• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

More investigations for the mags from HMRC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

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".
 
Don't think it's more investigations just the mirror putting a fresh twist on an on going investigation
 
I'm assuming that any irregularities would be giving the club an unfair financial advantage over other clubs playing it by the book? If that is true then surely action should reflect that.
 
Don't think it's more investigations just the mirror putting a fresh twist on an on going investigation

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:
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.



Me too. Clearly I'm biased as fuck but it's starting to look bad for them.


I would laugh my bollocks off if it happened, haway man, make it happen, can I get a job for HMRC?
 
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.



Me too. Clearly I'm biased as fuck but it's starting to look bad for them.

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
 
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


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.
 
It's an 'aye' from me


The streams would run with blood

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.


unlike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top