VAT fraud accountant to repay £47,000

Kashflow logo
Share this content

An Essex accountant who received a 10-month suspended prison sentence in January for trying to evade almost £100,000 in tax has been ordered to repay £47,000.

AAT member Martin Kennedy from Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, had previously pleaded guilty to charges under the VAT Act 1994 and Fraud Act 2002.

This week he was ordered to repay almost £50,000 under a confiscation order at Ipswich Crown Court.

According to the East Anglian Daily Times, Lynne Shirley, prosecuting, said Kennedy’s benefit from his offending was £99,651 and the agreed recoverable amount was £47,282.

The accountant's fraud was discovered after an HMRC investigation. He had admitted supressing client business transactions by £93,799 between December 2007 and June 2002, resulting in a non-payment of £99,651 of VAT.

While being investigated, Kennedy maintained that if he had declared the correct VAT amount, he would have been unable to pay staff and left with a zero bank balance.

But during the time the fraud took place, he purchased bought a house for £280,000 along with a large number of shares.

Alongside his 10-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, he received a curfew restricting his movements from 6pm to 6am for six months from January.

About Rachael Power

Your friendly, neighbourhood community editor. 

Twitter: @rachpower10 


Please login or register to join the discussion.

16th Jun 2014 12:15

Vat fraud case

And what about the other £50k.

O sorry I am so stupid I,m helping to pay that with a smile ! so he can have his big house

Thanks (1)
16th Jun 2014 14:55

no john porter!!
YOU ARE PAYING THAT WITH A SMILE SO HE CAN HAVE HIS BIG HOUSE AND THE BALANCE 50k which he fiddled and the non charged compound interest and non charged penalties so he can maintain a lifestyle to which he has become accustomed and any derogation from which would be a contravention of his EEEWWWWMANNN RIGHTS under the relevant Act .

Kapish how it works now bambino !

Thanks (0)
16th Jun 2014 13:04

Not really a proper accountant was he ?

This again brings into question who is actually allowed to call themselves an accountant as anyone without the slightest qualification can call themselves an accountant - it is simply wrong

His title should be simply a bookkeepper

Can you call yourself a doctor or solicitor without properly qualifying - No

The Chartered institutes should demand a change in the law







Thanks (1)
16th Jun 2014 14:01

Proper Accountant??

Whilst I happily agree that the AAT qualification is not up with the highest tier of qualifications, those of us who do not have the availability to train with a chartered firm to obtain that qualification shouldn't lose out on work. I am a little offended by your comment.

I have trained hard, I have registered as a member in practice. I have ethical and moral guidelines I must adhere to like any other practice, and a detailed code of practice to follow.

As AAT members in practice we are overseen by the ICAEW who do practice reviews just the same as a larger chartered firm.

It is nothing to do with this persons qualification. Plenty of chartered accountants have broken the law too. Having a qualification doesn't make you honest.

This person shouldn't be called a bookkeeper, he should be called a crook, and every industry has them, irrespective of qualification.

Thanks (3)
By Macey
17th Jun 2014 10:48

I have been an AAT member in practice for over 20 years!!

I too take exception to the comment about AAT.

I certainly wasn't treated as merely a "bookkeeper" in my recent QAD visit  (undertaken by ICAEW on behalf of AAT).




Thanks (1)
16th Jun 2014 19:22

So being qualified..............

So being qualified means they are above doing wrong? Really, clearly some out there have selective memories!

I too am not happy that the person seems to have got away with £50k but I don't think being qualified would have necessarily changed the outcome, do you?


Thanks (0)
17th Jun 2014 09:42

and whose fault us that ??!!

Thanks (0)
17th Jun 2014 18:31


I also am AAT qualified and it is a fantastic route into the profession however the only people that should be allow to use the title accountant is if they have passed at chartered level to protect the integrity of the title.

Fully agree he is a crook but he is not an accountant in my book

In legal and medical professions the terms solicitor and doctor can only be used by the appropriately qualified persons and this should apply to accountancy





Thanks (0)
18th Jun 2014 13:49

Properly Qualified

So what is the issue here; protecting the titles integrity, or being appropriately qualified?

The ICAEW recently reviewed m practice, and determined I was appropriately qualified for the work I undertake, just like the doctors and the solicitors, although no doctor I know has their practice reviewed to make sure they are qualified for the opinion they give.

Crooks will bring down the integrity of the title and the profession, not AAT members.

I assume you are not just AAT qualified, and have had the opportunity to go further? Or do you call yourself a bookkeeper?



Thanks (0)