Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Christopher Lunn guilty of tax fraud

by
19th Dec 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Accountant and former soldier Christopher Jonathan Lunn has been convicted on six counts of mis-representation under the Fraud Act for overstating clients’ accountancy fees.

The television accountant worked with his father Christopher Lunn at the now defunct accountancy firm Christopher Lunn & Company, which advised television freelancers and stars including Fiona Bruce and actor Sean Pertwee.

Lunn was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to nine months imprisonment on each count, suspended for 12 months. He was also ordered to carry out 250 hours unpaid work.

Lunn of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, dishonestly sent false invoices to the Revenue to cover up an increase in the amount charged for accountancy fees on behalf of his employers’ clients.

Clients were given one low-cost bill for accountancy services, which are tax deductible, but these bills were increased when their accounts were submitted to HMRC.

This meant that the firms’ clients paid less tax than they owed, as their fees were inflated to such an extent that the tax benefit was equal to the true cost of the accountancy service.

Jen Becker, assistant director of criminal investigation at HMRC, said: “Lunn admitted in court that the invoices were false but denied that he had lied to HMRC officers during the enquiries. The jury did not accept this. The overwhelming majority of tax agents are honest and HMRC relies on them to ensure their clients pay what they owe.”

HMRC said Lunn was “not a trained accountant” and was also convicted of lying about a client’s source of income.

He claimed that she had earned her income through a limited company, rather than as a sole trader, in order to take advantage of a lower tax rate for businesses.

Judge Andrew Goymer described him as “shameless” and said that the jury’s verdicts had showed he engaged in shameless and bare-faced dishonesty by lying to HMRC.

Separately, Christopher Lunn stood trial for nearly five months from September 2013 over six tax fraud charges, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on four of the charges in January 2014.

He is expected to face a retrial in September 2015.

Back in 2012 Lunn was charged with tax fraud and summonsed to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, after a decision to prosecute was authorised by the CPS, based on material put together from the HMRC investigation.

The previous year he had won a partial victory against the Revenue in overturning a ban from him acting as an agent.

In 2011 HMRC had removed agent status from his firm Christopher Lunn & Company.

However at the end of a two-day hearing in February 2011, Mr Justice Parker concluded the HMRC commissioners were wrong to withdraw the firm’s agent status.

Tags:

Replies (49)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
20th Dec 2014 10:35

Concurrent sentences?

I rather think the sentences of 9 months imprisonment on each of the six counts would be concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.

In other words, had the sentences not been suspended, the convicted defendant would have been sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in total (not four and a half years) and would probably have spent less than 3 months in prison before being released on a 'tag'.

Of course as the sentences were suspended he will not expect to spend any time actually in prison.  He will however be required to undertake the 250 hours unpaid work.

David

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
20th Dec 2014 11:47

Can I just ask

Why is it appropriate to state that he is an ex-soldier? If it is of any relevance, then why is the relevance not explained elswhere in the article? Please stick to the relevant facts, AW - throw-away remarks such as the above are reminiscent of Daily Mailesque journalism.

Thanks (0)
Replying to djn24:
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Dec 2014 12:47

Former soldier found guilty of tax fraud

BKD wrote:

Why is it appropriate to state that he is an ex-soldier? If it is of any relevance, then why is the relevance not explained elswhere in the article? Please stick to the relevant facts, AW - throw-away remarks such as the above are reminiscent of Daily Mailesque journalism.

It originates HERE.

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to djn24:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Dec 2014 18:55

I can't see the harm in reporting his previous job.

BKD wrote:

Why is it appropriate to state that he is an ex-soldier? If it is of any relevance, then why is the relevance not explained elswhere in the article? Please stick to the relevant facts, AW - throw-away remarks such as the above are reminiscent of Daily Mailesque journalism.

I don't think it does any harm. If it helped perpetuate some sort of prejudice, I would say it was harmful, but not otherwise.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
20th Dec 2014 14:05

Message sent

You can cheat on an industrial scale and expect little in the way of punishment.

Thanks (8)
avatar
By cbp99
20th Dec 2014 14:11

Confiscation order?

Any confiscation order to accompany this apparently lightweight sentence?

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Dec 2014 17:11

Confiscation (not)

My reading of the situation is that this convicted defendant Christopher Jonathan Lunn (aged 41) was an employee of Christopher Lunn & Co, a firm of accountants which is said to have been owned by Denis Christopher Lunn (age unknown to me).

I understand that Denis Christopher Lunn is the father of Christopher Jonathan Lunn.

So it would seem that Christopher Jonathan Lunn may have 'obtained' for confiscation purposes no 'benefit' from the six fraud offences of which he has been convicted.  I understand the frauds involved the submission of false documents / information to HMRC regarding the tax affairs of certain clients of Christopher Lunn & Co.  (I appreciate he would have earned a salary & maintained his employment but I think the courts would not in this case regard his salary as having been 'obtained' from the frauds of which he has been convicted.)

If he has obtained no 'benefit' and the offences are not specified in Sch 2 PoCA 2002 (which fraud is not) then there would be no basis for confiscation proceedings.

(Note - I understand that it is Denis Christopher Lunn who is facing a further trial in 2015.)

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to bookmarklee:
avatar
By cbp99
20th Dec 2014 18:01

Thanks

for the update David.

So it seems that the proceeds of fraud are not "criminal property" - is this because fraud is not an "offence"?

Thanks (0)
Replying to accountantccole:
David Winch
By David Winch
20th Dec 2014 20:04

You have misunderstood me

cbp99 wrote:

for the update David.

So it seems that the proceeds of fraud are not "criminal property" - is this because fraud is not an "offence"?

Fraud is an "offence".  In effect "offence" here is synonymous with "criminal offence".

And the proceeds of fraud obtained by a fraudster will be "criminal property".

But remember the statutory definition of fraud by false representation s2 Fraud Act 2006:

A person is in breach of this section if he - 

 

      (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and     

      (b) intends, by making the representation —

          (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

         (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

But in this case the fraudster did not obtain any proceeds of his fraud.  What he did certainly caused loss to HMRC or exposed HMRC to risk of loss (which includes a loss of tax to which HMRC would have been entitled).

Insofar as there were proceeds of these frauds they were obtained by way of illegitimate tax 'savings' by the clients and professional fees obtained by his employers.  So I am saying that I do not think the court would hold that he himself obtained any 'benefit' from his offences.

If he were a partner in the firm (which, since the firm are described as "his employers" I assume he was not) then he would have obtained proceeds of his fraud by way of a share in the professional fees earned from the clients.  He would then IMHO be subject to confiscation.

David

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
21st Dec 2014 11:53

Too remote?

His employers obtained fees from the false declarations on behalf of clients. Those fees provided the funds with which his employer paid him. Alternatively, his continued employment (and the salary from it) was dependent on his making the false declarations.

Presumably this is too remote to be considered proceeds for confiscation purposes. It just seems that the money he was paid with is tainted by a fraud he helped to perpetuate.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
21st Dec 2014 12:13

How Does the Suspended Sentence Work?

Hi David, as our legal expert can I ask how the suspended sentence works? If someone commits a further offence within 12 months, but this new case takes a few years to reach Court, will the suspended sentence still come back into play?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Peter Anderson:
David Winch
By David Winch
21st Dec 2014 13:59

Suspended sentence

mabzden wrote:

Hi David, as our legal expert can I ask how the suspended sentence works? If someone commits a further offence within 12 months, but this new case takes a few years to reach Court, will the suspended sentence still come back into play?

I'm not a legal expert - I am a forensic accountant specialising in crime & proceeds of crime.

If a defendant is given, say, a 9 month prison sentence suspended for 12 months then he may also be subject to further court orders at the same time (for instance an unpaid work order or a curfew).

The suspended sentence may be activated (in whole or in part) if during that 12 month period he (a) commits a further offence or (b) breaches the terms of any court order made as part of his sentence.

So the short answer to your question is "YES".  It is when the offence is committed (not when he is convicted of it) that the 12 months relates to.

There is more information on suspended sentences HERE.

David

Thanks (1)
David Winch
By David Winch
21st Dec 2014 13:50

Remote

Stephen

Yes in my view this is too remote.  It's not as if he got a special bonus for lying to HMRC!

David

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
21st Dec 2014 15:20

I guess the soldier's little army ...

I guess the soldier's little army didn't have quite enough firepower in the end!

http://www.christopherlunnandcompany.co.uk/fundenquiry.html

... But then again getting a suspended sentence for supplying false documents to HMRC seems to me like a good result for Lunn.

It sounds like the real interesting case will be the father's retrial in 2015.

Thanks (0)
Replying to djn24:
avatar
By Tim Robinson
03rd Jan 2015 11:06

HMRC Enquiry Fund

Sorry I joined this one a little late...

My belief is that it is necessary to have an insurance company standing behind any 'tax investigation fees' policy  If I read the PDF download from the above link correctly it appears to me that the HMRC Enquiries Fund offered by Christopher Lunn & Co is not backed by such a policy?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Anthony123
22nd Dec 2014 09:39

Punishment

The guy has a criminal record and will (I imagine) struggle to work in any kind of professional or indeed many other capacities now.

I don't think cluttering up the already crowded prison system with the likes of him is necessary or desirable.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Dec 2014 18:50

Post-prison Prospects for Christopher Lunn Jnr.

Anthony123 wrote:
The guy has a criminal record and will (I imagine) struggle to work in any kind of professional or indeed many other capacities now.

I don't think cluttering up the already crowded prison system with the likes of him is necessary or desirable.

Presumably he will get a job with his dad won't he?

Thanks (2)
By petersaxton
22nd Dec 2014 10:10

Criminals have it too easy

If prisons were less comfortable then there would be more of a disincentive to commit crime and sentences could be shorter (is that possible?). This would result in the problem of "crowded prisons" disappearing.

Thanks (1)
Replying to JasonDennis:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Dec 2014 18:48

I think prison life sounds awful

petersaxton wrote:
If prisons were less comfortable then there would be more of a disincentive to commit crime and sentences could be shorter (is that possible?). This would result in the problem of "crowded prisons" disappearing.

I have always thought prison life sounded pretty horrendous, being locked up for as much as 23 hours per day sometimes, in tiny little cells with a toilet right in the cell with you and your cell mate, and the violence from which there seems to be little protection.

I have heard prisoners say there is nothing that can prepare you for your first days in prison, and some people are scared to step out of their cell even when they are allowed to. The suicide rate in prison seems to be quite high too.

Thanks (2)
Replying to The Dullard:
By petersaxton
22nd Dec 2014 22:49

Career criminal

chatman wrote:

petersaxton wrote:
If prisons were less comfortable then there would be more of a disincentive to commit crime and sentences could be shorter (is that possible?). This would result in the problem of "crowded prisons" disappearing.

I have always thought prison life sounded pretty horrendous, being locked up for as much as 23 hours per day sometimes, in tiny little cells with a toilet right in the cell with you and your cell mate, and the violence from which there seems to be little protection.

I have heard prisoners say there is nothing that can prepare you for your first days in prison, and some people are scared to step out of their cell even when they are allowed to. The suicide rate in prison seems to be quite high too.

Not if you are a career criminal and if you are not a career criminal pretty soon you will get transferred to an open prison and spend your day at a local employer. It's a bit similar to what innocent people do.

Thanks (0)
Replying to RedFive:
David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Dec 2014 10:33

What would bug me

petersaxton wrote:

pretty soon you will get transferred to an open prison and spend your day at a local employer. It's a bit similar to what innocent people do.

What would bug me is the total lack of control of one's own life.  How one spends one's time, who one spends it with, where one lives.  Right now all these things are under my control.  If I were in prison they would not be.

Christmas with my family is preferable IMHO.

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
By ShirleyM
23rd Dec 2014 10:49

Too true

davidwinch wrote:

What would bug me is the total lack of control of one's own life.  How one spends one's time, who one spends it with, where one lives.  Right now all these things are under my control.  If I were in prison they would not be.

Christmas with my family is preferable IMHO.

David

The moral of the story is ... don't do the crime. :)

I have no sympathy for criminals, and they get off pretty light in this country in comparison to some other countries. No TV or loos even!

Thanks (0)
Adrian Pearson
By Adrian Pearson
22nd Dec 2014 11:34

HMRC are the worst-paying clients

The thing that caught my eye in all this was the statement that "The overwhelming majority of tax agents are honest and HMRC relies on them to ensure their clients pay what they owe"

It's a shame that HMRC are so ungrateful for the vital and free service that all accountants in the country are providing to them!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
22nd Dec 2014 14:02

Carry On Accounting

As the article says, Christopher Lunn & Co is now defunct. The same characters have popped up in a new firm called FTR Accountants Company Ltd, with FTR allegedly standing for "F*** The Revenue". If true, that's an interesting choice of name!

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
22nd Dec 2014 12:53

i have a sneaking admiration

for FTR

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By mabzden
22nd Dec 2014 13:20

...

carnmores wrote:

for FTR

I don't...

Thanks (7)
By petersaxton
22nd Dec 2014 13:48

I'm with mabzden

They got caught out and are upset about it.

Well done HMRC

Thanks (6)
Jennifer Adams
By Jennifer Adams
22nd Dec 2014 14:00

What is a shame......

.. is how prevalent this reading of accountants brought to task and ending up in court is becoming. What stuck me is that on the front page of accweb we have two instances of accountants not doing things correctly.

and Andrew Meeson a few months ago ...

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/former-tax-body-president-ordere...

..and what with Tescos this is increasingly bringing the profession into disrepute.

What I think is a shame is that they each must have worked hard for their qualification in the past and have now blown it all away.

We hear the more notable ones online but if you read 'Tax Advisor' every month there are a number who are up in front of the CIOT/ATT council being repremanded and many lose their right to practice or even their right to use the qualification.

They must have all taken Ethics as a module in their exams - the ICEAW module states:

"Ethics is more than just knowing the rules around confidentiality, integrity, objectivity and independence. It’s about identifying ethical dilemmas, understanding the implications and behaving appropriately." (my emphasis)

Should ICEAW, for example, be doing more - can they do more?

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to chicken farmer:
avatar
By ver1tate
17th Jan 2015 23:26

They must have all taken Ethics as a module in their exams

We all did. In my case with more than one body. But like the driving test, some would fail it after a few years of driving. CPD should be compulsory on this as well as knowledge, and the regime more strictly enforced.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
22nd Dec 2014 18:52

Christopher Lunn Confiscation Issue

Is it possible CL Jnr took the flak for CL Snr, as the latter would have been vulnerable to a confiscation order and the former not?

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
22nd Dec 2014 20:52

Being an ex-soldier can be beneficial if you get sent down

"From January, all new prisoners will be asked if they have been in the forces so ex-service personnel can be given specific rehabilitation programmes."

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
23rd Dec 2014 10:50

I'm not trying to pretend that being in jail is better

I think a lot of criminals think that if they are going to make a lot of money from a life of crime then risking jail is a risk worth taking.

I was watching a program about people making millions from identity theft. The ring leader got a jail sentence of 4 years - which means 1-2 years actually in jail. Is that a sufficient deterrent to the hardened criminals?

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
23rd Dec 2014 13:09

Nope ... prison isn't a deterrent to many people

If it were, we wouldn't have so many repeat offenders. Prisoners have more 'rights', and more taxpayers money spent on them than the really needy of this country.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
23rd Dec 2014 13:39

i meant the name not the firm

anyway its the Dad they are really after

Thanks (0)
avatar
By norstar
23rd Dec 2014 13:58

Bad news for the ex clients

I've got HMRC all over a client at the moment, from his days with Lunn back in 2003.

This verdict will justify their ability to go back to that year and enquire but I can't see how it's fair given that my client quite properly assumed all was well and disposed of the old records after the expiry of six years.

Fine, perhaps he should pay the difference in the fee provision vs fees invoiced, but HMRC are using it as open day on the client and just challenging figures right left and centre knowing that the client can't defend himself.

How's that fair?

Thanks (0)
Replying to JDBENJAMIN:
avatar
By thomas34
24th Dec 2014 17:19

Lunn

norstar wrote:

I've got HMRC all over a client at the moment, from his days with Lunn back in 2003.

This verdict will justify their ability to go back to that year and enquire but I can't see how it's fair given that my client quite properly assumed all was well and disposed of the old records after the expiry of six years.

Fine, perhaps he should pay the difference in the fee provision vs fees invoiced, but HMRC are using it as open day on the client and just challenging figures right left and centre knowing that the client can't defend himself.

How's that fair?

From my experience with an ex-Lunn client the problems went a lot deeper than overprovided accountancy fees. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Having seen at first hand the practices carried out by that firm I'm with HMRC on this one and hope they get the right result at the retrial. If there was ever a case for specialist juries for complex fraud trials this one would scream out for it.

You can review the tax returns for the past 6 years (look out for accountancy fees, use of home as office claims, telephone claims etc.) and see whether you would have done things differently. If not, it's unreasonable to extrapolate back a further 5 years. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
23rd Dec 2014 14:30

Blame Game

There are a lot of people claiming ignorance and saying everything is all someone else's fault. But there was a Tribunal case recently (reported in Taxation magazine) where an ex-CLAC client agreed a settlement with HMRC but then appealed against the 10% penalty. The Tribunal Judge said the errors in the accounts were so blatant that a non-accountant should have been able to spot them and turned the appeal down.

I have some sympathy with the Judge's view!

Thanks (2)
By petersaxton
23rd Dec 2014 15:16

Electronic records

That's why electronic records are preferable to paper records. I've kept everything that I have electronically going back 21 years. I also keep all my own paper records but every few years I have a mass disposal of client paper records although these are usually copy documents..

Thanks (1)
avatar
By carnmores
24th Dec 2014 13:51

we are all professional scanners now

everything in the cloud

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
06th Jan 2015 15:03

Don't think so

From what I've gathered the "Enquiry Fund" was an in-house job without any backing from an insurance company. (CLAC avoided describing it as an insurance policy, presumably to avoid any oversight from the FSA.) It appeared - IMHO - to be a ruse to increase the firm's fee income in the expectation there would be very few HMRC enquiries.

Obviously events took a turn for the worse and when CLAC clients tried to make a claim on the Enquiry Fund they were told that this wasn't possible as the "policy" only covered enquiries handled by CLAC. And, since HMRC had removed their agent status, CLAC weren't able to handle any enquiries. So tough luck.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By norstar
05th Jan 2015 16:06

Self insuring is still regulated

mabzden wrote:

From what I've gathered the "Enquiry Fund" was an in-house job without any backing from an insurance company. (CLAC carefully avoided describing it as an insurance policy, presumably to avoid any oversight from the FSA.) It was basically a ruse to increase the firm's fee income in the expectation that there would be very few HMRC enquiries.

 

Some time ago, during a period of dissatisfaction with my insurer who was being difficult about paying out for tax enquiries whilst trousering significant premiums, I enquired of the ACCA and FSA whether we could not self-administer and invoice clients a small set fee to waive future charges in the event of an enquiry.

I was told in no uncertain terms that I could call it a Christmas pudding if I wanted, but it was still insurance in their eyes and so I would have to be regulated and jump through all the hoops which that entailed.

If CLAC were found to have done this, I would have thought they were guilty of operating financially regulated activities without a license.

Unfortunately, my current insurer won't cover the cost of defending an ex-CLAC client, nor will the previous one, and nor will CLAC, so I do feel sympathy for these people who contrary to some of the views on this thread, knew nothing of what was going on.

 

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
05th Jan 2015 14:38

Let's be careful here!

I suggest commentators need to be very careful on this thread because the trial of Denis Christopher Lunn is still pending.  There are rules governing media comment on cases awaiting trial (in order to avoid the risk of prejudicing potential jurors) and these are backed up by criminal sanctions.

In this day & age and at this moment in time (and any more cliches I can remember) comments by AWEB members on threads such as this are subject to those rules and sanctions.  So unless anyone wants a holiday at Her Majesty's expense, let's steer clear of any comment which might be regarded as prejudicial.

It may well be that more information will come into the public domain during & after the trial of Denis Christopher Lunn.

David

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
avatar
By chatman
05th Jan 2015 16:10

Can you let us know when it's over please David?

davidwinch wrote:
I suggest commentators need to be very careful on this thread because the trial of Denis Christopher Lunn is still pending.  There are rules governing media comment on cases awaiting trial (in order to avoid the risk of prejudicing potential jurors) and these are backed up by criminal sanctions.

Can you let us know when it's over please David?

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
05th Jan 2015 18:36

I would expect that AWEB will be covering it!

Dav

Thanks (0)
Replying to Michael C Feltham:
avatar
By mabzden
09th Jan 2015 11:57

To David - I hope so!

davidwinch wrote:

I would expect that AWEB will be covering it!

This isn't a comment aimed at Aweb but the previous coverage of this story has been sparse and poor quality. I won't mention any names but the only outlet that has regularly ran CLAC stories is a website/magazine serving CLAC's customer base in the TV industry. These stories have provided nothing more than a mouthpiece for CLAC, and the only person they've ever quoted is Jonathan Lunn - not exactly the most impartial or reliable of sources.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:57

.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wanderer
13th Oct 2015 13:17

Happened to notice this, listed today
Southwark14T20127350Denis Christopher Carter LunnDetails:Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 23 Sworn - 10:52
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 24 Sworn - 11:05
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 11:50
Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 12:05 - 11:53
Trial (Part Heard) - Resume - 12:04

Presumably the same Denis Christopher Lunn as above?

Let's all take heed of David Winch's advice above & be careful not to pass comment.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
13th Oct 2015 16:20

Yes (allegedly)

This is the father. From what I can gather he's being charged on four counts (allegedly) and the trial is scheduled to end some time next month (allegedly).

Mr Lunn denies any wrongdoing.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
15th Apr 2016 12:19

I wonder how much VAT they owed?

I seem to remember seeing a liquidator's report for Lunn & Co saying they owed HMRC £400K when they ceased trading. There may be legitimate reasons for this, but it could also be the Directors/owners trying to get the last laugh at HMRC's expense.

 

Thanks (0)