D
Dilligaf60
Guest
You should, if you're a tax payer.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
More investigations for the mags from HMRC?
- Thread starter wackyjacky
- Start date
- Status
Long stretches in prison await Lambias and Charnley if they are found guilty of avoiding paye, nic and vat. They all carry different tariffs but in any event the charge is more likely to be cheating the public revenue.
The sentencing appears to be guided by weighting from the scale of culpability. The scale being low, medium and high. Low is generally for instances of a one off or opportunist nature. Medium and high are where systemic abuse has been planned and repeated using sophisticated methods.
Regarding high culpability, this may be reserved for advisors in a position of trust such as professional accountancy or law businesses. In these cases hmrc refer to term "centre of infection".
The other factor of weighting the sentences is what the courts and HMRC refer to as Harm, harm being the value of the fraudulent proceeds to the perpetrators and the attendant loss to the public revenues.
For a fraud with high culpability and a high degree of harm life sentences can be imposed, unlikely though. Based purely on the info in the mirror article if there has been systemic abuse over a 3 or 4 year period then medium culpability is easily determined. The quantum of lost revenues, penalties and interest will most likely be in the millions. Sentences of either 6 - 10 years or 10 + wouldn't come as a surprise.
As for football
Richard Scudamore made a PL statement last year that any member club found to have gained an unfair advantage through financial irregularities will face the stiffest sanctions from the powers at the PLs disposal.
Newcastle would be the perfect club to make an example of. Known of throughout europe, always high profile in the UK, owned by a man that both HMRC and the government are gunning for but no miss whatsoever to the premier league and it's appeal to the overseas markets. A high profile club given stiff sanctions "whilst football puts it's house in order".
The sentencing appears to be guided by weighting from the scale of culpability. The scale being low, medium and high. Low is generally for instances of a one off or opportunist nature. Medium and high are where systemic abuse has been planned and repeated using sophisticated methods.
Regarding high culpability, this may be reserved for advisors in a position of trust such as professional accountancy or law businesses. In these cases hmrc refer to term "centre of infection".
The other factor of weighting the sentences is what the courts and HMRC refer to as Harm, harm being the value of the fraudulent proceeds to the perpetrators and the attendant loss to the public revenues.
For a fraud with high culpability and a high degree of harm life sentences can be imposed, unlikely though. Based purely on the info in the mirror article if there has been systemic abuse over a 3 or 4 year period then medium culpability is easily determined. The quantum of lost revenues, penalties and interest will most likely be in the millions. Sentences of either 6 - 10 years or 10 + wouldn't come as a surprise.
As for football
Richard Scudamore made a PL statement last year that any member club found to have gained an unfair advantage through financial irregularities will face the stiffest sanctions from the powers at the PLs disposal.
Newcastle would be the perfect club to make an example of. Known of throughout europe, always high profile in the UK, owned by a man that both HMRC and the government are gunning for but no miss whatsoever to the premier league and it's appeal to the overseas markets. A high profile club given stiff sanctions "whilst football puts it's house in order".
You're right, we'd all much read one of your threads.
I hope they make an example out of them. I'd guess that once hmrc have finished their investigation, then the fa/premier league will have their own.
The wind appears to be blowing in the direction of a major criminal prosecution. The football authorities won't be ignoring that, like I say the mags would make the perfect sacrificial lamb.
hank williams
Striker
hank williams
Striker
Wayne The Punk
Striker
Based on what HMRC are supposed to have said it's a significant widening of the scope of the investigation. They thought they were looking at half a dozen transactions when it turns out that everything they are looking at looks bent. Charnley has proven himself to be dishonest and untrustworthy, that's damming already.
I would love it
Me too. Clearly I'm biased as fuck but it's starting to look bad for them.
Last edited:
Wayne The Punk
Striker
I would laugh my bollocks off if it happened, haway man, make it happen, can I get a job for HMRC?
I fear I might actually die from the laughter.
bahtat
Striker
Possibly so but once they started looking it was bound to happen, a long while back I was suspicious of a guys expense claim so I dug back into previous claims and when I put it all into a spread sheet I was amazed at what he had been up to
hank williams
Striker
They said it's difficult to gan through every transfer Since fatty took ower
I've got the time I'd happily nail the bastard
I’m sure we’d find lots of volunteers willing to help
soapster
Striker
I do. I pay my taxes, so why shouldn't everyone else. tax evasion is a curse on our society
Latka Gravas
Striker
It's an 'aye' from me
Fatty himself is by no means out of the woods. HMRC might find evidence in emails etc which demonstrates Ashley acting as a shadow director, indeed Lambias and or Charnley might even say they acted on Ashley's instructions. If so then he could end up facing a criminal prosecution too. Many business owners probably believe they can avoid the culpability attendent to the fiduciary duties and responsibilities of being a director of a UK company, simply by not being a director themselves and appointing others to the key roles. When you own 100% of the company it's always going to be tricky to argue that you don't influence or instruct the directors. Ashley is a fiendishly smart operator though so he has probably boxed off these risks.
Wayne The Punk
Striker
- Status
