Ex-F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone was asked by his then son-in-law James Stunt to put up a $10million guarantee for a a gold bullion business 'that made no commercial sense' after he started running out of money when his marriage to Petra collapsed, a court has heard.
The bombshell claim emerged during Stunt's £266million money laundering trial where he is in the dock at Leeds Cloth Hall Court with eight others.
The socialite spent 'astonishing' sums while married to Petra Ecclestone including more than £800,000 on Lamborghinis and turned to a criminal enterprise when the 'river of money was running dry' with the break-up of their marriage, the court heard.
Prosecutor Nicholas Clarke, QC, told the court Stunt's 'own personal finances are shrouded in mystery.' His lack of genuine personal wealth meant he got his billionaire father-in-law Bernie Ecclestone to provide a $10m guarantee to lease gold from a bank for a 'vanity project' gold bar production scheme.
1kg silver bars were even covered with gilt to make them appear to be gold, which is 50 times more valuable, it is alleged.
Mr Clarke told the jury that the breakdown of Stunt's marriage to Petra Ecclestone may have been the reason for his foray into the criminal underworld.
He said that 'the fact that the river of money from the Ecclestone sources may have been running dry' meant the 'financial future for James Stunt may have appeared less abundant than it had been.'
Speaking earlier this week the prosecutor said: 'This case is about money laundering. A lot of money. Money laundering is the process used to convert the proceeds of crime, such as street cash from drug deals or cash that hasn't gone through the books of a business so to avoid paying tax on it, into assets that appear to have a legitimate origin so they can be used.'
James Stunt with Petra Ecclestone and her father Bernie Ecclestone in Mayfair in 2010. The jury heard that Stunt asked his ex-father-in-law for a $10m guarantee
The former husband of Formula One heiress Petra Ecclestone (pictured today) is one of eight defendants on trial over an alleged network which the court heard saw millions of pounds deposited in the bank account of Bradford gold dealer Fowler Oldfield over two years.
James Stunt's late sibling Lee Stunt (pictured right, seated) is one of the Stunt company staff counting allegedly laundered money in his brother's office in an image sent on WhatsApp and shown to the jury
CCTV shown to the jury at James Stunt's trial showed a courier using his hat and a wrist to avoid putting his fingerprints on a bin liner of cash (left) as he lifted it and put it in a holdall
A courier at the heart of James Stunt's £266million money laundering enterprise used his hat as a glove, gripped notes with his knuckles and stashed a secret 'code word' in his sock to avoid being linked to 'criminal behaviour', a court heard.
The jury at the socialite's trial was shown the CCTV video of the suspect who delivered £200,000 in notes to the Fowler Oldfield 'counting room' in Bradford as the prosecution detailed its case against eight people in the dock.
Prosecutor Nicholas Clarke QC told the jury that the footage of a man handling cash was taken long before the pandemic, so there was only one reason to wipe down surfaces. He said: 'This was not legitimate business. This was criminal behaviour. A criminal delivering the proceeds of crime and well aware of forensic traces he might leave'.
James Stunt, the former husband of heiress Petra Ecclestone, is alleged to have been at the heart of the money laundering scheme to turn criminal cash into gold.
Newly released footage showed a particularly careful courier is shown covering up any forensic evidence of his presence at every stage. The unidentified man is shown arriving at the Bradford office on August 19, 2016, carrying a holdall stuffed with cash.
He handles parcels using the heels of his hands or his closed knuckles, so as not to leave fingerprints, and used his cloth cap as a makeshift glove. He then wipes down the packaging with his cloth cap, and wipes down every surface he has touched, with the cap, his sleeves or a tissue.
The courier was given what the prosecution claimed was a code word used in the alleged money-laundering operation, on a scrap of paper and tore the paper into small pieces and stuffed them into his sock. A little later, he went to the toilet, but again wiped down every surface, including the bolt lock on the cubicle.
Advertisement
Despite Stunt's claims to be a billionaire in his own right, the 40-year-old personal finances are 'shrouded in mystery' suggested Mr Clarke QC, as Stunt is in the dock with eight the defendants.
Mr Clarke pointed out glaring discrepancies between official tax and business records detailing Stunt's income, but said he had access to 'unlimited resources' when he was married to F1 heiress Petra Ecclestone, through their joint account.
But when Stunt wanted to set up his own 'branded gold bar' investment business, he had to turn to his billionaire father-in-law to stand as guarantor.
Mr Clarke said: 'If Stunt were the billionaire that he claims then there would be no need for the outside guarantee at all. It is only the impecunious that need such a third-party financial crutch to support them.' He added: 'Backed by his father-in-law's wealth, Stunt was able to establish business support, and through his marriage he had access to his wife's money'.
Stunt is one of eight defendants accused of money laundering at Leeds Cloth Hall Court by being involved in depositing 'criminal cash' in the account of Bradford gold dealer Fowler Oldfield.
Prosecutors say the cash was brought into business addresses owned or managed by the defendants between January 2014 and September 2016. The jury heard that Stunt spent 'astonishing' sums during his marriage to Petra Ecclestone, including more than £800,000 on Lamborghinis.
Mr Clarke said: 'There is evidence of transfers of large amounts from her accounts into his. They also had joint accounts that, effectively, had unlimited resources.
'He has been able to write cheques on and arrange transfers from his personal account for truly astonishing sums of money. His charitable payments include a £10,000 donation to the Princes Trust in June 2014, £25,000 to The Great Steward of Scotland Dumfries House Trust (where part of his art collection was on loan) in August 2015 and another £25,000 in December of the same year.
'Unicef received £40,000 in October 2015 and then £301,000 in the following month. He paid £316,000 to Lamborghini in July 2015, another €260,000 [EUROS] in the November and then £359,000 in January 2016.
'There are also high value art purchases from galleries and auction houses.'
Mr Clarke added that Stunt has enjoyed an extravagant lifestyle, although his own personal finances are 'shrouded in mystery'.
'Bank account opening records and applications for finance suggest that he has extraordinarily high wealth and income.
'On closer examination, it has been impossible to verify any of the details set out on the applications and forms. When questions have been asked he could not answer them.'
Mr Clarke added: 'James Stunt is no longer married to Petra Ecclestone and given the breakdown in his marriage and the fact that the river of money from the Ecclestone sources may have been running dry, the financial future for Stunt may have appeared to him less abundant than it had been.
'This might be an explanation as to why he got involved in a process that has been demonstrably proven to have involved the laundering of millions of pounds of cash.'
Mr Clarke said that when initially questioned about his involvement in the money laundering network, he made no reply, but later his lawyers submitted a lengthy document divided into chapters.
The prosecutor told the court: 'The documents… seek to portray him as a man of exceedingly high wealth with virtually unlimited income and who could have had no possible motive to launder money.
'It is claimed that he earns a very significant income and makes enormous capital gains from his investments.
'He is presented as a successful entrepreneur who spots a business opportunity, sets up the business and financing, but then leaves all the detail to others who are left with the responsibility of making it happen without close oversight from him.
'He claims that if he had the slightest suspicion that anything illegal was being done in relation to his venture with Fowler Oldfield then he would have walked away.'
But official records from HMRC and Companies House told a different story, the jury heard.
He said the tax records exposed gaps in the history and apparent failures to account for benefits in kind, drawings on director's loan accounts, capital gains and show underreporting of income from companies and rental payments.
His dividend income was not, said Mr Clarke, what 'one might expect for a businessman claiming
