Page 1 of 1
One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:51 am
by Herts Clarets
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?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 am
by ŽižkovClaret
Was 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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:57 am
by Newchurch Claret
ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 am
Was your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
Exactly this.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:58 am
by daveisaclaret
There is no justice in it as our country is managed solely in the interests of the ultra-wealthy.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:00 pm
by bfcjg
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:04 pm
by ŽižkovClaret
There is a truism, that any offence punishable solely by a fine isn't truly illegal, just too expensive for most people
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:13 pm
by Herts Clarets
ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 am
Was your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:16 pm
by dsr
Was your friend 90-odd years old?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:17 pm
by randomclaret2
Ecclestone turns 93 this month. Has anyone of that age been sent to prison for the first time in the UK ?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:22 pm
by Middle-agedClaret
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:25 pm
by evensteadiereddie
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:26 pm
by ŽižkovClaret
Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:13 pm
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.
Well, i suspect there was a punitive additional amount repaid, in addition to the actually avoided sum.
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:39 pm
by mdd2
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:51 pm
by andyh
mdd2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:39 pm
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
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:54 pm
by BurnleyPaul
Hasn’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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:27 pm
by Newcastleclaret93
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
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:28 pm
by Herts Clarets
BurnleyPaul wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:54 pm
Hasn’t Bernie been fined something like £600m? That, alongside legal fees, reputational damage etc is probably a fairly hefty punishment for him…
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:38 pm
by 4midable
ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:55 am
Was your acquaintance able to stump up the circa 900k? If not, i guess that would have been the difference between suspended and not.
I laughed when i read this as if the OP didnt know this key info
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:47 pm
by Chester Perry
Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:51 am
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?
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 illegal
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 1:53 pm
by Steve1956
mdd2 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:39 pm
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
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:04 pm
by Hipper
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:14 pm
by dsr
The OP says the fraud was £400m and the amount paid was £653m, so clearly it included a penalty - as would be expected.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:57 pm
by IanMcL
At 93 better to get his/our money!
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:26 pm
by bobinho
Herts Clarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 11:51 am
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?
In the words of Bob Dylan….”steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king”
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:29 pm
by bobinho
Hipper wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:04 pm
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.
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:45 pm
by RMutt
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?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:01 pm
by Paul Waine
dsr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:14 pm
The OP says the fraud was £400m and the amount paid was £653m, so clearly it included a penalty - as would be expected.
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....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:21 pm
by Leon_C
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:41 pm
by Carlos the Great
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
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:41 pm
by ŽižkovClaret
bobinho wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:26 pm
In the words of Bob Dylan….”steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king”
Of course, you can't tell he sang that if you see him live
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:08 pm
by RammyClaret61
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?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:56 pm
by Carlos the Great
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 ..
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:44 am
by bobinho
ŽižkovClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 7:41 pm
Of course, you can't tell he sang that if you see him live
My initial surprise when I heard the song was how he managed to make it rhyme!
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:55 am
by AlargeClaret
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 .
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:05 am
by taio
AlargeClaret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:55 am
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 .
Tax avoidance, or evasion/fraud?
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:18 am
by Jakubclaret
bfcjg wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 12:00 pm
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.
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:22 am
by aggi
AlargeClaret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 8:55 am
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 .
If he'd AVOIDED tax he wouldn't have ended up being found guilty.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:23 pm
by 1968claret
Carlos the Great wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 5:41 pm
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
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.
Whether he gets a prison sentence or suspended sentence is then purely a matter for the courts
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:26 pm
by 1968claret
taio wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 9:05 am
Tax avoidance, or evasion/fraud?
This was very definitely evasion (Fraud) which is why he was prosecuted in the criminal courts.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 9:52 am
by IanMcL
RMutt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:45 pm
Does the gaol tariff go up with the amount stolen?
If you rob a bank and steal gold bars.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 9:58 am
by taio
1968claret wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2023 5:26 pm
This was very definitely evasion (Fraud) which is why he was prosecuted in the criminal courts.
Yes, hence me questioning the poster who said it was AVOIDANCE
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 10:08 am
by Mondsley
When Denis Healey was asked the difference between tax avoidance and evasion he replied "the width of a prison wall".
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 12:51 pm
by pushpinpussy
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.
Re: One rule for the rich....
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2023 2:30 pm
by pushpinpussy
dsr wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2023 2:14 pm
The OP says the fraud was £400m and the amount paid was £653m, so clearly it included a penalty - as would be expected.
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....
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2023 9:24 am
by GetIntoEm
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
