For most media outlets Friday was a quiet bank holiday, but in Germany the newspapers went into overdrive. Two publications printed details which they claim come from F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone's recent questioning by prosecutors investigating allegations that German banker Gerhard Gribkowsky was paid a $50m bribe to undervalue the sport when it was sold to current owner CVC in 2006. If true, the allegations don't bode well for Gribkowsky.

According to one publication Ecclestone told public prosecutor Hildegard Baumler-Hosl that Gribkowsky blackmailed him and forced him to pay $40m. It claims that Gribkowsky demanded $40m from Ecclestone after the sale of F1 to CVC and he threatened to let the UK Exchequer know details about his international business network and its tax structure.

This seems hard to believe for a number of reasons. Firstly, Ecclestone has publicly denied paying the money to Gribkowsky. Secondly Friday's German reports also claim that Ecclestone says he had no consultancy agreement with Gribkowsky. This is surprising since not only has Gribkowsky claimed that he received the money from consultancy contracts but previous reports in Germany printed details which they claim came from the consultancy agreement between Gribkowsky and the two offshore firms which paid the $50m to him. It is also odd that the amount which German media claims Ecclestone says he was forced to pay is $40m since Gribkowsky received $50m.

Likewise, one wonders how Gribkowsky could have blackmailed Ecclestone personally given that, unlike some other high net worth individuals, his financial and tax position is pretty straightforward. In February 1996 he transferred his biggest cash cow, his shares in F1's former rightsholder F.O.C.A. Administration, to a Jersey-based trust whose beneficiaries are his family members. He did this for good reason because his health was not as good as it is now and if he had died his Croatian ex-wife Slavica would have had to pay tax on her inheritance because she had not yet lived in the UK long enough to be domiciled here.

The trust is completely separate to Ecclestone and he told Pitpass' business editor Chris Sylt "the [Inland] Revenue obviously had to check everything. It took five years going through that. I didn't deal with it. The trust had to show it was correct." In short, his personal financial situation has already been given a seal of approval from the UK authorities. As an aside, that doesn't mean to say that he was happy with it.

"Out of all the mistakes I have made in this world probably the worst was giving everything to my ex that she put in trust," he says, adding "I was advised to give the shares because at the time Slavica was non-domiciled because you have to be here 18 years to be domiciled. If I had died during that period, normally a wife could inherit money without paying tax but in that case she would have had to pay tax so the easy way to deal with it was give her the shares."

He adds "the trustees are not business people so they sit on a pile of money so they could have bought lots of things cheap at the time."

Anyway, back on the subject of the Friday's reports in Germany, Ecclestone has said he does "not intend to make any further public comment" on the investigation into Gribkowsky beyond his statement last week which said "I have been cooperating with the State Prosecution Office's investigation of the affairs of Dr Gribkowsky since the outset. When I was informed that there was a first suspicion in relation to my perceived involvement in the matter, I went to see the Senior State Prosecutor and her team in Munich earlier this month to clear up any allegations against me. I will continue to give the State Prosecution Office my full cooperation in whatever capacity it may ask and I am confident that when the full facts have been established, I will be exonerated of blame for any wrongdoing."

The claims in Friday's papers about the contents of his testimony certainly cannot be trusted at face value since the German media has in the past printed some absurd allegations about the Gribkowsky case which seemed to contradict each other. However, it is worth pointing out that if true, Gribkowsky is likely to be staying right where he is.

If Ecclestone was indeed blackmailed by Gribkowsky he has nothing to worry about from the German investigation, even if he did indeed pay $40m to the German, since, as Pitpass has previously pointed out, he would be the victim of a crime. Echoing this, the German media reports state that if Gribkowsky is convicted of blackmail Ecclestone can demand his money back because, as the blackmailer, Gribkowsky would have committed a crime.

Interestingly, although Gribkowsky's lawyer recently launched an appeal against him being held in custody a source in the public prosecutor's office is quoted as saying "we reckon that his custody will be upheld." Gribkowsky's lawyer rejects all the accusations against his client and the German media reports claim that if the court follows his arguments Gribkowsky could be released after Easter. According to the reports there will be a decision by the county court within two weeks so we shouldn't have to wait long to find out.