You might also be interested in
Replies (12)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
.
Very glad to see HMRC pursuing these sorts of cases.
It is interesting to note all the accountants he had gotten through in quick succession got called up to the trial.
Money laundering reports
Need more prosecutions of people who spend the PAYE and VAT money on themselves. It was never theirs.
But I don't like the fact that so many details are available about the ML report and who submitted it. I wouldn't like it if it had been my firm's report. All the more reason to stay away from clients who may need reporting I suppose - I already try to avoid them as if they won't pay HMRC then they probably won't pay me either!
To be honest, I was a bit shocked that the ML reports became public knowledge.
The more I read about the case, the more I disliked the guy on trial.
If I had
been a jury member I would also have found him guilty.
Most people who owe VAT and PAYE do not get prosecuted. However when the dishonesty is as blatant as this case (jury only took 2 hours. I bet they didn't even take that long) there is no other option.
Breaking ground for HMRC. Now we wait for directors of limited companies to be prosecuted.
Confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports
I think this does highlight an issue regarding Suspicious Activity Reports.
Clearly an SAR was submitted to SOCA which triggered an investigation by HMRC. No problem with that.
But equally clearly the fact of that report & the content of it has become public knowledge and the author of that report found herself put in the witness box and questioned about it, her motives for submitting it, and whether it was submitted as some sort of a conspiracy with HMRC.
Appearing in court - and having this matter hanging over her for a couple of years - must have been something of an ordeal (to say nothing of it being a distraction from ordinary work).
I think that will be a worry to others who are submitting, or have submitted, SARs about their clients or others.
David
The beauty about
our criminal justice system is that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. So the defence had every right to cross examine the author. I very much doubt if people make these reports unless they are positive something is wrong. I certainly wouldn't. All witnesses going to court have the same harrowing experiences - that is part of our judicial system.
Whenever there's a problem.......
.......The client will identify the account as the source of all of their troubles.
This man was in the public eye and building reputations for others but obviously keeping "house clean " in terms of his business affairs was beneath him. Or he expected to bluff his way through. He did the actions described and whatever the intent he should be responsible. He probably upset HMRC officers when interviewed by them and set the wheels in motion.
The disclosure of SOCA reports is troubling. If a professional makes a report in confidence do they not have any right to protection of their identity?
A lesson to everyone to pay attention to not give suspicion to others with HMRC about. Rather to ensure that everything is done properly and go speedily with a proposal to HMRC if you are stuck over paying a liability.
unless you were there you shouldnt
Say that you would have found him guilty he is at the low end of PR and uses highly dubious tactics however i perceive this to be the revvenge of the PAYERrs and that is a worry so incorporate ALL ?
Court Appearances and Suspicious Activity Reports
I concur with the comments made by davidwinch.
In 1997, I spent an aggregate 10 hours in a witness box, four appearances spread over around eight weeks in a single fraud trial prosecuting events that had allegedly occurred eight years earlier! With the passage of time, I was lulled into thinking that nothing further was going to proceed - I had by that time moved on in my career. I suppose that the ordeal was concentrated into a shorter period as a consequence. While I understand that a sanction was applied, I do not think that it was to the level aspired. I think that the cost of the case must have been disproportionate, particularly in view of the age of the evidence. Incidentally, I never saw the judge wielding a gavel: I think that in the UK that is the preserve of auctioneers.
Ten years later, on an unrelated matter, I had to submit an SAR. Happily, nothing further happened that impacted personally on me. So SARs probably remained confidential most of the time.
Here's looking forward to a quiet life!
what if he had made returns
"that he had dishonestly failed to make returns for VAT and PAYE to HMRC for his limited company Hillgrove Public Relations Limited."
If he had made honest returns but the company had failed to pay and had gone broke would he have got away with it?
Making honest returns
"that he had dishonestly failed to make returns for VAT and PAYE to HMRC for his limited company Hillgrove Public Relations Limited."
If he had made honest returns but the company had failed to pay and had gone broke would he have got away with it?
Mr Hillgrove was convicted of offences which necessarily involve dishonesty. Had he honestly made PAYE & VAT returns then he might still have been accused of an offence if it was alleged that he intended never to pay the sums shown as due on those returns - and evidence in support of that might be the expenditures on other things if that left insufficient monies to pay HMRC. However that would be a different (and IMHO a much weaker) case.
The position then might be more like that of David Lowe (who was not the subject of a criminal prosecution).
David