mockingbird_franklin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 IF found guilty, he has to get jail time. Not a fine or community service. It is too high profile a case, and if he gets off with not much more than a slap on the wrist, it is just a green light for others to fiddle their taxes. This is exactly why, traditionally, tax fraud carries custodial sentences. You think he should go to jail because he is famous? The law doesn't discriminate like that. He will get the same punishment as everyone else. I'd say he will be found guilty and get a severe fine. good job he's only evaded about 80,000 in tax, on top of paying the tax, he'll probably get a slap on the wrist fine and some community service, If he'd have played ball with HMRC he'd have probably been able to cut a behind doors deal, now if he'd have fiddled a small fraction of that in benefit fraud he'd be probably be looking at a bit of prison time and at least a suspended sentence. Good old fair and equal justice eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainer Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Sorry if its already been posted, couldn't see it on the last few pages though. A Mate just posted this on my facebook page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 good job he's only evaded about 80,000 in tax, on top of paying the tax, he'll probably get a slap on the wrist fine and some community service, If he'd have played ball with HMRC he'd have probably been able to cut a behind doors deal, now if he'd have fiddled a small fraction of that in benefit fraud he'd be probably be looking at a bit of prison time and at least a suspended sentence. Good old fair and equal justice eh And therein lies the distinction. Harry's offence is one of failing to declare.... which is a lesser offence than that of obtaining benefit by deception. One crime is a crime of concealment, one is a crime of deception and there is a subtle difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 From the evidence it seems Mandaric paid Redknapp a sum of money into a Monaco bank account. He is claiming to have done this as a friend either as a loan or a gift and outside of his employment of Redknapp. Unfortunately the sum of money involved is not inconsequential and as it was from an employer needs to be taxed. Redknapp will get a hefty fine and community service IMO. Unlike some people who seem to know the people involved's exact thoughts, I haven't a clue whether this was done on purpose and nor can the jury so would expect them to go with the verdict that there is a wrongdoing but it cannot be deemed deliberate and sentence accordingly. Thats' exactly what I was saying, but it doesn't seem too popular coming from a Spurs fan and was seen as bias. But that's all there is to it really, but many seem determined to make the case out to be something it isn't. However, on top of what you said, I think the fact Mandaric has said it was loan and confirmed he told Harry the tax was paid, means there is a good chance Harry will get off with no charges. I can't see Mandaric getting away scot free though. Harry screwed him when he said it was a payment. From Harry's point of view, whether it's a loan (where no tax should have been paid anyway) or a payment, he's had it confirmed Mandaric told him the tax was paid. The fact he made no attempt to hide bringing the money back in is also in his favour as is the oddity of avoiding such a small amount. So there is a chance he'll get nothing but a lecture from the judge. From Mandaric's point of view he'll only get off if they believe it's a loan, which is hard to prove, so he'll almost certainly have a fine to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I haven't really been following this, but what was Harry's excuse for having tha ccount named after his dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 From the evidence it seems Mandaric paid Redknapp a sum of money into a Monaco bank account. He is claiming to have done this as a friend either as a loan or a gift and outside of his employment of Redknapp. Unfortunately the sum of money involved is not inconsequential and as it was from an employer needs to be taxed. Redknapp will get a hefty fine and community service IMO. Unlike some people who seem to know the people involved's exact thoughts, I haven't a clue whether this was done on purpose and nor can the jury so would expect them to go with the verdict that there is a wrongdoing but it cannot be deemed deliberate and sentence accordingly. Thats' exactly what I was saying, but it doesn't seem too popular coming from a Spurs fan and was seen as bias. But that's all there is to it really, but many seem determined to make the case out to be something it isn't. However, on top of what you said, I think the fact Mandaric has said it was loan and confirmed he told Harry the tax was paid, means there is a good chance Harry will get off with no charges. I can't see Mandaric getting away scot free though. Harry screwed him when he said it was a payment. From Harry's point of view, whether it's a loan (where no tax should have been paid anyway) or a payment, he's had it confirmed Mandaric told him the tax was paid. The fact he made no attempt to hide bringing the money back in is also in his favour as is the oddity of avoiding such a small amount. So there is a chance he'll get nothing but a lecture from the judge. From Mandaric's point of view he'll only get off if they believe it's a loan, which is hard to prove, so he'll almost certainly have a fine to pay. No he has definitely been dodgy. Having an off shore account in a tax haven for investments or performance bonuses and not mentioning its existence to anyone including his own accountant until questioned about it by the tax office is dodgy every way you look at it. He will be done for sure. His defense of "I thought the tax had been paid and just forgot to mention anything about it" is not an excuse that will wash, I'm sure everyone who is caught says something similar. Also, his story and Mandric's are not consistent. You would think they would be if it was just a genuine misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardCanning Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 owever, on top of what you said, I think the fact Mandaric has said it was loan and confirmed he told Harry the tax was paid, means there is a good chance Harry will get off with no charges. I can't see Mandaric getting away scot free though. Harry screwed him when he said it was a payment. From Harry's point of view, whether it's a loan (where no tax should have been paid anyway) Hold your horses right there! If it is a loan there is tax to be paid for Redknapp to claim he didn't know this was the case is a little licentious as he fills out a tax return/should have been informing his accountant of the monies as failure to do so will cause him problems! The reason the loan is taxable is because it is a benefit in kind from an employer meaning tax equivalent to the value of the interest for the period borrowed for should be paid by Redknapp (hence why Mandaric is trying to claim it is nothing to do with any bonuses Redknapp is owed, a story that is a little thin on the ground when MM was employing HR at the time). If (and as I think is the case in this instance) the loan wasn't repaid then tax is due on the whole amount. This is tantamount to tax evasion hence there is a wrongdoing and Redknapp needs to be punished accordingly. If you think this is just going to be in the form of a lecture/small fine, I think you are mistaken, it is likely to be a 6 figure fine IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 From the evidence it seems Mandaric paid Redknapp a sum of money into a Monaco bank account. He is claiming to have done this as a friend either as a loan or a gift and outside of his employment of Redknapp. Unfortunately the sum of money involved is not inconsequential and as it was from an employer needs to be taxed. Redknapp will get a hefty fine and community service IMO. Unlike some people who seem to know the people involved's exact thoughts, I haven't a clue whether this was done on purpose and nor can the jury so would expect them to go with the verdict that there is a wrongdoing but it cannot be deemed deliberate and sentence accordingly. Thats' exactly what I was saying, but it doesn't seem too popular coming from a Spurs fan and was seen as bias. But that's all there is to it really, but many seem determined to make the case out to be something it isn't. However, on top of what you said, I think the fact Mandaric has said it was loan and confirmed he told Harry the tax was paid, means there is a good chance Harry will get off with no charges. I can't see Mandaric getting away scot free though. Harry screwed him when he said it was a payment. From Harry's point of view, whether it's a loan (where no tax should have been paid anyway) or a payment, he's had it confirmed Mandaric told him the tax was paid. The fact he made no attempt to hide bringing the money back in is also in his favour as is the oddity of avoiding such a small amount. So there is a chance he'll get nothing but a lecture from the judge. From Mandaric's point of view he'll only get off if they believe it's a loan, which is hard to prove, so he'll almost certainly have a fine to pay. That's a lot more clear that the rest of your posts. Do you know how long the money 'rested' in his account for though? If it was a loan, will he have to prove what it was for? If it was placed in the doggy account for a business investment, was it invested? And was the business investment successful? What was the investment/nature of the business? Was there a reason the money was invested in an offshore account instead of in a UK bank? Was it not a possibility that the money could have been paid into a UK account? I'm still open-minded about this case, despite the fact I don't like Redknapp and think he is a fat-mouthed word removed. However, I believe these are the questions he is going to be asked/has been asked. I don't buy his excuses about his reading/writing/fax/emails - but that is my opinion on the matter. This is a guy who 'writes' and article for a national newspaper. Surely he can't have got through the last 25 years without using a fax? I have a friend who is an absolute heathen when it comes to technology. He is 39, refuses to own a computer even when I offered him a decent one for free and uses a Nokia 6310 he has had since 2001. However, he does know how to fax, he is a mechanic and has used the format extensively for years. Since the introduction of a computer system in his workplace he has become familiar with Word, Excel, the intermong and email and can use it whenever he likes. He doesn't like it, but he does know how to use it and does use it. He can write properly and his spelling is OK, but this is the year 2012 and spelling standards are absolutely **** terrible. I fail to see how a person in Redknapp's position could have gotten through the last 25 years without using/participating in these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 31, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 31, 2012 Only Redknapp said it wasn't a loan and was linked to the Crouch deal. Something doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 good job he's only evaded about 80,000 in tax, on top of paying the tax, he'll probably get a slap on the wrist fine and some community service, If he'd have played ball with HMRC he'd have probably been able to cut a behind doors deal, now if he'd have fiddled a small fraction of that in benefit fraud he'd be probably be looking at a bit of prison time and at least a suspended sentence. Good old fair and equal justice eh And therein lies the distinction. Harry's offence is one of failing to declare.... which is a lesser offence than that of obtaining benefit by deception. One crime is a crime of concealment, one is a crime of deception and there is a subtle difference there. Hmmmm, very strange viewpoint, surely most benefit fraud is a case of concealment of the real facts, in order to obtain public money through deception, and most tax evasion is concealment of the real facts with intent to deceive the public purse out of income, so in both cases there is concealment with the intent to fraudulently deceive, the usual difference is the people who tend to commit each type of fraud, one usually has access to far more favourable justice than the other despite their crimes usually involving significantly larger sums of money. Back on subject, I love the old defence so often used by the mega rich wheeled out today, the one about because I've paid loads in tax there is no way i'd intentionally avoid paying tax bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanky Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 'Arry does love to talk about a transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey55 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not going answer everyone's posts individiually. But firstly, there is nothing wrong with opening an offshore account and giving it a name. This is different to opening an account in someone esle's name, which I think some of think is what has happened. He's explained why he opened the account and it was at Mandaric's bequest so he could control the investment. There is nothing wrong with that either. The main issue at the moment is that Harry said it was a payment and Mandaric said it was loan. It makes most sense to assume Harry told the truth and was unaware this would land Mandaric in the shit. If it's loan Harry was only liable for tax on the profit. However, if it is a payment, then tax is liable. The trouble for Mandaric is that he has confirmed he told Harry the tax was paid on it, hence he needs it to be a loan, not a payment. But that doesn't make much sense. Why on earth would Mandaric invest £90,000 as a favour for Harry? He's was worth £100 million at the time and Harry was on £2 million a year. It would have to be some investment to make it worth doing with a stake of just £90,000, considering Harry would only benefit from the profit! Harry's version is much more plausible and it seems unlikely that Harry would have had the intelligence to make up the Crouch story on the spur of the moment. Also the loan wasn't repaid. How can it be a loan? Mandaric's story doesn't make sense. I'd imagine it will be viewed as a payment and Mandaric has confirmed he told Harry the tax had been paid. Harry himself is still responsible, so he might still be in some trouble, but not much. He wont be going to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Incredible that he was on 4m a year at Pompey......in March 2004! Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'm not going answer everyone's posts individiually. Why would you need to? You're not Spuds PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Do you know how long the money 'rested' in his account for though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Alimantado Posted February 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted February 1, 2012 Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 good job he's only evaded about 80,000 in tax, on top of paying the tax, he'll probably get a slap on the wrist fine and some community service, If he'd have played ball with HMRC he'd have probably been able to cut a behind doors deal, now if he'd have fiddled a small fraction of that in benefit fraud he'd be probably be looking at a bit of prison time and at least a suspended sentence. Good old fair and equal justice eh And therein lies the distinction. Harry's offence is one of failing to declare.... which is a lesser offence than that of obtaining benefit by deception. One crime is a crime of concealment, one is a crime of deception and there is a subtle difference there. Hmmmm, very strange viewpoint, surely most benefit fraud is a case of concealment of the real facts, in order to obtain public money through deception, and most tax evasion is concealment of the real facts with intent to deceive the public purse out of income, so in both cases there is concealment with the intent to fraudulently deceive, the usual difference is the people who tend to commit each type of fraud, one usually has access to far more favourable justice than the other despite their crimes usually involving significantly larger sums of money. Back on subject, I love the old defence so often used by the mega rich wheeled out today, the one about because I've paid loads in tax there is no way i'd intentionally avoid paying tax bullshit. It may be strange but that is the legal position. "Cheating the public revenue" is a very old offence - but HMRC like it because it carries the option of an unlimited fine. They have other charges available under the Fraud Act but they carry lesser punishments. Redknapp has been charged on the basis that he failed to declare to HMRC he had an income/asset. There is no deception involved. A person fraudulently claiming benefit to which they were not entitled has to give false information to obtain said benefit. There is a lesser offence of failure to notify a change of circumstances which is similar to the case 'Arry is charged with, but that offence carries a lesser sentence than "Cheating the Public Revenue" 'Arry and Mandaric's claims that it was a "loan" is clearly bollocks. Why would a guy earning £4m a year need to borrow £375k? Also, if it was a loan - where was the contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaGoMarching Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 genuine question, How come after all these years of 'Arry being in the public eye, only at his court case have i seen him wearing glasses. He's been stood on the touchline, sat in the stands, being interviewed, on the training pitches, and i've never seen him where glasses. Just thought it was odd when i've seen the clips of him arriving at the courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 genuine question, How come after all these years of 'Arry being in the public eye, only at his court case have i seen him wearing glasses. He's been stood on the touchline, sat in the stands, being interviewed, on the training pitches, and i've never seen him where glasses. Just thought it was odd when i've seen the clips of him arriving at the courthouse. I heard Harry's got lots of contacts..... :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2012 That Ryan Nelsen deal stinks to high heaven as usual. Who releases a player in the dying hours of transfer deadline day, so he can become a free agent and therefore not bound by the transfer window rules? It has to be a first. Released supposedly because of his "injury problems" but signed by Spurs the very next morning only hours after the window closed. I know spuds have a fondness for crocked centre backs but, it can't just be me thinking that something is amiss here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts