Site logo

Serious Fraud Office promises "thorough examination" of F1 contracts

NEWS STORY
12/07/2017

In May it came to light that the Serious Fraud Office is looking into whether there is evidence of corruption in the Concorde Agreement, the contract which underpins Formula One and confirms its regulations.

Some dismissed the news as scaremongering and claimed that the SFO wouldn't bother. However, German business publication Handelsblatt has got hold of a letter (pictured) sent by the director general of the SFO to Damian Collins, the politician who tipped them off, which shows how serious they are.

LATEST NEWS

more news >

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images

POST A COMMENT

or Register for a Pitpass ID to have your say

Please note that all posts are reactively moderated and must adhere to the site's posting rules and etiquette.

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

 

1. Posted by Hardliner, 14/07/2017 9:20

"Does the SFO even have jurisdiction in this? "

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by TokyoAussie, 13/07/2017 4:34

"I've always thought the Concorde agreement should be public. Doing so would naturally mean that whatever is in it would never have been agreed in the first place (which is another reason why it should be public). But what could be in the agreement that rises to the level of "corruption"? I am intrigued."

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Share this page

X

Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2019. All rights reserved.

about us  |  advertise  |  contact  |  privacy & security  |  rss  |  terms