According to Agenparl, which is in possession of extensive supporting documentation, a criminal complaint was recently lodged with Scotland Yard for misrepresentation, fraud and embezzlement in connection with the sale of the Queens Park Rangers (QPR) football club.
The former majority shareholder, AC, after deciding to sell his stake, had engaged the services of lawyer Kevin Steele of the law firm Mishcon de Reya, known for having handled Lady Diana’s divorce in the past. However, Steele, after serving five and a half years in prison, changed his name to Kevin MacLeod.
The disputed facts
The documents show that in 2007 AC, together with other shareholders, was negotiating the sale of its shares in QPR Holdings Limited. During the negotiations, lawyer Kevin Steele was instructed to represent the interests of AC, Barnaby, Wanlock and Zanotti in the agreement with FB to acquire the club.

The record of AC’s second deposition reveals several critical points:

• On 6 August 2007 an email sent by Kevin Steele to Bruno Michel incorrectly reported that AC agreed to sell its shares for £2.5 million and to waive the club’s debts owed to it.
• On 9 August 2007 Bruno Michel confirmed the takeover offer with the condition that AC waive its claims against the club.
• On 15 August 2007 Steele, without instructions from AC, erroneously announced that the total of the vendor’s loans to QPR amounted to £6.58 million and that they would be written off upon payment of the agreed sum.
• On 22 August 2007 Steele sent an email suggesting that the transaction be amended so that the shares would be sold at 1 pence each, with a balance of £2.5 million paid to AC to cancel the loans.
• On 31 August 2007 Steele signed, without instruction from AC, a statement to Withers stating that there were no convertible loans to AC.
  The allegations and the complaint

According to the documents, AC was unaware of many of the actions taken by the lawyer Steele/MacLeod, which allegedly caused serious financial damage. The lack of transparency in the handling of the sale and the failure to include the debts in the final contract led to charges of misrepresentation, fraud and embezzlement.
The British authorities are now examining the documentation to determine responsibility and possible offences committed in the course of the sale of the football club.
The affair is an emblematic case of alleged legal malpractice in financial transactions in English football, with possible legal repercussions for all those involved.