Tottenham Hotspur manager Harry Redknapp will stand trial in January for allegedly evading tax on £180,000 of his earnings.
Redknapp is accused of two counts of cheating the public revenue between 2002 and 2007 when he was at Portsmouth Football Club.
He will stand trial alongside former Portsmouth chairman Milan Mandaric, both of whom have always denied the charges.
Upon his arrest last year Redknapp released the following statement though his solicitor: “Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome to these court proceedings”.
The Crown alleges that the payments were made “with intent to defraud and to the prejudice of HM Revenue and Customs as a result of or in connection with Henry James Redknapp’s employment and as a reward for services.”
The first charge alleges that between 1 April 2002 and 28 November 2007, Mandaric paid £90,000 into a bank account held by Redknapp in Monaco, to avoid paying income tax and national insurance; while the second charge relates to £93,000 allegedly paid between 1 May 2004 and 28 November 2007.
Redknapp will need to be totally exonerated in the trial to have any chance of becoming the next England manager.
The two-week trial is due to start at London’s Southwark Crown Court on 23 January.
The full indictment against Redknapp and Mandaric reads:
Count one: Milan Mandaric and Henry James Redknapp, between the 1st day of April 2002 and the 28th day of Nov 2007, at the material times respectively the Chairman and the Football Manager of Portsmouth City Football Club Limited, with intent to defraud and to the prejudice of HM Revenue and Customs, arranged for $145,000, paid by Milan Mandaric as a result of or in connection with Henry James Redknapp’s employment and as a reward for services, to be transferred to a Monaco bank account opened by Henry James Redknapp for that purpose, in order to conceal the said emolument from HM Revenue and Customs and evade the payment of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions thereon (whether by the operation of PAYE by the club or otherwise).
Count two: Milan Mandaric, between the 1st day of May 2004 and the 28th day of November 2007, at the material times the Chairman and the Football Manager of Portsmouth City Football Club Limited, with intent to defraud and to the prejudice of HM Revenue and Customs, arranged for $150,000, paid by Milan Mandaric as a result of or in connection with Henry James Redknapp’s employment and as a reward for services, to be transferred to a Monaco bank account opened by Henry James Redknapp for that purpose, in order to conceal the said employment income from HM Revenue and Customs and evade the payment of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions thereon (whether by the operation of PAYE by the club or otherwise).
Replies (9)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Removed for legal reasons
Previous comment removed on advice.
Thanks (0)Innocent till proven guilty...
(and no, I'm not a Spurs fan!)
Thanks (0)well you removed one for the right reasons at last
its probabaly sub judice but the court has important matters to decide - it will be interesting to see how the judge directs the jury on matters of law. is it possible that non contractual payments from a company participator to an employee fall outside the remit of income (or possibly ) other taxes - the fact that they went to an offshore account may or may not be material
Thanks (0)Small potatoes
A drop in the Ocean compared to how much he earns, I wonder what the real issue is...?
Thanks (0)shame on you
"Redknapp will need to be totally exonerated in the trial to have any chance of becoming the next England manager". What on earth does "totally exonerated" mean. The court will find him either guilty or not guilty. And what on earth does this case have to do with him becoming or not becoming the next England Manager, or even the one after, or the one after the one after. Talk about sensationalist nonsense.
Thanks (0)What a waste
of public money. Ken Dodd all over again. (not Lester Piggot). Perhaps it's just a frightener to others. I still prefer brown envelopes in motorway service stations!
Thanks (0)Why
Why do these cases take so long to get to court ? There are only two transactions ? are there not ?
Thanks (0)Great statement
“Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome to these court proceedings”.
I'm confident there will be a successful outcome too - successful for which side though, that is the question!
However it's phrased, I agree that this case has the potential to thawrt Harry's ambitions to be England manager. Why was Terry Venables not given a second chance?
Thanks (0)Time to get into court...
... HMRC often take a long time to get into court. I don't think there is one reason, it could be an inability to find a barrister who will take a case on, a wish that time will permit an inspector a method to "persuade" the taxpayer to withdraw or give way, waiting for evidence to be "created", or it can just be that the file is delayed in the system (between umpteen officers/desks).
Thanks (0)