Noah Becker, 28, and his younger brother Elias Becker, 22, accompanied Lillian De Carvalho Monteiro to HMP Huntercombe near Henley today to visit jailed tennis star Boris Becker

Noah Becker, 28, and his younger brother Elias Becker, 22, accompanied Lillian De Carvalho Monteiro to HMP Huntercombe near Henley today to visit jailed tennis star Boris Becker

Today marked the first time that the sons and fiancée of disgraced tennis player Boris Becker visited him in jail.

Lillian De Carvalho Monteiro visited the former Wimbledon champion while he is serving a 2.5-year sentence for fraud at HMP Huntercombe in Oxfordshire with the help of Noah Becker, 28, and his younger brother Elias Becker, 22.

Former world number one Becker, who has provided commentary for the BBC’s coverage of SW19 since 2002, was sentenced to prison in April for attempting to evade paying his debts by concealing £2.5 million in assets and loans.

The German, 54, who owed creditors about £50 million over an outstanding loan of more than £3 million on his Mallorca villa, was declared bankrupt on June 21, 2017.

Becker, who has resided in the UK since 2012, is anticipated to serve prison time for half of his sentence.

The embarrassed coach’s family is supported by the Serbian star Novak Djokovic, who has been hosting Becker’s fiancée and son Noah in his player’s box at The Championships as a sign of solidarity.

Djokovic stated, “I haven’t been communicating to him directly, but I’ve been communicating to him through them,” after winning his second-round singles match on Wednesday.

The opportunity to host his fiancée and his kid, Noah, for both my first-round play and today’s second-round match made me very happy.

For the first time since he was sent to prison, Boris will likely receive a visit from Noah and his younger brother Elias in the coming days.

I’ve only been attempting to help Boris’ closest friends and family members since I view him as a family member who deserves my utmost respect, admiration, and care.

During our three years of working together, we have experienced a lot. Even before that, we had been close. Naturally, even when our work relationship ended, he remained close with my team, my agents, and my family.

“I can’t stand to witness what’s happening to him,” you might say. How difficult it must be for his family members, I can only imagine. Therefore, inviting them is obviously a small act of friendship.

He and they are both aware that they can rely on me at all times for any kind of assistance or support.

Prior to relocating to the UK, Becker resided in Monte Carlo and Switzerland. He previously admitted to Southwark Crown Court that he had “expensive lifestyle obligations,” including a £22,000 monthly rental residence in Wimbledon, South West London.

On June 21, 2017, he was declared bankrupt due to an outstanding loan of more than £3 million on his Mallorca villa. He had been charged with concealing assets worth millions of pounds, including two Wimbledon trophies, in order to avoid paying his obligations.

Becker asserted that he had complied with the trustees in charge of protecting his assets, even putting up his wedding ring, and had taken guidance from professionals.

“Looking at the way the evidence was put and the route to verdict, it is the prosecution view that the jury rejected his case that he did not act dishonestly and must have decided that he did,” Rebecca Chalkley, prosecuting, said in Southwark Crown Court.

None of the funds in count four, which represented the funds transferred to third parties, totaled £390,000. The prosecution argues that the entire sum—not just the 50% that Mr. Laidlaw claims—should be recovered or accounted for.

“It is true that the jury determined that the defendant was unaware of the allotted time, or they came to the conclusion that the transfer to the other Boris Becker accounts was not a concealment, but they did find him guilty of making the payments to the third parties.”

The jury had to have come to the conclusion that the transfer of all money was intentional and dishonest.

According to the way the case was presented, it is possible to understand why the jury reached the conclusions they did by examining the disparity between the bankrupt time and the prescribed period, the third parties, and the many Boris Becker stories.

The Leimen property, according to her, is still up for sale and is worth £1.53 million.

The full sum is included because he tried to take it out of the estate, and it hasn’t yet been paid back to the creditors, according to Ms. Chalkley.

It will be available, certainly, but there is a distinction to be made between the money lost and what was sought to be lost, and the actual amount lost is £390,000.

According to the Insolvency Service, Becker will remain an undischarged bankrupt until October 2031.

Becker had “fallen from grace” and “will have to rely on the generosity of others to survive,” the court was also informed in April.

His attorney claimed that since he was found guilty of concealing assets from the Insolvency Service, he has undergone “public humiliation” and has “no future.”

He continued by saying that his deeds were tragic, having destroyed a “glittering” career and leaving him with “absolutely nothing.”

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, who was representing the defendant today, made the following mitigation statement: “I submit, and I hope this is not an exaggeration, that Boris Becker has literally nothing and there is nothing to show for what was the most glitzy of sports careers.

“That is a catastrophe in every way.” This man has experienced the most outrageous public humiliation as a result of his fall from grace.

His level of pain is punishment that no other bankrupt in this nation is likely to undergo, according to the judge.

Therefore, there is actually no future for the defendant.

“These proceedings have ruined his career, eliminated any chance of him ever making any money, and his brand is in ruins.”

If he wants to survive, he won’t be able to obtain employment and would have to rely on the kindness of others.

He had previously told the court he was in “desperate financial difficulties” and had chosen who to send money to rather than the bankruptcy trustees.

According to his attorney, he transferred money to his ex-wife and estranged wife to “pay bills” and “meet his commitments.”

Additionally, he claimed Becker currently has “nothing” to show for the most illustrious of sporting accomplishments.

The bankruptcy’s initial filing cost £49,181,724 and included the British private bank Arbuthnot Latham, according to the court. It was £40,067,065 when the bank was excluded.

The amount realized up to this point is £3.184 million.

“He was in dire financial problems, and what in essence he has done and this is the basis of his culpability,” said Mr. Laidlaw QC.

He has exercised his right to pick which creditors to pay, opting to pay money to dependents rather than letting the trustees decide how to use it.

That is a crime, but the basis for the sentencing here is very different from what has previously been argued.

Would those payments to others automatically be rejected by the bankruptcy trustee, he continued?

“Given this context, it was obvious that the defendant had to continue providing for his ex-wife, and doing so would have been in accordance with the court’s orders.”

He was no longer in a relationship with his ex-wife, and the joint trustees had given him permission to keep working. The majority of the funds flow into such sectors.

“I appreciate the argument you make, and I hope the court would also accept it, that the defendant is expressing a desire that is obviously wrong for him to do, but those payments might have received the trustee in bankruptcy’s approval.

“We’re not worried about the money being used for a luxury lifestyle, gambling, or anything like that,” the speaker declares.

Additionally, Mr. Laidlaw urged the judge to deny Becker’s claim that he obtained a mortgage on a home in order to prevent creditors from seizing it.

I invite you to refuse the loan, the mortgage, which was sought with bankruptcy in mind, he stated. That submission must be rejected.

“The loan was approved on March 27,” was the evidence. Two months later, on May 28, he was served with the petition, which was submitted a month earlier.

A gadget like the one the prosecution is speculating couldn’t have been it.

»Share Your Opinion On TDPel Media«