Nufc member of staff arrested...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Veryoldrokerender said:
I don't think HMRC need warrants, they have properly scary powers ...
Click to expand...

I used to think that but this seems to say they need to get them the same way the cops do, from a magistrate or judge. I don't know if there are cases where they don't need one but I would have thought they'd have roughly the same powers as the police, and they can enter without a warrant in certain cases. I think in this case they would have got warrants before turning up.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/criminal-investigation/criminal-investigation
 


DWT said:
And indeed, it would seem in the eyes of this forum :oops:

What difference does it make if I appeared when we achieved promotion, we've been in the top 2 since September, its not like we were exactly doing shite is it? I've been on a few times during that time too.

Its not great to see the club being dragged through the mud again but suggestions of points deductions are well off the mark, and a sad desperate attempt to make yourselves feel better, as I said, highlight of your season.

Look at the amount of replies on this thread man :lol:
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::oops:
 
judd jenkin said:
46000 fans sang about Adam Johnson?

Christ. You're lucky to get 46 singing in unison at the SOL in recent years.

Most of us think our club was a disgrace in playing him knowing of his guilt. Many of us are still ashamed of it....despite what some of the 'paedo' apologist minority on this forum say.

But its not relevant to a tax fraud investigation at Newcastle.

So jog on.
Click to expand...
What you on about. I was being sarcastic against the mags claims that we "all knew". Calm your passions dear
 
janey said:
Apologies if this has been posted I'm just trying to catch up.
According to this they've cut out the middle man in terms of a less serious case and gone straight to the top which means it is likely to be criminal
@Grumpy Old Man what is the implications of this
http://ind.pn/2pzGZda
Click to expand...

COP9 is a procedure they can use an alternative to prosecution ; the figure of £75k quoted seems about right (by the way that's tax lost, not income undeclared). Under it, HMRC will waive the right to prosecution in return for a full disclosure by the taxpayer, plus payment of tax lost, penalties of up to 200% of tax lost, and interest on overdue tax. HMRC like this, because it gives them certainty.

That they haven't suggests that either the amounts allegedly involved here exceed limits where HMRC feel comfortable with using COP9, or that they feel that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest, or that it is linked with another criminal investigation which could be compromised by non-prosecution of the tax offence.

The implications are extremely serious; they must almost certainly be of the opinion that the evasion is so egregious that it can only properly be punished by the imposition of criminal sanctions, which probably means custodial sentences somewhere down the line. They must also be petty sure of the strength of their evidence if they're prepared to put it in front of a jury.
 
longtimelurker said:
You should be. You lot have such a poor grasp on reality!
Click to expand...

Nah, bigger things to be concerned with. The reality is that no one knows exactly what is going on with the investigation so at this post all we can do is postulate, which doesn't do any good to anyone (except give the smb **** re to snigger at) of course after you fail to win this evening will it still be as funny?
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
COP9 is a procedure they can use an alternative to prosecution ; the figure of £75k quoted seems about right (by the way that's tax lost, not income undeclared). Under it, HMRC will waive the right to prosecution in return for a full disclosure by the taxpayer, plus payment of tax lost, penalties of up to 200% of tax lost, and interest on overdue tax. HMRC like this, because it gives them certainty.

That they haven't suggests that either the amounts allegedly involved here exceed limits where HMRC feel comfortable with using COP9, or that they feel that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest, or that it is linked with another criminal investigation which could be compromised by non-prosecution of the tax offence.

The implications are extremely serious; they must almost certainly be of the opinion that the evasion is so egregious that it can only properly be punished by the imposition of criminal sanctions, which probably means custodial sentences somewhere down the line. They must also be petty sure of the strength of their evidence if they're prepared to put it in front of a jury.
Click to expand...
Make a well known phrase or saying from this jumble of words;

Day. Made. My.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
COP9 is a procedure they can use an alternative to prosecution ; the figure of £75k quoted seems about right (by the way that's tax lost, not income undeclared). Under it, HMRC will waive the right to prosecution in return for a full disclosure by the taxpayer, plus payment of tax lost, penalties of up to 200% of tax lost, and interest on overdue tax. HMRC like this, because it gives them certainty.

That they haven't suggests that either the amounts allegedly involved here exceed limits where HMRC feel comfortable with using COP9, or that they feel that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest, or that it is linked with another criminal investigation which could be compromised by non-prosecution of the tax offence.

The implications are extremely serious; they must almost certainly be of the opinion that the evasion is so egregious that it can only properly be punished by the imposition of criminal sanctions, which probably means custodial sentences somewhere down the line. They must also be petty sure of the strength of their evidence if they're prepared to put it in front of a jury.
Click to expand...
Ooooh goody :lol:
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
COP9 is a procedure they can use an alternative to prosecution ; the figure of £75k quoted seems about right (by the way that's tax lost, not income undeclared). Under it, HMRC will waive the right to prosecution in return for a full disclosure by the taxpayer, plus payment of tax lost, penalties of up to 200% of tax lost, and interest on overdue tax. HMRC like this, because it gives them certainty.

That they haven't suggests that either the amounts allegedly involved here exceed limits where HMRC feel comfortable with using COP9, or that they feel that a prosecution is necessary in the public interest, or that it is linked with another criminal investigation which could be compromised by non-prosecution of the tax offence.

The implications are extremely serious; they must almost certainly be of the opinion that the evasion is so egregious that it can only properly be punished by the imposition of criminal sanctions, which probably means custodial sentences somewhere down the line. They must also be petty sure of the strength of their evidence if they're prepared to put it in front of a jury.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate - so it's all good?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top