Harry - trial begins

[brasil_spur]

I'm not sure if it's just me being loyal to a Spurs manager or if I just don't really get the issue, but that actually looks like a pretty flimsy case.

I agree, it's only opening arguments at this stage, but they don't seem to have much behind them right now. They'll need a smoking gun to convict Harry, which so far they haven't said they have.

 

[Mr Pink]

meh....I think this will be pretty straightforward in the end...Harry will rightly avoid any penalty/fine and will receive appropriate compensation for wasting his time and generating negative publicity :grin:

 

[gilzeantheking]

Pearcesport James Pearce
Quest inquiry set up to investigate bungs in football. Nigel Layton told jury that Redknapp had voluntarily shown bank statements to Quest
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Pearcesport James Pearce
First two witnesses have appeared. Explanation of tax law from HMRC and then we heard from Nigel Layton of Premier League's Quest inquiry
3 minut

 

[Kendall]

meh....I think this will be pretty straightforward in the end...Harry will rightly avoid any penalty/fine and will receive appropriate compensation for wasting his time and generating negative publicity :grin:

Surely Levy could wangle compensation for upsetting our business practice by taking a key man out of operations at one of the most important weeks in our history?

 

[Mr Pink]

Surely Levy could wangle compensation for upsetting our business practice by taking a key man out of operations at one of the most important weeks in our history?

Levy is the 'wangling' master...nothing surprises when he's concerned :grin:

 

[Audere]

Pearcesport James Pearce
inquiry set up to investigate bungs in football. Nigel Layton told jury that Redknapp had voluntarily shown bank statements to Quest
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply




Isn't Quest the Mayfair letters page?

Whats going on here?

 

[striebs]

I've not been paying much attention to the finer details of this case, but wouldn't Redknapp have been P.A.Y.E, or would his position have been considered self employed?

Maybe a bit naive of me, but there you go.

Redknapp would have interests outside THFC which would require him to fill in a tax return .

These might include :-
- business ventures
- self employed work like punditry and newspaper columns
- sponsorship deals
- costs to Harry of paying his agent or representatives
- selling investments at a profit of greater than £10,000 thus making him liable for capital gains tax .
- contributions into a pension
- setting up trusts for his relatives
- large charitable donations

His tax affairs would be sufficiently complex to require an accountant to prepare a tax return .

Also if he's told the accountants that prepared his tax return about said payments in the tax year they were promised and made then he could successfully argue that as a layman he's done everything which he could .

 

[striebs]

Surely Levy could wangle compensation for upsetting our business practice by taking a key man out of operations at one of the most important weeks in our history?

If Levy did that a swarm of tax inspectors would land at his house threatening to go investigate i) his tax affairs ii) tax affairs of everyone of his business partners making Levy about as popular as a turd in a swimming pool .

Look on the bright side , Harry isn't going to get called up for jury service .

 

[gilzeantheking]

Pearcesport James Pearce
Next witness we'll hear from is Rob Beasley, who when working for News of World recorded interviews with R + M about Monaco allegations


He's the Chav supporting 'I'm friends with Jose' ex NOTW reportter

 

[gilzeantheking]

If Levy did that a swarm of tax inspectors would land at his house threatening to go investigate i) his tax affairs ii) tax affairs of everyone of his business partners making Levy about as popular as a turd in a swimming pool .

Look on the bright side , Harry isn't going to get called up for jury service .

That is not a nice thing to call Ledley

 

[Bobbins]

I don't really understand why the questions of bungs has come up - isn't this pretty open-and-shut?

Harry got paid by Mandaric, didn't declare it, and has avoided paying tax on earnings.

He'll pay a fine, probably quite a hefty one, and be back at work in no time.

 

[Mr Pink]

I don't really understand why the questions of bungs has come up - isn't this pretty open-and-shut?

Harry got paid by Mandaric, didn't declare it, and has avoided paying tax on earnings.

He'll pay a fine, probably quite a hefty one, and be back at work in no time.

I think Harry's argument is that he didn't have access to the account and didn't put the money in so he couldn't declare it...:shrug:

Probably completely wrong about that though given that the account is in his dog's name :grin:

 

[cockerel downunder]

That is not a nice thing to call Ledley

Seriously? That's pretty offensive unless I've completely misunderstood?

 

[Wheeler Dealer]

I don't really understand why the questions of bungs has come up - isn't this pretty open-and-shut?

Harry got paid by Mandaric, didn't declare it, and has avoided paying tax on earnings.

He'll pay a fine, probably quite a hefty one, and be back at work in no time.

There is also a good chance that he'll be considered for a custodial sentence, which considering his current stock being so high, will call an end to his career at a stage where he is close to achieving big things for club and possibly country.

If things do not go to plan, the little bit of greed has firmly bitten him on his arse,

 

[Rocksuperstar]

From what i understand so far:

Harry, as DOF, was promised 10% cuts on transfers he arranges. He arranged the transfer of Crouch but, in the interim, became manager and his contract ammended so he was entitled to 5% of transfers instead. As he had arranged the purchase of Crouch whilst still the DOF, he went to Milan and said he deserved the 10% that he was contracted for at the time the paperwork was done. Milan agreed to pay it, as he had done bonuses for other signings previously, but this time wanted to pay it offshore. Harry didn't have an account to use, so set one up simply because Milan told him it would be the best way to do it. Harry says he informed his accountants, and moved the money into his own account - at this point he was sure that the tax was already paid on the money, back when it was initially paid to him, by Mandaric.

Mandaric says none of this is true, that he discussed a business venture in the US with Harry and the money had been given to him as a loan, for investment into this project. He expected Harry to pay it back.

Now, if it was a loan for a completely non-football related venture, then there would surely be paperwork to show what the intention was, or some kind of record of the loan on Mandaric's side.

If it was a bonus paid for Crouch's transfer, then again, there should be a paper trail they can follow.

The only reason i can think that this has gotten this far is that there isn't the necessary evidence for either, which leaves it to the jury to decide. This will come down to which council manages to convince the jury that their client is the slightly less crooked of the two.

 

[CosmicHotspur]

There should only be Spurs supporters on the jury then.

Certainly no Gooners.

 

[Bales Left Peg]

From what i understand so far:

... The only reason i can think that this has gotten this far is that there isn't the necessary evidence for either, which leaves it to the jury to decide. This will come down to which council manages to convince the jury that their client is the slightly less crooked of the two.

I thought it was a case of both 'Arry and Milan on trial.... So both can be convicted?!?

Or have i missed something?

 

[Rocksuperstar]

I thought it was a case of both 'Arry and Milan on trial.... So both can be convicted?!?

Or have i missed something?

They are, but with two such different stories, then i can only assume that they will focus on one being less likely than the other, rather than just convict them both equally. If it turns out that Harry is telling the truth then i can't see what, other than requiring him to pay what he thought he had already plus some sort of token fine for lateness, they can really do to him. In that situation, Mandaric is double f*cked as he may well be responsible for the tax and he has also lied.

The other way around, i don't know enough about business investments and the likes (well, don't know anything at all), so it maybe that Mandaric was all above board, in which case there's no case to answer with the tax man, but Harry has bullshitted the court.

One way or another, at least one of them is lying, if not both.

 

[Bales Left Peg]

So if both of them are proven to have lied in court then cant they both be fined heavily and given a sentence? as they would of both known what they did was wrong otherwise they would of said what actually happened?

 

[sloth]

They are, but with two such different stories, then i can only assume that they will focus on one being less likely than the other, rather than just convict them both equally. If it turns out that Harry is telling the truth then i can't see what, other than requiring him to pay what he thought he had already plus some sort of token fine for lateness, they can really do to him. In that situation, Mandaric is double f*cked as he may well be responsible for the tax and he has also lied.

The other way around, i don't know enough about business investments and the likes (well, don't know anything at all), so it maybe that Mandaric was all above board, in which case there's no case to answer with the tax man, but Harry has bullshitted the court.

One way or another, at least one of them is lying, if not both.

That's not what the prosecution are arguing though. They're saying that they conspired to avoid paying tax on a taxable income and that the inconsistency in their accounts show each to be non-credible, and are symptomatic of the pair of them trying to concoct stories to explain away the crime.

I imagine everything rests on the "Beyond reasonable doubt" clause. The jury may harbour suspicions that the prosecution have it right - and the inconsistency in their stories add credibility to their case - but can they be certain that it wasn't how one or other of the said?

Reading through the various reports, Harry's position seems much more credible than Mandaric's, he's stuck to his guns that it was a bonus, he doesn't deny that it is taxable, but suggests he:

a. thought the tax had been paid.
b. that he wasn't in control of the account and that anyway it was empty so why would he declare it?
c. that he declare it when he finally did transfer it to the UK.

What I'm unsure about is:

1. If his claim is that it was a bonus in the shape of an investment which went bad, then surely it should still have been taxable? If I got paid a £100 bonus, but then lost it all on a fruit machine afterwards, surely it's irrelevant that I squandered it, I still needed to pay the tax on the bonus?

2. If he was unaware the account had money in then how come he knew enough to arrange to have money transferred from it to the UK years down the track?

3. If he'd completely forgotten about it, so hadn't told either his accountant or HMRC about it, then how come he remembered it when Quest asked him about it?