplomatic immunity or not, it certainly didn't leave the country under such status. On one hand people saying Warner was looking after the CFU, but on the other he had no duty of care to remind them they would be illegally trafficking foreign currency if it was not declared. All he had to do was advise bin Hamman to transfer funds directly to their accounts or write them cheques. For those of you who still can't understand this, please give me one sensible reason why bin Hamman didn't do this and instead went to the trouble of withdrawing 1 million U.S. dollars, flying it halfway around the world, arranging for it to be broken down into 25 piles, placing it in envelopes and taking it to a private room so each individual could collect it.
3) Just so I'm clear, which laws of T&T is it ok to break? As I was under the impression that all laws are supposed to be adhered to, which ones can I tell the police that I'm immune to? As much as you may think I'm fixated on seeing Warner charged for insignificant reasons, I actually believe that the laws are there for a reason. If you don't agree then write to your M.P. In the meantime, while we all bend the laws in some way, we also know that if we're caught we will pay the penalty, be it driving on the bus route, not declaring all income to the Inland Revenue, speeding etc. We know it may be wrong and we'll claim its unfair if we're caught, but we know its the law. Warner travels enough to know you cannot bring US$1 million in cash into another country without declaring it. In my opinion, Warner is not guilty of breaking the law, he is guilty of conspiring to break laws, or at least, failing to report a crime. Maybe this doesn't matter to John Q Public, but a govt minister should not be involved in this in any way, especially if he has a track record of involvement in suspect financial matters. All I've ever insisted on is that this is suitable evidence for Gibbs to investigate this situation. If Gibbs finds laws have been broken, and can gather sufficient evidence, then the courts will decide if individuals are guilty. Everyone here has been demanding the police go after the Big Fish, so lets see them do it. As for the alleged crime being insignificant, remember, AL Capone was only ever convicted of tax evasion.
4) All this lawyer talk about picking holes in statements is perfectly understandable in a court of law when representing clients, and you guys may well win your case based on these arguments. However, here, it is not necessary to defend Warner, bin Hamman or the CFU delegates, because they have that ability themselves. Its interesting for this to be pointed out, but it doesn't need to be an attack (which is how it reads) but a statement based on information and interpretation. We all know that an accused person will have their defence, but the intrinsic question here is: should the police investigate the possibility that a crime has been committed. If we agree with some posters here, we don't need investigators or courts, just a lawyer to argue for the accused and ignore vital questions.
To recap:
Has a law been broken? Possibly (Non declaration of foreign currency crossing borders)
Is there any kind of evidence that a law may have been broken? Definitely (affidavits from delegates, video footage discussing cash payments in foreign currency)
Is it in the public interest to investigate? Definitely. (Aside from a cabinet minister being involved, the globalisation of the story reflects the integrity of the government)
As someone else stated here "Some people have a problem with simple deductive reasoning"