English: https://wauland.de/media/2024-11-26_transparencyreport-07-ja.pdf
German: https://wauland.de/media/2024-11-26_transparenzbericht-07-ja.pdf
“The WHS is bound to use the ETH donation exclusively in accordance with the will of the donor (Pak) in the Julian Assange project. The Foundation must decide about the remaining funds in cooperation with tax lawyers, the tax office, and the supervisory authority («Stiftungsaufsicht»).”
Confirmed.
I consulted Grok (don’t know how useful Grok AI is but its probably better than my understanding of German tax laws) - this is their explanation of what the Stiftungsaufsicht would specify:
The rules regarding unused donated funds to a foundation under the German Stiftungsaufsicht (Foundation Supervision Authority) are primarily focused on ensuring that the donations are used in accordance with the foundation’s purpose and the donor’s intentions. Here’s a summary based on available information:
- Purpose and Use: Funds must be used for the purposes specified by the foundation’s charter or the donor’s stipulations. The Stiftungsaufsicht ensures that the foundation adheres to these purposes. If funds remain unused, they should still be directed towards achieving the foundation’s objectives, whether that involves future projects or ongoing activities that align with the foundation’s mission.
(Statutes of The Document Foundation — The Document Foundation)
- Unused Funds: If a foundation has surplus funds that are not immediately needed, these can be invested or held in reserve to secure the foundation’s financial sustainability. However, these funds should not be diverted to uses outside the foundation’s stated objectives without approval or modification of the foundation’s charter, which would typically involve the Stiftungsaufsicht.
(Statutes of The Document Foundation — The Document Foundation)
-
Reallocation: In cases where the original purpose of the donation becomes obsolete or unfeasible, funds might be reallocated to a similar or related purpose. This would generally require an amendment to the foundation’s statutes or a specific decision by the foundation’s board, potentially under the review or with the consent of the supervisory authority to ensure it aligns with the foundation’s mission.
-
Regulatory Oversight: The Stiftungsaufsicht monitors the management and use of foundation assets to prevent misuse. If a foundation fails to use funds in accordance with its purpose, the supervisory authority has the power to intervene, potentially leading to sanctions or changes in the foundation’s governance.
-
Returning Donations: Generally, once a donation is made to a foundation, it becomes the property of the foundation. However, if there’s a clear violation of the terms under which the donation was accepted, such as not using the funds for their intended purpose, there might be legal obligations or considerations for returning the donation, though this is more commonly addressed under general charity law rather than specific foundation regulations.
(When Nonprofit Organizations Should Return Donations - GRF CPAs & Advisors)
It’s important to note that these rules can be nuanced and might differ slightly based on the specific jurisdiction within Germany or the particular conditions of the foundation’s establishment. Foundations are expected to maintain transparency and accountability in how they manage their funds, which includes reporting to the Stiftungsaufsicht on their financial activities.
In the past what does Grok say about how Wau Holland have handled unused donation for projects in the past under their control.
Based on the available information, here’s how the Wau Holland Foundation (WHS) has handled the reallocation of donations when projects were completed:
-
General Reallocation Policy: The Wau Holland Foundation manages donations with a focus on supporting projects that align with its foundation goals related to freedom of information, digital rights, and informational self-determination. When a specific project is completed, the foundation does not typically specify how individual donations are reallocated in public reports but follows these general practices:
- Support for Foundation Goals: Free donations to the foundation (without project commitment) are used to help with ongoing work and to benefit projects that support the foundation’s overarching goals. This implies that once a project is completed, any remaining funds or future donations might be used for other projects or activities within the foundation’s scope.
(Wau Holland Foundation - Wau Holland Stiftung)
-
Board Decision: The decision on how to use donations, especially for reallocation after project completion, is made by the Foundation’s Board of Directors. This includes using the funds for small projects or activities not initially tied to a specific donation purpose.
(Wau Holland Foundation - Wau Holland Stiftung) -
Project Support: Donations can be reallocated to support other ongoing or new initiatives that align with the foundation’s mission, like supporting whistleblowers, journalists, and hacktivists or funding new software development for privacy and security.
-
Specific Cases:
-
WikiLeaks Support: After the 2010 WikiLeaks cable releases, the Wau Holland Foundation handled donations for WikiLeaks’ legal defense and operational costs. While not explicitly detailed, the foundation’s practice suggests that any remaining funds from these donations might have been redirected to similar purposes or used for general support of freedom of information efforts.
-
Julian Assange Legal Defense: With the arrest of Julian Assange in 2019, WHS collected donations specifically for his legal defense. After his release, any remaining funds would likely continue to be used in support of legal defenses for journalists or similar causes aligned with the foundation’s mission.
-
It’s important to understand that the Wau Holland Foundation’s approach to donations is holistic, aiming to support its mission comprehensively rather than strictly on a project-by-project basis. This means that once a project is completed, funds are typically not returned but reallocated within the scope of the foundation’s objectives.
However, specific details on how donations are reallocated post-project completion are not usually detailed in public documents, emphasizing instead the general mission support.
[This is my analysis - given that information - the most likely result will be that the excess funds will have to remain within the Wau Holland Foundation and spent on similar projects. Its very doubtful that the WHS would even be allowed to transfer funds elsewhere - even if they made a statement to say they intended to follow those similar rules - given German law.]
this report is not much different from before. We expect to see specific invoice details, such as the Australian Foundation that GabrielShipton controlled, the specific expenditure details of GabrielShipton, whether he bought first class or economy class by plane. However, this report obviously cannot solve the doubts about whether the funds were abused, and the transparent report is not transparent.
Australian campaign’s staff have not received WHS funds,they are complaining about the lack of funds.
GabrielShipton,you controlled Foundation and Assange Campaign should give us a detail report?
The Assange Campaign was an official campaign and it received 580.745 ETH ($1,994,810.33) from WHS. This has been reported upon by WHS before.
I presume after those funds were transferred to the Australian Assange campaign that the expenditure would have been administered solely by the Australian Assange campaign.
That campaign was primarly designed to lobby the Australian Government and raise awareness in Australia.
This is a warning to grassroots activists - seek out official funding for activities from official channels in advance, don’t get swept away and caught up in unapproved/unofficial actions (this is a response to the above claims that grassroots supporters took out small loans - which obviously was a silly thing to do, if that is what some people chose to actually do).
According to Wau Holland, it went to “Assange Campaign International”, not the Australian campaign (Assange Campaign Inc.). I’ve asked Wau Holland and members of the Assange family about this, but no answer. I’ve also been asking for months what the “Assange Campaign International” is but gotten no answer.
Mxy I just believe that is referring to all of the campaigns run in UK, Australia and USA and elsewhere. The Australian part of it, ’ ASSANGE CAMPAIGN INC’ is registered in Victoria, Australia. Perhaps that also might be what they’re referring to.
Could be just shorthand.
Main takeaways
-
WHS confirms that the yearly balances now shown in the latest report differ from the July report due to an accounting error. So presumably if tax assessments have already been issued for those years they would have to be amended for the German tax authorities and reassessed for tax purposes
-
the final audit will not be available until late 2025 - " Reliable figures can only be presented after the 2024 annual financial statements have been prepared at the end of 2025."
-
the flight expense to Australia was not reimbursed yet to WHS. Confirms that WHS signed a bond to pay that amount with the Australian Government and are obliged to cover that cost
-
the preliminary report mentioned the AssangeDAO. This report emphasises Pak’s role as donor and their control in these WHS issues, only.
-
investment losses occured in 2022 due to the slump in ETH market (same market impact happened to this DAO) and the German law requirement to establish a Euros equivalent account
(The UK fundraiser, US fundraisers for Assange’s flight expense have not been closed - reason unknown. Whether the flight expense component will be returned to WHS in the future remains unknown. Same with the bitcoin donation which practically covered all of that flight cost).
*(This report confirms that “donors” are recognised by the German tax authority and WHS own constitution - possessing rights in regard to fund application)
It could be, but we’ve been told before that they can’t send money except to specific groups and non-profits. It’s why they couldn’t send money to the DAO, as I understood it.
In hindsight, the DAO leaders in 2021/22 should have insisted on a 5% fee for all of its formation expenses - including installing full time treasury and marketing professionals to run it as a crypto social justice organisation, similar to WHS. A vision lost in time, IMO. At least we saved Julian but saving anymore, no.
2 Likes
The DAO could still have a future, if governance passes
2 Likes
yes,that’s what Amir wants.That makes everything legitimate and justice. assange family made mistakes, and they need to make up for them afterwards. At least now people still have illusions about Assange himself.
1 Like