Share this content

Surprised this Vantis story is not on Aweb

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/cps-fails-in-supreme-court-bid-to-recover-confiscated-15m/5110400.

Didn't find your answer?

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

David Winch
By David Winch
04th Nov 2021 17:07

It does concern a situation which is unlikely to occur in relation to the clients of typical AWEB members.
In effect two men perpetrated a tax fraud (for their clients) using their own limited company (Vantis Tax Ltd). The two men were convicted of the fraud and were then subject to confiscation proceedings which required them to cough up their total assets to the court.
But the company (their own limited company) claimed it was due money from them (as the men had retained money which was due to the company, in the course of their fraud).
So the issue was - who gets their assets, their company or the criminal court?
The answer is that the company's claim comes first. So the company will get their assets and the criminal court will get nothing.
Justin, do you think that is a fair summary?
David

Thanks (2)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Nov 2021 17:27

Presumably "their company" isn't "their company" anymore, else something sounds a bit screwy. And is "for their clients" correct? I doubt their clients saw the proceeds of crime.

So were there two frauds? And two victims of fraud? And one victim (the company) gets its money back, but the other victim (the public purse), from which that money originated, doesn't? That itself sounds pretty screwy. But IANAL. So I have no hope of understanding this.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
David Winch
By David Winch
04th Nov 2021 17:39

Well, they were directors of "their company" and between them owned 20% of the equity. The remaining 80% was owned by the Vantis group.
The fraud involved use of investments and charities to generate tax relief (but ultimately these arrangements were held to be tax frauds). The company was not charged with any offence.
It seems that the two men pocketed the fees from the clients, but arguably these were not due to them (they were due to the company of which they were directors). So the company has a claim against the two men for the fees.
Of course the company is in liquidation and indeed the whole Vantis empire went down the tubes (for different reasons).
David

Thanks (2)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Nov 2021 17:53

So that makes perfect sense - the person defrauded gets its money back from the fraudsters. The other fraud (against the public purse) was a separate matter and has presumably already been undone way back when by HMRC's hard work and diligence. Everyone's happy.

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
04th Nov 2021 18:20

Yes; that's right. But it's a lot more interesting (and possibly relevant) than most of Aweb's dumbed-down articles is my point (at least in my case!).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
04th Nov 2021 19:14

So, an 'away win' then ... in that the score-line is:
Average aweb relevance 0 : 2 Intellectual stimulation

Chance of a high score-draw remains, however, low and infrequent!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
rebecca cave
By Rebecca Cave
08th Nov 2021 09:09

"most of Aweb's dumbed-down articles"
I hope you are not referring to my articles!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Rebecca Cave:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
08th Nov 2021 09:41

No. I'm sure everyone knows what I mean, apart from those who the dumbed-down (and irrelevant/pointless) articles are directed at perhaps.

Thanks (0)
Share this content