Bayern Munich President Uli Hoeness Charged with Tax Evasion
Uli Hoeness, the current president of defending European champion Bayern Munich, has been charged with tax evasion, reports the Associated Press on Twitter.
Spokesman for prosecutors: Bayern Munich president Uli Hoeness has been charged with tax evasion. Story soon. #bundesliga— AP Sports (@AP_Sports) July 30, 2013
Further information provided by the Canadian Press states German prosecutors charged Hoeness after he previously reported an undeclared Swiss bank account. Bayern backed him throughout the investigation, and now he has one month to respond.
Munich prosecutors' spokesman Ken Heidenreich said Tuesday that Hoeness' lawyers have one month to respond to the charges, and a Munich court will decide whether the case goes to trial. He wouldn't say how long that decision might take.
Heidenreich...declined to comment on details of the indictment, citing tax secrecy laws.
The report goes on to say Hoeness offered to step aside temporarily while the situation played itself out, but the club's board confirmed it wanted him to stay. He watched over a squad that was able to capture a historic treble last season.
Whether the charges will cause the board to change its stance on Hoeness manning his post is unclear. He has until the end of next month to officially respond to the charges, and by that time Bayern will have already made a deep dive into the new campaign.
His status, depending on the response and the court's decision on whether or not the case will go to trial, could become a distraction for the club. That's clearly not an ideal scenario as Bayern looks to back up a memorable season with another one.
Beyond that, it's simply a waiting game. Hoeness must respond and then wait until a court decides the next course of action. As mentioned in the report, there remains no timetable for how long the process could take to complete.
In the meantime, Hoeness' club will proceed with an Audi Cup matchup against Sao Paulo on Wednesday. Bundesliga play gets underway Aug. 9.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?