Second Vantis director jailed for four years

Roy Faichney, a former adviser at Vantis Tax, has been jailed for four years and disqualified from acting as a director for 10 years for his part in a £70m tax fraud.

As managing director of Vantis, Faichney had a “gentleman’s agreement” with his deputy, David Perrin – who was found guilty for his part in the charity scam in January – to share the £4.5m profit from a fraudulent tax scheme sold to wealthy customers.

The pair acted together to extract the cash they made through a Jersey bank, where Faichney withdrew his share to spend on luxury properties and paintings, while also using the scheme to evade tax on his £200,000 company salary.

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
bookmarklee's picture

When I'm wrong I admit it    4 thanks

bookmarklee | | Permalink

When this case was first reported three years ago I doubt that it would stand up. I thought it was simply a result of HMRC being heavy handed. In the light of the outcome of the case I was clearly wrong.

I was recruited into WJB Chiltern by Roy Faichney back in 2001. I was also interviewed by David Perrin. I left in 2004 and am shocked to learn about what they have been doing more recently. Who knows when they first went bad?

I have written a more extensive blog post about how I got it wrong and the lessons I draw from this for ambitious accountants: When I'm wrong, I admit it

Mark

ShirleyM's picture

The judge was spot on with this comment    5 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

The general public are sick and tired of men such as you and schemes such as this.  

Just how much money do these greedy people need to be happy? A £200,000 salary isn't exactly poverty wages.

and to think    5 thanks

justsotax | | Permalink

some people believe by lowering the top rate of tax for the biggest earners will encourage them to disclose more of their income.... 

Crooks    1 thanks

dannybard | | Permalink

Vantis are crooks, I dealt with them via Barclays once and their bill was incredibly high for doing naff all! Then a few months later they collapsed!!!

Jon Stow's picture

Hindsight    1 thanks

Jon Stow | | Permalink

I was also recruited by Roy Faichney to WJB Chiltern in 2001. I liked Roy. Our work was technically very interesting and all above board, and I enjoyed my fairly brief stay at Chiltern.

I am left scratching my head over the whole affair. We never really know anybody, do we?

Perhaps    4 thanks

The Black Knight | | Permalink

bookmarklee wrote:

When this case was first reported three years ago I doubt that it would stand up. I thought it was simply a result of HMRC being heavy handed. In the light of the outcome of the case I was clearly wrong.

I was recruited into WJB Chiltern by Roy Faichney back in 2001. I was also interviewed by David Perrin. I left in 2004 and am shocked to learn about what they have been doing more recently. Who knows when they first went bad?

I have written a more extensive blog post about how I got it wrong and the lessons I draw from this for ambitious accountants: When I'm wrong, I admit it

Mark

Perhaps they always were bad...just got more daring supported by a dubious corporate (even national) culture.

No doubt they saw nothing wrong in doing what they did even thought it was clever....although history will record them as not being as clever as they first thought.

I do sometimes feel the honest have been marginalised and unethical behaviour is now the norm rather than the exception.

A good result    1 thanks

Ian McTernan CTA | | Permalink

Obviously fraudulent (with 20/20 hindsight of course) and they deserve all they get.

Great result for HMRC and for the public in general.

This one result has saved more than the proposed changes to Gift Aid acceptance for new charities will ever save- maybe now they can think again on the proposals?

pembo's picture

don't beat yourselves up guys    3 thanks

pembo | | Permalink

I do believe that most of us actually have got a moral compass and tend to view and take people at face value until they blow it. Problem here as the last comment is that this sort of attitude has become the norm. What is really the difference between this and MPs expenses or the banks behaviour ? Judge was spot on in his comments and problem for most of us is that we just do not think like this sort of pond life thank God. Not just a failure of morality but more sadly of intellect for which the penalties should be far greater.

robertbeard's picture

Tax Avoidance    2 thanks

robertbeard | | Permalink

justsotax wrote:

some people believe by lowering the top rate of tax for the biggest earners will encourage them to disclose more of their income.... 

Quite so and lets not forget the international companies not contributing a fair share of their "true" UK profits to the UK Exchequer like Starbucks, Ebay, Apple et al by apparently legally basing themselves offshore.

sdphilpott's picture

Extremes

sdphilpott | | Permalink

Like so many things in life there comes a point where you cross the line and go too far - this is clearly one of them. Nevertheless I still believe that the tax regime in this country unfairly penalises entrepreneurs who take huge risks and stress in setting up businesses and so until that is addressed I perfectly understand why many look at tax mitigation strategies, that, in my view, do not cross the line - why some people seem to think it is acceptable to tax successful entrepreneurs to death  and then vilify them for trying to legally reduce their tax bills is beyond me. Forcing them to move to another country or curb their entrepreneurial spirit is surely completely counter-productive for the UK economy.

robertbeard's picture

Extreme rates of UK tax    4 thanks

robertbeard | | Permalink

sdphilpott wrote:

Like so many things in life there comes a point where you cross the line and go too far - this is clearly one of them. Nevertheless I still believe that the tax regime in this country unfairly penalises entrepreneurs who take huge risks and stress in setting up businesses and so until that is addressed I perfectly understand why many look at tax mitigation strategies, that, in my view, do not cross the line - why some people seem to think it is acceptable to tax successful entrepreneurs to death  and then vilify them for trying to legally reduce their tax bills is beyond me. Forcing them to move to another country or curb their entrepreneurial spirit is surely completely counter-productive for the UK economy.

You obviously were not about when tax rates could reach 98% on individuals.  True Entrepreneurs are one thing but overpaid footballers, comedians and investment bankers don't fit into the same category!

Nick Graves's picture

The difference? scale    1 thanks

Nick Graves | | Permalink

pembo PM | Fri, 26/10/2012 - 12:38 | Permalink

I do believe that most of us actually have got a moral compass and tend to view and take people at face value until they blow it. Problem here as the last comment is that this sort of attitude has become the norm. What is really the difference between this and MPs expenses or the banks behaviour ? Judge was spot on in his comments and problem for most of us is that we just do not think like this sort of pond life thank God. Not just a failure of morality but more sadly of intellect for which the penalties should be far greater.

 

 

 

This was only £70m and not (best guesstimate) £70Trn.

One does get the impression that such behaviour is rife at a certain level, and it's the poor old 98% who get defrauded. Again and again. Whilst being obliged to grass each other up for a minor accounting error.

The beak was right indeed.

 

 

45% on income....    1 thanks

justsotax | | Permalink

Taxed to the hilt.....?!?

The Dark Arts    3 thanks

keano | | Permalink

sdphilpott wrote:

Like so many things in life there comes a point where you cross the line and go too far - this is clearly one of them. Nevertheless I still believe that the tax regime in this country unfairly penalises entrepreneurs who take huge risks and stress in setting up businesses and so until that is addressed I perfectly understand why many look at tax mitigation strategies, that, in my view, do not cross the line - why some people seem to think it is acceptable to tax successful entrepreneurs to death  and then vilify them for trying to legally reduce their tax bills is beyond me. Forcing them to move to another country or curb their entrepreneurial spirit is surely completely counter-productive for the UK economy.

I agree with the sentiment here but surely tax planning should be respectful of the underlying transaction. We advisors know that a spade is a spade and we can not miraculously turn it into a JCB.

Fortunately for these guys the hole they dug ended up being for themselves!

 

Not just the advisor    3 thanks

keano | | Permalink

Let's also not forget that it takes two to tango. Should the spotlight not also be on those that have benefited from the Vantis advice.

Reasonable care?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Did the users of the Vantis scheme take reasonable care though?......they did consult expert advice? tax still due? but £nil penalty

Probably one of the reasons these schemes are worth a go? apart from some interest costs (minimal) what is there to loose?

AnnaKournikovasKnickers's picture

White collar crime

AnnaKournikovas... | | Permalink

2 years in a hotel? White collar crime is definitely the way to go.

Crooks    2 thanks

philfromleeds | | Permalink

These crooks were not sent to prison for long enough.

My idea of the sort of prison they should be sent to is that they have a cell. They are connected by a long chain to an anchor point in the cell. When the doors of the cells are open they can exit the cell but with the chain connected to their foot. They can then go to the eatery and the showers attached with the chain. There would be no doors to these other places. Then when they are told to go back to their cells they have to go or rubber bullets are fired at them.

The idea is that if we can reduce the cost from £40k per year down to £7k per year for keeping them inside we can keep them inside for a lot longer.

Overconfidence    2 thanks

philfromleeds | | Permalink

 

You cant con me because I am not a con man. I like to see overconfident professionals, sharp guys get cut down except when they are doctors because they kill their patients. I suffer a bit form OCD. If more of us did suffer from OCD then the con men will find it more difficult to ply their trade.

I remember a news article. There were two drugs that had to be administered into a person.

One had to be injected into the spine and the other into I suppose a muscle. The two drugs were wrongly administered. The wrong one went into the spine and viceversa.

If the doctor would have suffered a bit of OCD he would have double checked himself and the patient would be alive.

There is an old saying that if it sounds to good, it is too good. Peoples eyesight is often clouded by big earning promises and big commission's. 

Merryl Lynch lived up to its name with some of its private banking strategy (the second name of the ML) and they were sued in America for selling rubbish investments and they knew what they were doing.

The sharp boys forget that when people loose their lives savings the poor done by investor goes through a bereavement process. Some commit suicide then life is lost due to a flash financial adviser or professional.