Why not the Assange Campaign International, like the transparency report says?
Except for the internal report.
This is only true if you assume there wasn’t a second fiat transaction, and that Wau Holland’s documents were wrong. Which they might have been - but they won’t answer.
True, and undisputed.
Unless you can see a further 1.5% transaction on that report, with a further description, this notion is conjecture as far as your article goes IMO.
Both the preliminary report and the Nov 2024 report clarify it was 3.5%.
Calling their internal documents conjecture is wild.
The reports that “clarify” that it was to a different organization entirely - the “Assange Campaign International”?
But this is all beside the point, which was that WHS has found ways around the “need to seek a grant for a specific project to satisfy a German tax audit”
Assange Dao’s future development direction will still be mainly public welfare. Our original intention remains unchanged. In this way, won’t it be easier to get the remaining funds back?
Wau Holland promised answers before going silent, and I’m not going to report them to the authorities. But again, this is all beside the point, which was that WHS has found ways around the “need to seek a grant for a specific project to satisfy a German tax audit.”
Yes they promised. The bigger issue I really think is why did they continue to pay out large sums for quite a period of time after Julian had been freed (this factors into the remaining funds figure). And whether they used adequate treasury managment for the entire period they were in control. Those answers will only be addressed by the German audit and were raised previously by members of this DAO, by the way.
Presumably WH will be required to display invoices and face potential risks for failure. It was a major responsibility.
Also its worth mentioning that Wau Holland and its staff/lawyers too have received significant threats over the years - so they may have valid reasons for privacy re the public.
Edited to make it clearer.
