Barrister in court over £600,000 VAT bill | AccountingWEB

Barrister in court over £600,000 VAT bill

London barrister Rohan Anthony Pershad QC has today (2 August) faced charges in court of failing to pay £600,000 in VAT.

Pershad was summoned to appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court after being accused of cheating the public purse over a 12-year period.

Kingsley Napley partner Angus McBride represented Pershad in court and indicated that his client will plead "not guilty" to a charge of allegedly not declaring VAT on services.


» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.


@ robertlovell: "... a charge of allegedly ...", surely not?

dstickl | | Permalink

Hi robertlovell!     Surely the actual charge(s) laid before the court(s) do not include the word "allegedly", do they?     Reason: the summons should indicate the actual charge(s) that should be based on evidence that has been duly considered by CPS.

QUESTION:   Is AWEB [or its helpful readers] able to provide full details of the actual wording(s) of these charge(s), or to indicate an appropriate link, please?

davidwinch's picture

CPS statement    2 thanks

davidwinch | | Permalink

The CPS statement is HERE.


Thanks & I note: ... that nothing should be reported ...

dstickl | | Permalink

Thanks & I note:

... "Rohan Anthony Pershad has now been summonsed on a criminal offence and has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial."

i am sure there is    1 thanks

justsotax | | Permalink

a very good reason why he failed to declare vat of £600,000...(its small change afterall) - can't wait to hear the explanation....i wonder if it will follow recent the enquiries where it appears high profile 'professionals' have forgotten, didn't realise or thought someone else was doing it......

Strange that, wouldn’t you say?

Johnty | | Permalink

I find it amusing that Harry Redknapp is cleared of all tax avoidance when it is found that he has substantial funds in a bank account in his dog’s name, yet an ethnic minority origin QC is convicted despite thinking that his chambers paid the VAT (at 17.5%) due out of the circa. 22% it took from his fees.

Strange that, wouldn’t you say?