Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Most wanted tax fugitive returns to UK

by
27th May 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

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 2012. 

The tax fraudster was extradited from Cyprus and arrived in Edinburgh this week. According to HMRC, he is due to appear before court at the earliest possible opportunity to face further criminal proceedings.

David Odd, assistant director of criminal investigation at HMRC, said: “Voudouri made significant amounts of money from his criminal activities. He was involved in complex and organised money laundering over a long period and is now finally facing justice."

Tags:

Replies (6)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By johnjenkins
28th May 2014 11:44

How can

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

Thanks (4)
Replying to andy.partridge:
avatar
By The Black Knight
28th May 2014 12:52

tis ridiculous

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.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By alan.falcondale
28th May 2014 13:59

hmmmm

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?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Cheshire:
David Winch
By David Winch
28th May 2014 16:34

Dodgy maths

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

Thanks (0)
avatar
By alan.falcondale
29th May 2014 16:34

that may be

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?

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
29th May 2014 16:44

The whole £11.6M

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.

Thanks (0)