Jim Stanley, identified in the 187 page Government report as the villain in the murky Bula Resources saga, had plenty of experience, and endurance, to turn Bula Resources into something worthwhile. He was former manager of group finance at CIE, and finance director of the international mining group, Anglo American in Zambia, in the seventies, before his twenty year stint as executive chairman of Bula Resources.

Although now said to be in poor health, living in Moscow, he was noted for his fitness "often jogging for 14 miles", and running more than one family home, according to one former business acquaintance.

Why then, past his prime, did he deceive his shareholders and fellow directors, according to the report, in a tissue of lies? Do the other directors bear any responsibility for what has happened? And what future, if any, does Bula now have?

His back had been up against the wall (that does not excuse his actions). Shareholders had been highly critical of the group's performance at a number of annual general meetings. The repetitive answers had become worn and limp.

He was faced with resignation or do something concrete. He chose the latter with almost disastrous consequences for the group. These involved write-offs in two Russian oil fields; u £12.3 million from the investment in the Salymskoye oil field and u £8 million due to title problems over the Atk-Otyr oil field. Jim Stanley, the beneficial owner of Mir Oil, according to the report, received u £2.5 million in Bula shares.

It is not usual for paid executives to do deals outside their companies but details of such deals are disclosed. Mr Stanley could have done this. Instead, he chose to hide the identity of the owner of Mir. Worse, he gave false names and lied, according to the report.

Indeed, reading through the report, it is obvious he tried to bring in other innocent parties but they would not bite because the proposed deals were "highly unethical and improper".

Is it worth pursuing Mr Stanley through the courts? As stated at last week's marathon annual general meeting, the company will have to weight up the prospects of success against the cost involved. He seems to have some Irish assets.

Until last year, Mr Stanley lived in Brownsbarn House, the former home of Lord Teighmouth, which is on the river Nore, outside Thomastown, Co Kilkenny. The property was bought by River Properties which is registered in Jersey with the same address at Chamonix Corporate Secretaries, the company used by Mr Stanley in his dealings involving Mir Oil.

He is also understood to have large holdings in Ovoca Resources. Market sources say there have been a number of large sales recently but these were in nominee names. Jim Stanley had been chairman and resigned a year ago.

Members of the Bula board cannot wash their hands and claim no responsibility for the fiasco. Non-executive directors could argue that they should not be as accountable as their duties do not involve day-to-day management. However, company law places them under the same legal obligation as the executive directors. The report, by Mr Lyndon MacCann, makes it clear that there were many warning signs that something about the Mir deal was askew. Mr Pat Mahony, then a director of Bula and now managing director, was warned back in March, 1995, that Mr Stanley might have a related party disclosure to make.

Other warnings followed which led to Mr Mahony confronting Mr Stanley. Following an assurance from Mr Stanley that he was not involved, the deal went ahead.

This raises the question - if you are an executive, do you accept the word of your chief executive? If you do not, do you then demand documentation, such as due diligence?

Obviously, there has to be some degree of trust among board members. Otherwise, every meeting would be confrontational and destructive - not a good brew. However, there were sufficient signals in the Bula affair to warrant an investigation by the board. Moreover, the board should have insisted on due diligence before the deal with Mir was signed. No doubt that issue will be teased out by the Bula shareholders when they discuss the report more fully at the forthcoming extra-ordinary general meeting.

The 30,000 shareholders who have seen their share price collapse, from 50p when they went on the market to a mere 1.25p, will also want to know where does Bula go from here. The company has already succeeded in freezing 74 million Bula shares issued in connection with the Mir deal, so Mr Stanley only received under u £700,000 of the u £2.5 million.

In addition, it has made a claim for u £9.1 million against Gouldens, the London solicitors who advised Bula on the AkiOtyr transaction. However, the company will be relying on interests in North Africa and the Middle East, areas which have proven oil reserves. Shareholders' funds plummeted from u £14.3 million to a mere u £2.0 million last year, following write-offs. Bula badly needs a funding operation, or alternatively, a merger.