One rule for the rich....
-
- Posts: 3960
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1774 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
One rule for the rich....
Yesterday, billionaire Bernie Eccleston was found guilty of defrauding HMRC by failing to disclose a trust fund based in Singapore to the tune of £400m. He was found guilty and agreed to repay some £653m to HMRC. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison, suspended for two years. So bascially he has stumped up a huge sum of money that he should have paid in the first place and walked free from court.
Now, a few years ago, someone i was acquainted with had a serious gambling problem. He ran a small market stall business in a Devon town and earned a modest income. Somehow he discovered that when he submitted his monthly VAT return, any amount that was less than £10k was paid without any further checks being made. So every month he submitted his VAT return and claimed a refund of under £10k. All of the money he claimed back was spent on funding his gambling addiction, online, betting shops, fruit machines and bingo. Eventually this fraud was discovered and he faced a trial. Pleaded guilty to a fraud of around £900k that was committed over a period of 8 years. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and lost his house, business and his marriage.
So a multi billionaire commits fraud on a massive scale, motivated no doubt purely by greed and walks away a free man, albeit minus a fraction of his colossal wealth. A small businessman commits fraud on a much smaller scale, whilst in the grip of a gambling addiction and is jailed for 3 years. Where is the justice in this?
Now, a few years ago, someone i was acquainted with had a serious gambling problem. He ran a small market stall business in a Devon town and earned a modest income. Somehow he discovered that when he submitted his monthly VAT return, any amount that was less than £10k was paid without any further checks being made. So every month he submitted his VAT return and claimed a refund of under £10k. All of the money he claimed back was spent on funding his gambling addiction, online, betting shops, fruit machines and bingo. Eventually this fraud was discovered and he faced a trial. Pleaded guilty to a fraud of around £900k that was committed over a period of 8 years. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and lost his house, business and his marriage.
So a multi billionaire commits fraud on a massive scale, motivated no doubt purely by greed and walks away a free man, albeit minus a fraction of his colossal wealth. A small businessman commits fraud on a much smaller scale, whilst in the grip of a gambling addiction and is jailed for 3 years. Where is the justice in this?
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: One rule for the rich....
Was your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
-
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:11 pm
- Been Liked: 13 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
Exactly this.ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 amWas your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
-
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:23 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 94 times
- Location: your mum
Re: One rule for the rich....
There is no justice in it as our country is managed solely in the interests of the ultra-wealthy.
These 2 users liked this post: AmbleClaret burnley007
Re: One rule for the rich....
Country is a joke, at the moment we haven't even room to jail rapist and burglars, use the cash to build some new prisons and take away his wigs as punishment.
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: One rule for the rich....
There is a truism, that any offence punishable solely by a fine isn't truly illegal, just too expensive for most people
This user liked this post: LDNBFC87
-
- Posts: 3960
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1774 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
No he wasn't, he had gambled away all the money he claimed as i stated originally. So the message here is you can defraud HMRC out of any amount you like and as long as you have the funds to pay it back if you are caught, then you will walk away unpunished.ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 amWas your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Was your friend 90-odd years old?
These 4 users liked this post: Burnley Ace IanMcL Carlos the Great Leisure
-
- Posts: 6907
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2759 times
- Has Liked: 4325 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
Ecclestone turns 93 this month. Has anyone of that age been sent to prison for the first time in the UK ?
-
- Posts: 1062
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 332 times
- Has Liked: 1121 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
I know this is a really simplistic view, but…if judges are being asked not to send rapists to prison, I can’t see any chance of a 93 year old first time offender who has paid (literally) his dues being jailed.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oc ... nderstands.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oc ... nderstands.
This user liked this post: Carlos the Great
-
- Posts: 9601
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3150 times
- Has Liked: 10260 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: One rule for the rich....
Old enough to be a conman, old enough to live the high life but too old for a cushy - according to many - low cat prison?
Just pay up and we'll forget all about it - an interesting concept.
Just pay up and we'll forget all about it - an interesting concept.
This user liked this post: Steve1956
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: One rule for the rich....
Well, i suspect there was a punitive additional amount repaid, in addition to the actually avoided sum.Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:13 pmNo he wasn't, he had gambled away all the money he claimed as i stated originally. So the message here is you can defraud HMRC out of any amount you like and as long as you have the funds to pay it back if you are caught, then you will walk away unpunished.
Its cold hard mathematics really, gain nearly 700 grand for public coffers, or lock up and old man and incur the undoubtedly large expense involved.
Re: One rule for the rich....
I get the feeling of injustice but I imagine the money he has coughed up includes a fine and why put him in prison at the cost to the taxpayer at the age of 92
Re: One rule for the rich....
Not quite the same either…. One is not paying tax the other is outright fraud. I think if I was sentencing I would more or less do what actually happened. Certainly there are greater injustices.
-
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 am
- Been Liked: 158 times
- Has Liked: 45 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
Hasn’t Bernie been fined something like £600m? That, alongside legal fees, reputational damage etc is probably a fairly hefty punishment for him…
-
- Posts: 11123
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:29 pm
- Been Liked: 1575 times
- Has Liked: 360 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
In reality what are the police\judges going to do?
Arrest a multimillionaire that can travel anywhere across the world in his private jet.
The judicial system will only ever target people they can easily arrest and prosecute.
Laws are only applicable to people that can’t afford a route out
Arrest a multimillionaire that can travel anywhere across the world in his private jet.
The judicial system will only ever target people they can easily arrest and prosecute.
Laws are only applicable to people that can’t afford a route out
-
- Posts: 3960
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1774 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
He hasn't been fined, he has paid what was due had he not been dishonest in the first place. A bit like being caught stealing from your local supermarket, then paying for what you were stealing when the security guard collars you.BurnleyPaul wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:54 pmHasn’t Bernie been fined something like £600m? That, alongside legal fees, reputational damage etc is probably a fairly hefty punishment for him…
Re: One rule for the rich....
I laughed when i read this as if the OP didnt know this key infoŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 amWas your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
-
- Posts: 19447
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3168 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
there is a long list of footballers in Spain who have done something similar that includes Ronaldo and Messi - there are also various footballers for English clubs and indeed 'entertainers'/'celebs'/'comedians' done something similar with various tax schemes found to be illegalHerts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:51 amYesterday, billionaire Bernie Eccleston was found guilty of defrauding HMRC by failing to disclose a trust fund based in Singapore to the tune of £400m. He was found guilty and agreed to repay some £653m to HMRC. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison, suspended for two years. So bascially he has stumped up a huge sum of money that he should have paid in the first place and walked free from court.
Now, a few years ago, someone i was acquainted with had a serious gambling problem. He ran a small market stall business in a Devon town and earned a modest income. Somehow he discovered that when he submitted his monthly VAT return, any amount that was less than £10k was paid without any further checks being made. So every month he submitted his VAT return and claimed a refund of under £10k. All of the money he claimed back was spent on funding his gambling addiction, online, betting shops, fruit machines and bingo. Eventually this fraud was discovered and he faced a trial. Pleaded guilty to a fraud of around £900k that was committed over a period of 8 years. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and lost his house, business and his marriage.
So a multi billionaire commits fraud on a massive scale, motivated no doubt purely by greed and walks away a free man, albeit minus a fraction of his colossal wealth. A small businessman commits fraud on a much smaller scale, whilst in the grip of a gambling addiction and is jailed for 3 years. Where is the justice in this?
-
- Posts: 17283
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6492 times
- Has Liked: 2919 times
- Location: Fife
Re: One rule for the rich....
We could charge him for his upkeep he has plenty a few years in prison will do the cocky little b*stard good
Re: One rule for the rich....
Surely if the sentence is suspended for two years and he is found guilty of further transgressions, doesn't that mean automatic prison? One hopes HMRC are trawling through his accounts at this moment.
Re: One rule for the rich....
The OP says the fraud was £400m and the amount paid was £653m, so clearly it included a penalty - as would be expected.
This user liked this post: ŽižkovClaret
Re: One rule for the rich....
At 93 better to get his/our money!
-
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4110 times
- Has Liked: 6591 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: One rule for the rich....
In the words of Bob Dylan….”steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king”Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:51 amYesterday, billionaire Bernie Eccleston was found guilty of defrauding HMRC by failing to disclose a trust fund based in Singapore to the tune of £400m. He was found guilty and agreed to repay some £653m to HMRC. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison, suspended for two years. So bascially he has stumped up a huge sum of money that he should have paid in the first place and walked free from court.
Now, a few years ago, someone i was acquainted with had a serious gambling problem. He ran a small market stall business in a Devon town and earned a modest income. Somehow he discovered that when he submitted his monthly VAT return, any amount that was less than £10k was paid without any further checks being made. So every month he submitted his VAT return and claimed a refund of under £10k. All of the money he claimed back was spent on funding his gambling addiction, online, betting shops, fruit machines and bingo. Eventually this fraud was discovered and he faced a trial. Pleaded guilty to a fraud of around £900k that was committed over a period of 8 years. He was sentenced to 3 years in prison and lost his house, business and his marriage.
So a multi billionaire commits fraud on a massive scale, motivated no doubt purely by greed and walks away a free man, albeit minus a fraction of his colossal wealth. A small businessman commits fraud on a much smaller scale, whilst in the grip of a gambling addiction and is jailed for 3 years. Where is the justice in this?
-
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4110 times
- Has Liked: 6591 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: One rule for the rich....
Not a chance imho. They will have done a deal.
“You defrauded us out of £400m….give us £650m plus, and we’ll stop chasing you”
Re: One rule for the rich....
As an add on to this. I surprised at the sentences given to the burglars that stole from his daughter. I think about seven years each.
It was a massive amount they took, but in terms of her overall wealth perhaps not that great.
I get the feeling that if some old lady in Burnley was robbed of her thousand pound life savings. In other words, everything she had, the sentence for the burglars would be considerably less.
Does the gaol tariff go up with the amount stolen?
It was a massive amount they took, but in terms of her overall wealth perhaps not that great.
I get the feeling that if some old lady in Burnley was robbed of her thousand pound life savings. In other words, everything she had, the sentence for the burglars would be considerably less.
Does the gaol tariff go up with the amount stolen?
-
- Posts: 9919
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2352 times
- Has Liked: 3183 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
The FT reports that the penalty was £330 million, the largest penalty anyone has been required to pay.
£400 million was the money held in the trust, rather than the tax due on this money.
The judge decided on a suspended sentence "in the light of various mitigating factors including Ecclestone’s health, age, lack of previous convictions and the civil settlement with HMRC."
Re: One rule for the rich....
Sentencing is slightly more complex than the populist "bang 'im up" philosophy (we'd have watching IPTV carrying custodial sentences in that case.)
But surely, despite the seeming injustice when seeing your acquaintance go down for 2 years, and (wealthy) Bernie Ecclestone get 2 years suspended - it's not genuinely in the public interest to tie up a prison bunk with a 93 year old man, in failing health.
But surely, despite the seeming injustice when seeing your acquaintance go down for 2 years, and (wealthy) Bernie Ecclestone get 2 years suspended - it's not genuinely in the public interest to tie up a prison bunk with a 93 year old man, in failing health.
-
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 150 times
- Has Liked: 377 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
There is a very fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion . I’m sure he didn’t benefit by 653 million and this outcome would surely suit both sides .How would jailing him serve any purpose only to satisfy some peoples appetite for hating people with money .His kids will be more upset with this outcome I would imagine
-
- Posts: 7070
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2176 times
- Has Liked: 3110 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
- Been Liked: 1132 times
- Has Liked: 302 times
- Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Re: One rule for the rich....
How many football clubs are there that have basically not paid their tax to HMRC, then gone into administration, or “gone bust” to be instantly reborn? Then doing a deal to pat something like 10p in the pound to the pie supplier, the programme printer, even the ambulance providers. Leicester city are one aren’t they?
These 2 users liked this post: Carlos the Great bobinho
-
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 150 times
- Has Liked: 377 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
How did Philip Green not go
To jail when he emptied 500 million from the pension funds of BHS and sold what was left of the company for 1 pound ..
To jail when he emptied 500 million from the pension funds of BHS and sold what was left of the company for 1 pound ..
-
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4110 times
- Has Liked: 6591 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: One rule for the rich....
My initial surprise when I heard the song was how he managed to make it rhyme!ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:41 pmOf course, you can't tell he sang that if you see him live
-
- Posts: 4482
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1161 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
If I repeatedly,blatantly and knowingly defrauded HMRC over 8 years to the tune of a million quid I’d expect a moderate prison sentence . Your mate was openly stealing from HMRC .
In Bernie the bolt’s case he AVOIDED paying the tax by non disclosure and then paid every penny back . Did his enourmous wealth help his defence ? Of course , did his wealth affect his sentence ,absolutely not .
In Bernie the bolt’s case he AVOIDED paying the tax by non disclosure and then paid every penny back . Did his enourmous wealth help his defence ? Of course , did his wealth affect his sentence ,absolutely not .
Re: One rule for the rich....
Tax avoidance, or evasion/fraud?AlargeClaret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:55 amIf I repeatedly,blatantly and knowingly defrauded HMRC over 8 years to the tune of a million quid I’d expect a moderate prison sentence . Your mate was openly stealing from HMRC .
In Bernie the bolt’s case he AVOIDED paying the tax by non disclosure and then paid every penny back . Did his enourmous wealth help his defence ? Of course , did his wealth affect his sentence ,absolutely not .
-
- Posts: 9495
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
- Been Liked: 1188 times
- Has Liked: 780 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
If we started making prisons unattractive places to stop less people would.be trying to get inside them, A prison should be 4 walls, a mattress, a toilet & fed & watered.
This user liked this post: bfcjg
Re: One rule for the rich....
If he'd AVOIDED tax he wouldn't have ended up being found guilty.AlargeClaret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:55 amIf I repeatedly,blatantly and knowingly defrauded HMRC over 8 years to the tune of a million quid I’d expect a moderate prison sentence . Your mate was openly stealing from HMRC .
In Bernie the bolt’s case he AVOIDED paying the tax by non disclosure and then paid every penny back . Did his enourmous wealth help his defence ? Of course , did his wealth affect his sentence ,absolutely not .
-
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:17 pm
- Been Liked: 504 times
- Has Liked: 635 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
This was tax evasion not avoidance. HMRC dont go for a criminal prosecution for tax avoidance. The penalties he rrceived will be for a combination of the tax being deliberately underpaid and for not cooperating in the investigation.Carlos the Great wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:41 pmThere is a very fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion . I’m sure he didn’t benefit by 653 million and this outcome would surely suit both sides .How would jailing him serve any purpose only to satisfy some peoples appetite for hating people with money .His kids will be more upset with this outcome I would imagine
Whether he gets a prison sentence or suspended sentence is then purely a matter for the courts
-
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:17 pm
- Been Liked: 504 times
- Has Liked: 635 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
Yes, hence me questioning the poster who said it was AVOIDANCE1968claret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:26 pmThis was very definitely evasion (Fraud) which is why he was prosecuted in the criminal courts.
This user liked this post: 1968claret
Re: One rule for the rich....
When Denis Healey was asked the difference between tax avoidance and evasion he replied "the width of a prison wall".
This user liked this post: Carlos the Great
-
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
- Been Liked: 895 times
- Has Liked: 134 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
If anything passes the custodial threshold, then the court must consider the Imposition Guidelines. ( known as theImposition of community and custodial sentences definitive guidelines). These Guidelines without a doubt would indicate that it was appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence in this case for the following reasons.
There would a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, as demonstrated by his efforts taken to settle his tax affairs and the fact i belive he didnt have any previous convicitons. Possible alternative measures could be put in place to ensure that he does not pose a high risk of reoffending. His age and health conditions would be taken into account and immediate custody could result in significant harmful impact on his immediate family including his young child.
Finally, the case of R v Ali [2023] would be taken into account. (Interesting case regarding full capacity in prisons we have been using this year as mitigation.
There would a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, as demonstrated by his efforts taken to settle his tax affairs and the fact i belive he didnt have any previous convicitons. Possible alternative measures could be put in place to ensure that he does not pose a high risk of reoffending. His age and health conditions would be taken into account and immediate custody could result in significant harmful impact on his immediate family including his young child.
Finally, the case of R v Ali [2023] would be taken into account. (Interesting case regarding full capacity in prisons we have been using this year as mitigation.
-
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
- Been Liked: 895 times
- Has Liked: 134 times
Re: One rule for the rich....
He reached a settlement agreement in respect of the Tax Years 1994/1995 to 2021/2022 (some 18 years or so) with a payment in settlement of £652,634,836.
He then paid prosecution costs in the sum of £74,814.09
He wouldnt usually in this matter have to pay any more costs/fines to the court apart from the usual Victim Surcharge since he was given a SSO
Re: One rule for the rich....
i'd say 3 years in prison for 900k in the back burner and never paying it back is a light sentence. your mate got off easy