Vantis director jailed over £70m tax fraud

David Perrin, a former deputy managing director at Vantis Tax, has been jailed for 18 months after trying to defrauded taxpayers of £70m.

Last month Perrin was convicted of cheating the revenue after Blackfriars Crown Court was told how he devised and operated a scheme which he sold to wealthy taxpayers in order to exploit the law on giving shares to charity.

Blackfriars Crown Court heard how he pocketed more than £2m in fees from unsuspecting clients and splashed out on expensive second homes, holidays, art work and luxury cars.

Between 2005 and 2006 Perrin advised more than 600 wealthy clients to buy shares, worth a few pence each, in four new companies he had set up.

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

What about Faichney?    1 thanks

Siilycountry | | Permalink

When the report of Perrin's conviction first appeared a couple of weeks ago there was some confusion over the fate of Roy Faichney, Perrin's co-defendant. This seems to have been overlooked because of another, more high profile tax evasion trial. Does anyone know the decision in Faichney's trial? If he has been found not guilty I would have thought some report as to the reason why he was treated differently from Perrin would be instructive for tax practitioners.

Faichney    1 thanks

MMBBHH | | Permalink

I think the jury couldn't reach a decision on him so he's having a retrial.

Presumably this means it's still sub judice.

Faichney    1 thanks

mewsans | | Permalink

Thanks to both

Siilycountry | | Permalink

for the information. Haven't HMRC potentially prejudiced the retrial by issuing that very triumphalist press release (after the Perrin verdict)? I can imagine Faichney's barrister making his representations even now. In the Redknapp case, news of Storrie and Mandaric's acquittal in the original trial was suppressed until after the decision in the second trial. Or is it only prejudicial if it affects the prosecution, not the defence?