Most wanted tax fugitive returns to UK

One of HMRC's most wanted tax fugitives has been extradited back to the UK. 

Michael Voudouri, originally from Bridge of Allan, Stirling, left the UK for Northern Cyprus in November 2012. He had pleaded guilty the previous month to laundering over £11.6m linked to a VAT fraud and been let out on bail. 

He was jailed for four years in 2004 for his involvement in a tax fraud in which he claimed back VAT on fake Europe-wide business transactions. 

Following this conviction, HMRC carried out a money laundering investigation that traced profits from the fraud to bank accounts in Greece, Cyprus, Switzerland, USA, the British Virgin Islands and elsewhere.

The money was then transferred back into bank accounts in the UK and invested in property and businesses in Scotland. 

Voudouri was arrested in Cyprus in January this year, and had featured on HMRC's list of 'most wanted' tax fugitives in August 2013...

Continued...

» 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.

Comments
johnjenkins's picture

How can    4 thanks

johnjenkins | | Permalink

you let someone out on bail after pleading guilty to an £11m money laundering fraud. Words fail me.

tis ridiculous

The Black Knight | | Permalink

johnjenkins wrote:

you let someone out on bail after pleading guilty to an £11m money laundering fraud. Words fail me.

tis ridiculous

If it was train robbery or gold bullion would it be the same? No wonder they have all converted to fraudsters. The moneys better, the risk is lower and it's easy too.

I think the legal term is absconding.

If he is jailed they will let him out for his lunch and will be surprised that he's a few years late returning after being passed to the late lunch recording officer.

Perhaps it's a cunning plan akin to dunking

If you abscond guilty ye be.

hmmmm

alan.falcondale | | Permalink

4 years for laundering 11.6M...

2.9M per year, ....and crime doesn't pay?

Might I suggest an appropriate term for such financial convictions be based upon the minimum wage at 40 hours per week to pay it off?

davidwinch's picture

Dodgy maths

davidwinch | | Permalink

alan.falcondale wrote:

4 years for laundering 11.6M...

2.9M per year, ....and crime doesn't pay?

Might I suggest an appropriate term for such financial convictions be based upon the minimum wage at 40 hours per week to pay it off?


If he had laundered money (in the traditional sense) he would do so on a 'commission' - he wouldn't get to keep the lot!

Do bear in mind that he is facing further criminal proceedings & very probably confiscation proceedings so it would be optimistic to assume that he will neither have an additional sentence nor be subject to financial penalties.

David

that may be

alan.falcondale | | Permalink

That may be the case that he received 'commission' but if he were only to have received say £100 for commission would he really have been expected to have been convicted for just £100 or the whole £11.6M?

stepurhan's picture

The whole £11.6M

stepurhan | | Permalink

Judging by David's previous posts on the subject, it is likely that he will end up with a confiscation order for the whole £11.6M. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that is likely to be the benefit that he is assumed to have had. If two people had been jointly involved, then they would both have been assumed to have benefited from the whole amount. Confiscation proceedings are not gentle.

So your assumption that the 4 years sentence is the end of the matter is likely to be wrong. Confiscation has always been dealt with separately.