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

Former ATT president ordered to repay £1.6m

by
30th Sep 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

A former Association of Taxation Technicians (ATT) president and a fellow company director who were jailed for pension scheme tax fraud in 2013 have been ordered to pay back a total of £5.1m.

Andrew Meeson and Peter Bradley must repay the money within six months or serve a further 10 years in jail, HMRC said in a statement. Meeson became ATT president in July 2011 but stepped down just three months later, citing personal reasons relating to an HMRC investigation.

Confiscation proceedings at Birmingham Crown Court followed HMRC’s financial investigation into the men’s assets.

Meeson and Bradley were both sentenced to eight and a half years in jail in March 2013. They had conspired to receive £5m in fraudulent income tax repayments via their company, Tudor Capital Management Limited, HMRC said. “The pair claimed that the repayments were due on pension contributions of £25m made by scheme members, but HMRC investigators found that these contributions did not exist.”

Andrew Meeson, aged 53, lived in George Street, Wolverhampton, at the time of his conviction. He was ordered to repay £1,642,205.

Peter Spencer Bradley, aged 47, formerly of Springhill Lane, Lower Penn, Wolverhampton, was ordered to repay £3,458,002.

Adrian Farley, HMRC assistant director, criminal investigation said: “Meeson and Bradley committed blatant theft, exploiting their positions of trust and authority. Our priority is to track down tax fraudsters and to confiscate their ill-gotten gains. If they do not pay up, they face a substantial additional prison sentence – and they will still owe the money on release.”

An ATT spokesperson said: “It is right that HMRC take firm action against tax fraud. They have our full support in doing so.”

Replies (34)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
30th Sep 2014 16:44

Interesting!

The information which I have on this is limited.  For example I do not know whether the tax refunds fraudulently obtained were retained by these defendants (via the company they ran) or passed on to their clients.  Nor do I know whether the amounts ordered to be paid were based on the benefit obtained by each of the defendants or on the available amount of each defendant.

I am bound to say that the default jail terms of 10 years in each case look a bit steep to me - particularly in the case of Mr Meeson.  He may be considering an appeal.

I understand he did appeal the original sentence for the offence but his appeal was unsuccessful.

David

Thanks (4)
David Winch
By David Winch
30th Sep 2014 21:56

Possibly a coincidence

Whilst looking for background information on Mr Meeson's prosecution & confiscation, I came across a prosecution for CIS tax fraud between 2002 and 2007 in which the convicted defendants included a Mr Phillips and a Mr Scragg.

It appears that Mr Scragg's defence was to some extent his assertion that the relevant tax matters were being dealt with not by Mr Scragg but by Mr Phillips and the firm of accountants instructed by the various companies involved in paying employees / subcontractors.  Mr Scragg said he was not involved in any fraud.  The jury disbelieved him & he was convicted in November 2010.

The firm of accountants instructed by the various companies were a firm called Spencer Bradley Meeson of Ashbourne in Derbyshire. 

(Mr Phillips on the other hand asserted that he had been honest & it was Mr Scragg who was the fraudster.  The jury convicted both of them.)

I note that Peter Bradley's full name is Peter Spencer Bradley.  I am wondering if the principals in Spencer Bradley Meeson included the Mr Bradley & Mr Meeson who are now subject to these confiscation proceedings.

If they were then it would appear that they had come to the attention of HMRC, for one reason or another, some years ago. 

I understand the investigation which culminated in Mr Meeson's conviction had commenced prior to him becoming president of the ATT in May 2011. 

One could speculate that any connection Mr Bradley & Mr Meeson had with the Phillips / Scragg case could have led to closer scrutiny of their own businesses resulting in the prosecution for the fraud through Tudor Capital Management Ltd which is said to have been carried out between 2007 & 2010.

Or it could be just coincidence.

David

Thanks (6)
Replying to gainsborough:
By JCresswellTax
01st Oct 2014 09:56

Great detective work

davidwinch wrote:

Whilst looking for background information on Mr Meeson's prosecution & confiscation, I came across a prosecution for CIS tax fraud between 2002 and 2007 in which the convicted defendants included a Mr Phillips and a Mr Scragg.

It appears that Mr Scragg's defence was to some extent his assertion that the relevant tax matters were being dealt with not by Mr Scragg but by Mr Phillips and the firm of accountants instructed by the various companies involved in paying employees / subcontractors.  Mr Scragg said he was not involved in any fraud.  The jury disbelieved him & he was convicted in November 2010.

The firm of accountants instructed by the various companies were a firm called Spencer Bradley Meeson of Ashbourne in Derbyshire. 

(Mr Phillips on the other hand asserted that he had been honest & it was Mr Scragg who was the fraudster.  The jury convicted both of them.)

I note that Peter Bradley's full name is Peter Spencer Bradley.  I am wondering if the principals in Spencer Bradley Meeson included the Mr Bradley & Mr Meeson who are now subject to these confiscation proceedings.

If they were then it would appear that they had come to the attention of HMRC, for one reason or another, some years ago. 

I understand the investigation which culminated in Mr Meeson's conviction had commenced prior to him becoming president of the ATT in May 2011. 

One could speculate that any connection Mr Bradley & Mr Meeson had with the Phillips / Scragg case could have led to closer scrutiny of their own businesses resulting in the prosecution for the fraud through Tudor Capital Management Ltd which is said to have been carried out between 2007 & 2010.

Or it could be just coincidence.

David

I'm thinking this is more than just coincidence!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Helen Crowley
01st Oct 2014 11:09

ATT Certificate

One of the signatures on my ATT certificate is "AD Meeson" when he was a Member of Council in May 2000!  

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidbarry:
avatar
By HUGH W DUNLOP
14th Oct 2014 15:15

ATT Certificate

May be worth selling on E Bay to autograph collectors.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Andy Davis
01st Oct 2014 11:30

Jail term
I don't know all the background on this, but on the face of it the jail term doesn't seem disproportionate.
If I got caught having broken into a bank and nicked the cash, I'd expect a similar sentence.

Thanks (1)
Replying to WhichTyler:
David Winch
By David Winch
01st Oct 2014 12:00

Default sentence

Andy Davis wrote:
I don't know all the background on this, but on the face of it the jail term doesn't seem disproportionate. If I got caught having broken into a bank and nicked the cash, I'd expect a similar sentence.

The jail term I was referring to was not the 8½ years for the fraud, it was the potential additional 10 years for failing to pay the £1.6m on time.  This 10 year sentence is the maximum for any amount over £1m.  Generally for a sum of less than £2m a shorter default term of say 7 or 8 years would be set.

(Bear in mind he would still be liable to pay the £1.6m after his release.)

David

Thanks (1)
Replying to SWAccountant:
avatar
By Andy Davis
01st Oct 2014 12:21

Default sentance

I appreciate what you are saying.

I think the court is making an example of him, Given his profile I'm not surprised, and am struggling to find much sympathy!

Thanks (1)
Replying to WhichTyler:
avatar
By chatman
02nd Oct 2014 09:21

Punishment: it's all relative

Andy Davis wrote:
If I got caught having broken into a bank and nicked the cash, I'd expect a similar sentence.

Although if you had brought down the world economy, your bank had been found to have laundered money for Mexican millionaires or you had fiddled your expenses as an MP you wouldn't expect any sentence at all, so I think it is quite harsh.

Thanks (0)
Shorty
By Shorty
01st Oct 2014 11:47

Jail Terms

I appreciate that they are robbing barstewards but you get less bird for killing people with your car?!  http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/update/2014-07-31/peterborough-woman-jailed-for-killing-driver-while-using-two-mobile-phones/

Just checked my ATT cert - he's not on there :-)

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By gb4242
01st Oct 2014 15:10

sentence length

I agree. 18.5 years for a non-violent crime is way too much and has lost its relativity to other sentences. We will soon be chopping hands off for stealing apples from a market trader.

Thanks (1)
Replying to GHarr497688:
avatar
By User deleted
02nd Oct 2014 14:28

Sounds

gb4242 wrote:

We will soon be chopping hands off for stealing apples from a market trader.

 

Sounds like Shariah law is on its way

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
01st Oct 2014 12:00

Makes the whole professional ethics situation laughable

Here is someone elected to the highest position of a professional body which as part of its role considers its duty is to pursue members who apparently aren't up to the mark.

I think before anyone is appointed to such a senior position in any professional body HMRC should be consulted as to any investigations that are ongoing into firms in which they are seniors. Such candidates would of course sign a document authorising HMRC to disclose such matters.

Thanks (2)
Replying to SXGuy:
avatar
By jonlacey
01st Oct 2014 14:57

Disclosure of offences

I suspect that, if there was an investigation underway, they may not have been unable to disclose any concerns.

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
01st Oct 2014 12:28

Greed

Perhaps I don't read enough, but it's always seems to be the ones in already well-paid positions. 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By 7555775
01st Oct 2014 12:29

ATT membership

The ATT doesn't have many members, I left shortly after this came to light.

Thanks (0)
Replying to why always me:
By JCresswellTax
01st Oct 2014 15:39

Why?

7555775 wrote:

The ATT doesn't have many members, I left shortly after this came to light.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jdopus:
avatar
By 7555775
14th Oct 2014 16:17

Why?

Erm... because the president was a crook! Is that enough reason?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Poindexter316
01st Oct 2014 12:41

More food for thought
The reason this was Fraud (more accurately the principle reason) is that the pension scheme for which relief was sort never actually existed (nor did the contributions on which relief was sought). It is also the case that both Meeson and Bradley were members of the firm referred to by David in his earlier post.
I also believe that both individuals were fairly active in the arena of "pension pot liberation" and a couple of their schemes are also under some very detailed scrutiny and one of the funds is allegedly attempting to retrieve £18M of its assets liberated under such an arrangement.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Poindexter316
01st Oct 2014 12:41

More food for thought
The reason this was Fraud (more accurately the principle reason) is that the pension scheme for which relief was sort never actually existed (nor did the contributions on which relief was sought). It is also the case that both Meeson and Bradley were members of the firm referred to by David in his earlier post.
I also believe that both individuals were fairly active in the arena of "pension pot liberation" and a couple of their schemes are also under some very detailed scrutiny and one of the funds is allegedly attempting to retrieve £18M of its assets liberated under such an arrangement.

Thanks (0)
7om
By Tom 7000
01st Oct 2014 12:43

What I dont understand is...

what can you spend £5m on...

 

I struggle to spend ny £30k a year

Thanks (0)
Replying to paras007:
avatar
By wingco44
01st Oct 2014 13:21

How to spend £30K+

Lawyers?

Thanks (3)
Replying to Lone_Wolf:
avatar
By 0705736
01st Oct 2014 16:07

How to spend £30K+

I'd recommend my other half.  She's full of ideas that involve spending money and could do it for you in no time! 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By BRIGHTAMEDODAH
01st Oct 2014 12:59

Abuse of Position of Trust.

Mr Meeson as the former president of a highly professional tax body should have known better. Although the default jail term is a bit steep I suppose it is due to his position as a member of a professional tax body. HMRC is right to demand the payment of the tax so defrauded.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jamiea4f
01st Oct 2014 13:42

Never heard of..

ATT until today.  Not good for their public image!  Stick with accountants.. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By naomi2000
01st Oct 2014 15:17

Still doubts

I don't have inside knowledge of this case but I have followed the newspaper reports closely because I knew Andrew Meeson well in his younger days as a student and HMRC tax officer.

He never seemed interested in money . When I knew him, his pie and pint life style was so modest that he didn't even spend his tiny tax officer's salary . I remember him as very bright , rather old fashioned and academic and even a bit naive .

The nearest I got to any sign of trouble was a remark by him that he didn't like some of the clients that his partner was bringing in to the practice. I was tired and wanted to catch my train home and didn't follow it up. I wish I had now.

The chap I knew would have made an unlikely fraudster and I still have trouble even after the conviction in believing him capable of fraud - and particularly the very crude one perpetrated here. 

I would love to hear his side of it but I suspect I never will.

 

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Rammstein1
02nd Oct 2014 08:36

ATT

I've also liked the ATT and their Tolley's Tax Guide is worth the subscription itself.  You can't blame them for one persons hidden fraud.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Ted Numbers
02nd Oct 2014 17:53

If he did it....

...then you'd think he should have access to the money he would need to repay to avoid a harsh POCA sentence. And in that case its right he should repay it.

But POCA doesn't work like that. The convict is presumed to have the proceeds at his disposal and is burdened with proving that he doesn't which is nigh on impossible, especially if the prosecuting agencies might not be too careful to be accurate in making their case. It doesn't seem likely to me that you'd volunteer to do ten extra years in chokey knowing you'd still owe the dosh when you came out, but the amounts some convicts are required to "pay back" do not necessarily reflect realistic ability to repay or the crime they are convicted of. 

I also believe that if you don't admit guilt it will be harder to get out early on licence. So there really isn't much point in continuing to deny something that you did.

I guess we'll see if these two have the money to sidestep these extended sentences.

Like naomi2000 I found it hard to believe that Andrew Meeson could be capable of a crime of such breathtaking scale and stupidity as the theft described in the case reports, but evidently a jury was persuaded that he was, and unless one has sat through all the evidence to form one's own view, one must trust that judge and jury.

My point is that if he did it and doesn't have the dosh, what the heck did he do with it?  Perhaps he was seeing 0705736's missus!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndrewV12
03rd Oct 2014 09:42

Meeon's ego

Andrew Meeson ego must be massive, you would think if he was involved in a pension fraud, he would lay low and try to drop off anyone's radar, ooohhh no not him he wants to been seen in the fast lane, top of the pile, look at me I am president of the AAT. 

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
03rd Oct 2014 10:30

Perhaps the reverse is true, AndrewV12

Perhaps he thought that as President of ATT the position would give him an increased air of respectability - who could possibly think that President of a tax body could be remotely connected with tax fraud?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By AndrewV12
04th Oct 2014 09:53

Spring board

I agree, I think he used being the president as a springboard to network, infiltrate, influence, expand his portfolio of activities legal or otherwise.     

Thanks (0)
By Moonbeam
03rd Oct 2014 12:07

Gosh - it's complicated

It's too complicated to be a criminal. I think I'll go straight for the time being...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By afroze
19th Oct 2014 15:53

ATT certificate


Why blame my certificate? That is my achievement and I worked hard to get it. The president has done something very wrong and got what he deserved.
 

 

Thanks (0)