markeefc Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Where, over a period of time, an offender has evaded tax, they must not only pay the tax and pay a financial penalty but a custodial sentence should also be imposed. The length of the sentence will depend on a number of factors including: the amount of tax evaded; quite a bit in 'Arrys case the period of time during which the evasion took place; several years apparently the effort made to conceal the fraud; quite alot whether others were drawn in and corrupted; I would say so the character of the offender; we all know what that is the extent (if known) of his personal gain; again quite alot whether the offender pleaded guilty; I think he is sunk the amount recovered. I think this is what HMRC would classify as a serious case of tax evasion and that if found guilty Happy 'Arry may be watching the remainder of the season on his government provided telly in his cell with Psycho George the Arsenal fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 you can sweep bulldog shit under the rug, but eventually the dog starts burning it's arse on the light on the ceiling" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Well if he goes down which I really hope he does we could be in line for some comedy moments. What with his nerves and that, if he gets to sew mail bags he will end up sewing into his arms probably, after a hard days work he will walk back to his cell looking like the Aldi version of Icarus with mail bags flapping off his blood stained arms ... "Go on Harry, fly fly. You can do it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think this is what HMRC would classify as a serious case of tax evasion and that if found guilty Happy 'Arry may be watching the remainder of the season on his government provided telly in his cell with Psycho George the Arsenal fan He won't go to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think this is what HMRC would classify as a serious case of tax evasion and that if found guilty Happy 'Arry may be watching the remainder of the season on his government provided telly in his cell with Psycho George the Arsenal fan He won't go to prison. unless he is found not guilty on all accounts i'd expect spurs to sack him. unless they are happy to have a convicted criminal as a manager. Perhaps they can recruit Myra Hindley as the tea lady and dig up Al Capone as DoF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 He won't go to prison and he won't get the sack He will have recruited the best lawyers available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponky Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Do you think anyone in the free world would be genuinely shocked if he was found guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Even if he went down, it would be to one of them "Benny Hill" open prisons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Apparently he used his Dog's name Rosie and his own DOB to identify the offshore bank account where his "bungs" were stashed. Harry Redknapp In the Doghouse with the Tax Man What a stupid man... he was being touted as the next England manager a few months ago, which would have been a right "nice little earner". Probably earning far more than his dodgy Dell boy deals have over the years. If he's found gulity, I think he can kiss goodbye to any job in football even if he doesn't go to prison! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevMur Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 There's no point in getting bogged down with Harry's testimony in the case, as it assumes that he is telling the truth. He may not be. Quote from the Guardian: The jury heard details of separate phone interviews both men gave in February 2009 to Rob Beasley, then a reporter at the News of the World, in which Mandaric said the payment had been "a favour to Harry", which was "nothing to do with the football club", in which he offered to make an investment and give Redknapp the profits. "I did something for my friend, away from England, away from football, away from Portsmouth," he had told the reporter. But Redknapp, contacted days later by the same reporter, insisted the payment had been part of his bonus for selling Peter Crouch to Aston Villa, making a £3m profit for the club. Some one is telling lies. If Harry's telling the truth, then he is being incentivised to sell the club's (probably best) players. Makes no sense whatsoever. I expect that the truth may be far murkier than anything that gets mentioned in evidence. Harry Redknapp feigned ignorance of Monaco bank account, court hears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 It's a good point though...Spurs couldn't keep him in a job if he's found guilty of this surely? Remember Arsenal and George Graham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2012 The difference is that the crimes Redknapp is accused of didn't happen while he was their manager, a small but important difference. Even if found guilty, which on the weight of the evidence heard so far I would expect, I don't think his position as Spurs manager is under threat. As for England, they can't really rule a manager out for having a conviction when half the squad have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Didn't Venables lose his job because of a financial court case? I don't think having a conviction would exempt someone from the managers job of England, but a conviction for tax evasion sullied with dodgy deals with player sales may do. Derby County sacked John Gregory (but that may because it involved them) and IIRC, it was years before he got a job in some obscure corner of the Med. Harry's wheeling and dealing may also of course added to the financial woes of Portsmouth Football Club, which the fans and the club paid a heavy price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 I think this is what HMRC would classify as a serious case of tax evasion and that if found guilty Happy 'Arry may be watching the remainder of the season on his government provided telly in his cell with Psycho George the Arsenal fan He won't go to prison. unless he is found not guilty on all accounts i'd expect spurs to sack him. unless they are happy to have a convicted criminal as a manager. Perhaps they can recruit Myra Hindley as the tea lady and dig up Al Capone as DoF Hitler as assistant manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 What with his nerves and that, if he gets to sew mail bags he will end up sewing into his arms probably, after a hard days work he will walk back to his cell looking like the Aldi version of Icarus with mail bags flapping off his blood stained arms ... "Go on Harry, fly fly. You can do it" I'll have some of what you're smoking please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Arry is saying he asked Mandaric to pay the money into his UK account so is he trying to deflect the blame ? He also says his accountant set up the Monaco account ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2012 Didn't Venables lose his job because of a financial court case? No there was way way more to it than that and people seem to forget that Venables wasn't actually the manager. The court case came after he was sacked rather than him being sacked because of the court case. It was a very long time ago but I can assure you it was a very very different situation to that with Redknapp. In short Sugar appointed Venables as Chief Exec after winning a take over bid, Venables being another interested party. They later fell out over either Spurs performance or Venables business dealings according to different views on it and Sugar sacked him. Venables then took an injunction and was temporarily reinstated before losing a very very costly court battle with Sugar in which Venables business dealings were aired. I've no idea what Venables was thinking taking Sugar on in open court. Anyway as I said very very different to Redknapp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 If he was found guilty i dont think it would look good for Spurs image and sponsors might not be impressed. Dont think Levy would take too kindly to it either. Am sure David Moyes will be onto his agent over next few days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Because he's doing exceptional work with Spurs I think they'll try and sweep this all under the rug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevMur Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 'The Guardian': Harry Redknapp payment to offshore Monoco account 'disguised as loan' The former Portsmouth FC chairman Milan Mandaric tried to mislead police and avoid paying tax by disguising a secret six-figure payment to the club's former manager Harry Redknapp as a loan, a court has been told. Mandaric paid $145,000 into an offshore account set up by Redknapp in 2002, when both men were based at the south coast club, and later made a second payment of $150,000. A jury at Southwark crown court has been told that the payments were secret "bungs" paid into the Monaco account to conceal them from British tax authorities. Both men face two charges of cheating the public revenue by avoiding tax on the payments, which they deny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts