I've pinched this post from another forum.
It's written by a much-respected blue in answer to a question about the difference between what Milan did to breach FFP rules, and City's situation.
"Milan were initially going to get a two year ban (for repeated rule breaches already) but appealed to CAS, who overruled it and said as long as you get your finances in order then that’s ok. Theirs has been missing loan repayments and continually breaching the break even target.
They then breached again though so went to uefa with this offer to stop the two year ban from happening, which CAS have also agreed to (which is why it is a Consent order rather than a sanction). They’ve come out of it far better than Uefa initially wanted to and now have got another year to sort themselves out.
With City, that accusation is linked to the same reporting period that we were already sanctioned for, but alleges that the Etihad sponsorship payment was paid from elsewhere (potentially Mansour depending on how the emails are interpreted) and the charge is misleading investigators.
In terms of the criminal law element, there is no accusation or evidence around that, both Etihads and City’s accounts are independently audited by law already. If there was issues with that though, that would likely be more against Etihad (and the independent accountants, who I have a memory were PWC for us, the same as Uefa)."