redknapp tax evasion - trial begins january

[southbank1871]

Is there any precedent for people getting off tax evasion charges by blaming everything on their accountant. Surely just saying you're thick as pig shit isn’t enough of a defence? Why isn’t the accountant in the dock too?

[ZacNaloen]

The accountant new nothing about the account, if Redknapp wanted his accountant to look after it for him he kind of needs to know about it.

[Uke]

Is there any precedent for people getting off tax evasion charges by blaming everything on their accountant. Surely just saying you're thick as pig shit isn’t enough of a defence? Why isn’t the accountant in the dock too?

Yes, yes and don't know



viewtopic.php?f=3&t=110101&p=3194782#p3194782

[Mr Angry]

Is there any precedent for people getting off tax evasion charges by blaming everything on their accountant. Surely just saying you're thick as pig shit isn’t enough of a defence? Why isn’t the accountant in the dock too?

There are precedents where the accountant has acted illegally without the knowledge of their client. They don't usually get to Court as the charges are dropped and the accountant prosecuted (there were a couple of high profile cases in the 90's - Sting iirc was getting fleeced by his accountant).

Ignorance is no defence; as the tax payer, 'Arry would still have needed to sign his tax declaration with its statement about knowing the above to be true; setting up an offshore account, putting money into it, not declaring that money and then signing a declaration that there was nothing left to declare nullifies any "I knew nuffink m'lud" defence.

The accountant presumably isn't in the dock because he hasn't been charged with any offence; thats not to say he isn't being investigated, or that he might get charged in the future (though frankly - after all this time - I doubt that the Police or HMRC have anything on the guy); 'Arry is simply looking to blame anyone other than himself for the mess he has got himself in. If he had pleaded guilty right at the start, that would have been taken into consideration; by not doing, he is going to get a stiffer sentence tan he would have done otherwise.

[Uke]

Is there any precedent for people getting off tax evasion charges by blaming everything on their accountant. Surely just saying you're thick as pig shit isn’t enough of a defence? Why isn’t the accountant in the dock too?

There are precedents where the accountant has acted illegally without the knowledge of their client. They don't usually get to Court as the charges are dropped and the accountant prosecuted (there were a couple of high profile cases in the 90's - Sting iirc was getting fleeced by his accountant).

Ignorance is no defence; as the tax payer, 'Arry would still have needed to sign his tax declaration with its statement about knowing the above to be true; setting up an offshore account, putting money into it, not declaring that money and then signing a declaration that there was nothing left to declare nullifies any "I knew nuffink m'lud" defence.

The accountant presumably isn't in the dock because he hasn't been charged with any offence; thats not to say he isn't being investigated, or that he might get charged in the future (though frankly - after all this time - I doubt that the Police or HMRC have anything on the guy); 'Arry is simply looking to blame anyone other than himself for the mess he has got himself in. If he had pleaded guilty right at the start, that would have been taken into consideration; by not doing, he is going to get a stiffer sentence tan he would have done otherwise.

Presumably the defence is that the accountant failed to produce figures based on money he didn't know existed - how remiss!

[Mr Angry]

Its a little.......weak, isn't it?

[Svlad Cjelli]

The damning think was 'Arry going to Switzerland to open the account, without his accountant's knowledge.

After that, all protestations of "not knowing" fly out of the window, surely?

[TFF]

Mandaric says it wasn't Redknapp's money in Rosie47. "It was my money". Mandaric says Redknapp only entitled to profit on it

Is Mandaric trying to get 'arry off?

[Uke]

Mandaric says it wasn't Redknapp's money in Rosie47. "It was my money". Mandaric says Redknapp only entitled to profit on it

Is Mandaric trying to get 'arry off?

More bones buried elsewhere?

So why did Harry open the account in his dog's name - was he thinking he was looking after it for a wealthy Nigerian busisnessman?

[Mr Angry]

The damning think was 'Arry going to Switzerland to open the account, without his accountant's knowledge.

After that, all protestations of "not knowing" fly out of the window, surely?

Monaco iirc

[exileinleeds]

Mandaric says it wasn't Redknapp's money in Rosie47. "It was my money". Mandaric says Redknapp only entitled to profit on it

Is Mandaric trying to get 'arry off?

Ah. Got it. Mandaric was not trying to avoid Employers NIC and tax on money...he was just askin the illiterate to invest on his behalf. Any profits were 'arry's to keep and declare for income tax, and both would have reported their profits for CGT.

That is why I always ask my employees to invest my money through their accounts. Money laundering regulations are just for other people, aren't they?

[Mr Angry]

Mandaric says it wasn't Redknapp's money in Rosie47. "It was my money". Mandaric says Redknapp only entitled to profit on it

Is Mandaric trying to get 'arry off?

Ah. Got it. Mandaric was not trying to avoid Employers NIC and tax on money...he was just askin the illiterate to invest on his behalf. Any profits were 'arry's to keep and declare for income tax, and both would have reported their profits for CGT.

That is why I always ask my employees to invest my money through their accounts. Money laundering regulations are just for other people, aren't they?

They are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly badly advised.

[Svlad Cjelli]

They are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly badly advised.

I disagree!

Why can't they be incredibly stupid AND incredibly badly advised?

[Mr Angry]

They are either incredibly stupid, or incredibly badly advised.

I disagree!

Why can't they be incredibly stupid AND incredibly badly advised?

Fair point; another example of "all 3 results still possible" syndrome there

(Thread crossover)

[Terminal Boardom]

IMG_5104.jpg (60.71 KiB) Viewed 2647 times

Bit early for new kits but...

[wingnut]

ALOL
Seems a bit harsh sending the dog down as well.

[6ft Kerplunk]

The only thing worse than Redknapp's defence in this trial is the courtroom artist.

[facaldaqui]

Sorry to go against the flow of this thread, but it seems to me that although it is obvious that Mandaric and Redknapp are totally bent in this matter, they should be found not guilty (on the evidence so far). The only evidence that the money is other than a gift from Mandaric is in the tape between Redknapp and the journalist; but Redknapp is saying he lied on the tape. Unless that tape is taken as conclusive, there's no way it can be proved that the money in the Monaco account was an undeclared work-related payment to Redknapp, as opposed to a tax-free gift.

[facaldaqui]

By the way, is it normal in football for managers to get cuts of sell-on transfer fees for players they bought? Coppell would have made a fortune if that were done at Reading. It is a practice fraught with problems, as it could lead to spurious wheeling and dealing by managers out to make a buck. Harry certainly seems to buy and sell compulsively; and it strikes me that this could be said of his signings in the present window. Does he have an agreement at Spurs that gives him a cut of profit on players he buys and sells?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Sorry to go against the flow of this thread, but it seems to me that although it is obvious that Mandaric and Redknapp are totally bent in this matter, they should be found not guilty (on the evidence so far). The only evidence that the money is other than a gift from Mandaric is in the tape between Redknapp and the journalist; but Redknapp is saying he lied on the tape. Unless that tape is taken as conclusive, there's no way it can be proved that the money in the Monaco account was an undeclared work-related payment to Redknapp, as opposed to a tax-free gift.

The tax-free limit on gifts is £3000, I believe.


If the money is a bonus for work done, it also counts an income.