Up Next
Aston Martin has been fined $450,000 for 12 cases of “incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs” in its 2021 Formula 1 budget cap submission.
The punishment has been decided in the form of an Accepted Breach Agreement between the FIA and Aston Martin.
A procedural breach means Aston Martin made an administrative error or errors. The FIA says that Aston Martin failed to file accurate full year reporting documentation.
Williams and Red Bull were also guilty of procedural breaches while Red Bull spent too much money as well – which Aston Martin has not done.
Instead, its breach relates to the Cost Cap Administration determining Aston Martin included 12 inaccurately accounted costs.
These were in respect of the new team headquarters that are being built, a research and development tax credit, cost of a new simulator, windtunnel additional fees, “certain signing bonus” costs, the use of transferable components, used inventories, service desk costs, the cost of catering services provided to personnel at its factory headquarters, the cost of desks and chairs, unrecorded costs and losses in respect of the cost of services rendered by sponsors, and the cost of services rendered by outsourced personnel.
Aston Martin’s fine is considerably larger than the $25,000 fine Williams received earlier this year when it was found to have committed a procedural breach.
Williams’s breach, which is that it failed to submit the complete documentation by the deadline of 31 March 2022 because of an issue with a third party, was voluntarily disclosed to the FIA in advance so was a lesser offence.
In addition to the $450,000 fine, Aston Martin must bear the costs incurred by the Cost Cap Administration in connection with the preparation of the ABA.
Aston Martin accepted the breach and has stated for some time now that it regretted the offence, which it put down to the complexity of the new financial regulations.
The FIA stated: “The Cost Cap Administration recognised that AMR has acted cooperatively and in good faith throughout the review process and has sought to provide additional information and evidence when requested in a timely manner, that this is the first year of the full application of the Financial Regulations and that there is no accusation or evidence that AMR has sought or obtained any undue advantage as a result of the breach.”
