Harry - trial begins

[Lo Amo Speroni]

None of these things are a criminal offence though. You can't convict someone based on the fact he's lied a bit (not under oath) and seems a bit dodgy, otherwise half the world would be in jail.

I agree that something has happened here, and my guess is that Harry honestly forgot about the fact the money was in the account and that it needed to potentially be declared and that Mandaric knew it needed to be declared but assumed Harry would do so.

I don't think it is any more serious than this in reality, like they both say there's little point evading £10k in tax when both of them have paid significantly more than that in their lifetimes.

Frankly i'm sure MM and/or Harry would cough up the £10k tomorrow to get rid of this whole case against them.


That isn't the point though is it. Paying tax is a legal obligation we all have and the lying would tend to show that he knew what he was doing. He is the manager of my team and I love what he has done but the fact still remains that if I was on the jury I would convict him.

That said If I was the judge I would order the tax paid and give a suspended sentence.

And if I was Levy, I wouldn't know if it was right to sack him or not. He could argue that the offence occurred before he became our manager.

My preferred scenario is he gets a suspended and he stays our manager. Just.

 

[brasil_spur]

That isn't the point though is it. Paying tax is a legal obligation we all have and the lying would tend to show that he knew what he was doing. He is the manager of my team and I love what he has done but the fact still remains that if I was on the jury I would convict him.

On the evidence of a News of the World interview?

I agree that if there's evidence that they purposely mislead HMRC then he should be found guilty, but for me the defence hasn't presented that evidence.

You have to be 100% sure to convict him, and i can't see that the jurors can be 100% on the evidence presented.

 

[Dinghy]

the fact still remains that if I was on the jury I would convict him.

As I have said before. To convict the jury need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that 3(/4) things have been fulfilled.

1) HMRC's right to the money has to have been prejudiced - ie the money was actually due to be taxed
2) Deliberate
3) Dishonest
i) dishonest to the ordinary standards of normal people
AND ii) Defendant must know that it was dishonest to ordinary standards of normal people.

I've not seen the evidence that proves any of this beyond doubt.
What have you seen that I've missed? :shrug:

 

[Lo Amo Speroni]

As I have said before. To convict the jury need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that 3(/4) things have been fulfilled.

I've not seen the evidence that proves any of this beyond doubt.
What have you seen that I've missed? :shrug:

I said if I was on the jury, I am not saying they will.

Neither he nor Mandric have given a reasonable explanation for Rosie47 and the subsequent movement of money from it to Florida. Failure to disclose it to the accountant and his explanation to NOTW all, IMO show dishonesty.

 

[Dinghy]

I said if I was on the jury, I am not saying they will.

Neither he nor Mandric have given a reasonable explanation for Rosie47 and the subsequent movement of money from it to Florida. Failure to disclose it to the accountant and his explanation to NOTW all, IMO show dishonesty.

Ok. Sorry I'll rephrase that then shall I? :roll:

If you were on the jury you would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that 3(/4) things have been fulfilled.

1) HMRC's right to the money has to have been prejudiced - ie the money was actually due to be taxed
2) Deliberate
3) Dishonest
i) dishonest to the ordinary standards of normal people
AND ii) Defendant must know that it was dishonest to ordinary standards of normal people.

If it was an account numbered 3479627590 instead of being called Rosie47 would that have changed your opinion?

 

[Dinghy]

Have they proved beyond doubt that it wasn't a gift?

 

[Dinghy]

Have they proved beyond doubt that tax was due on it?

 

[Dinghy]

Have they proved beyond doubt that it was dishonest by ordinary standards?

 

[Dinghy]

Have they proved beyond doubt that Harry knew that it was dishonest by ordinary standards?

 

[Dinghy]

Have they proved beyond doubt that it was deliberate?

 

[Lo Amo Speroni]

Ok. Sorry I'll rephrase that then shall I? :roll:

If you were on the jury you would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that 3(/4) things have been fulfilled.

If it was an account numbered 3479627590 instead of being called Rosie47 would that have changed your opinion?

I can't be bothered to debate any further mate. I am saying that it is my belief, as it is with many people that Harry is guilty.

If you think every jury looks at the law and facts in all their deliberation then you are seriously misguided. They will have made their minds up already. I also know never to guess what a jury will decide.

I hope, for my team's sake that Harry is found not guilty.

 

[Dinghy]

I can't be bothered to debate any further mate. I am saying that it is my belief, as it is with many people that Harry is guilty.

If you think every jury looks at the law and facts in all their deliberation then you are seriously misguided. They will have made their minds up already. I also know never to guess what a jury will decide.

I hope, for my team's sake that Harry is found not guilty.

This is hardly a debate. This is you stating your position and then refusing to listen to any counter opinions. :duh:

 

[Lo Amo Speroni]

This is hardly a debate. This is you stating your position and then refusing to listen to any counter opinions. :duh:

No. I accept what you're saying but don't share your opinion. I fail to see how that provokes a :duh: smilie.

Still each to their own.

 

[Dinghy]

No. I accept what you're saying but don't share your opinion. I fail to see how that provokes a :duh: smilie.

Still each to their own.

Because you've not actually debated anything? :shrug:

Oh and I've not given any opinions. I've stated the law (a fact) and asked how it applies.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

On the evidence of a News of the World interview?

I agree that if there's evidence that they purposely mislead HMRC then he should be found guilty, but for me the defence hasn't presented that evidence.

You have to be 100% sure to convict him, and i can't see that the jurors can be 100% on the evidence presented.

The thing is BS, why did he lie to the NOTW. In fact why did he say anything to the NOTW, because he didn't have to, so why lie, what did he think he would gain by lying to the NOTW ? As evidence goes, in all honesty, the person himself saying it (that it was a bonus), is reasonably strong evidence. Or you accept he was lying and then you have to accept that he is capable of lying and therefore that weakens any evidence he gives.

But one of the issues here, and fundamental to the trouble he now finds himself in, is one that some of us have flagged up about Redknapp all along. His propensity to not be able to stop talking and at times to talk bollocks has firmly bitten him on the arse, guilty or not guilty verdict.

The question many of us have asked on many occasions (such as with the Modric thing - or even the comments he continually made about Pav as quoted this week - comments which hardly help either the player or the club to sell him) was why not just say fuck all ? No comment ? go ask someone else.

I think some of it is his genuine affability and a deep need to be popular, but it is a weakness that has cost him and could cost us a position which he deserves credit for helping us attain.

 

[Lo Amo Speroni]

Because you've not actually debated anything? :shrug:

Oh and I've not given any opinions. I've stated the law (a fact) and asked how it applies.

In my opinion I am satisfied that the prosecution have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the money was not a gift. You may well have a different opinion and so may the jury. I have no reason but to take the NOTW interview at face value.

Therefore, it follows that if it was not a gift, it was a payment for his employment with Portsmouth and therefore tax is due.

Has he acted dishonestly? Well he has concealed the account from his accountant, why? This might be enough for a jury to think he has acted dishonestly, it may not. In my opinion it proves dishonesty when linked to the NOTW interview.

 

[sloth]

On the evidence of a News of the World interview?

I agree that if there's evidence that they purposely mislead HMRC then he should be found guilty, but for me the defence hasn't presented that evidence.

You have to be 100% sure to convict him, and i can't see that the jurors can be 100% on the evidence presented.

It's not 100% sure, but beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it's clear that payments were made by Redknapp's employer to him, into an account specially set-up for receipt of that payment in a foreign tax haven. No tax was paid on that payment and it wasn't declared to Redknapp's accountant or to the HMRC in the tax year in which that payment was made, or for several years afterwards.

It's also clear that Redknapp, when questioned about that payment - but before HMRC had been made aware of it and began to bring the proceedings which led to this court case - said categorically that it was in relation to a bonus for the sale of Crouch. He specifically denied in that interview that it was an investment Mandaric was making on his behalf.

The case the prosecution make is that this amounts to breaking the law. That Harry and Mandaric knew the law, knew it was income and so taxable, but chose not to declare it.

Harry claims that he lied in that earlier interview, because he didn't want a story appearing in the News of the World - though why the 'truth' was worse than the 'lie' is unclear to me, which surely casts doubt on his motivation for 'lying' to Beasley? - and that it was an investment which had nothing to do with the 5% bonus he missed out on for the sale of Crouch, despite that he complained to Mandaric that he should receive it, that Mandaric told him he'd sort it, and that soon afterwards Redknapp travelled to Monaco to open the account into which a payment equating to approx 5% of the Crouch transfer fee was paid by Mandaric. By inference, this payment was entirely coincidental to the dispute over the missing 5% from the Crouch transfer.

Now, virtually anyone looking at two explanations of events would believe the case made by the prosecution.

But this is not a balance of probabilites question, but instead the jurors have to decide whether Redknapp and Mandaric's version of events is sufficiently credible to cast reasonable doubt on the Prosecution's version.

For me, it is possible that what Redknapp and Mandaric say is true, but it does not throw reasonable doubt on the far more compelling case the prosecution make. For this reason I would find them both guilty.

I hope the jurors see it differently however.

 

[EAspur1976]

Agree Sloth.

At first i wasn't convinced by the prosecution argument, but speaking to a few people who know a lot more than myself about this, as well as the weak defense that has been made, i can only assume he is guilty. I was of the opinion that he was being fitted up by HMRC and Mandaric, but it is quite obvious that the prosecutions case is a lot stronger than the defense. I'm quite interested to hear what the judge has to say about it all, and what advice he gives the jury, but as we all know far too well, that doesn't necessarily mean the jury will go with the judges advice, and he could still walk away from this. My opinion is Mandaric as a businessman is guilty as f*ck, he has no legs to stand on in all honesty, because he will have the financial acumen to suggest he knew exactly what he was doing. Harry on the other hand, i'm not so sure, and for his sake i hope the jury think of him as a bit dopey, and useless when it comes to finances.

Also i honestly think if found guilty, he will do some bird. HMRC are desperate to make an example of someone and he fits all the right criteria for them.

As my grandad used to say. "when it comes to the governments money, you could break into their homes, f*ck their wives, and nick their possesions, and you might get away with it, but nick their money and you are well and truly f*cked"

 

[Dinghy]

Now the way I see it it is that it is perfectly feasible it went down a little something like this...

Harry thought he was due 10% on the Crouch sale, but contractually ,down to his change of role, was actually only due 5%. Portsmouth, as a club, could not, and would not pay the difference.

MM can see that Harry is pissed about this, so turns round and says to Harry, look I've got this investment opportunity coming up. Open yourself an account down in Monaco then you won't have any tax implications here, and if this investment comes in it'll more than make up for what you lost on the Crouch deal.

Harry thinks that MM knows what he's talking about tax-wise, thinks it's sailing a little close to the proverbial wind but reckons that any normal person would try to reduce there tax liabilities by keeping this kind of thing off-shore so it ain't a problem.

H opens an account up and then totally forgets about it, these sort of investments don't turn over a profit in a couple of weeks and believes he only has to tell his accountant once that has happened. A little later MM tells him the investment went south so he presumes that everything has gone (again!)

When the Quest investigation comes about he remembers the account and tells them he's got this account but there ain't nothing in there.

Tosspot Beasley gets wind of the account and finds some monies going into it so ambushes H with this the day before the cup-final and H tells him it's the Crouch bonus to keep himself off the front page on cup-final day and promptly forgets about this conversation as it doesn't hit the headlines, everything's hunky-dory.

Now he finds himself in front of the beak.

IMO there's enough there to muddy the waters on each point necessary that none of them prove beyond reasonable doubt that he can be convicted for this offence.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that this wasn't a gift. Just the word of a NOTW reporter

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
Just the word of a NOTW reporter.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was dishonest by ordinary standards.
Nothing reported at all

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that if it was dishonest that H knew it to be so.
Nothing reported at all.

It may be that only the details that were thought to be interesting to the more general public was actually reported but from what I have read IMO there is no way that they have proved all of the requisite elements of the offence charged.

NOT GUILTY

 

[Beni]

Now the way I see it it is that it is perfectly feasible it went down a little something like this...

Harry thought he was due 10% on the Crouch sale, but contractually ,down to his change of role, was actually only due 5%. Portsmouth, as a club, could not, and would not pay the difference.

MM can see that Harry is pissed about this, so turns round and says to Harry, look I've got this investment opportunity coming up. Open yourself an account down in Monaco then you won't have any tax implications here, and if this investment comes in it'll more than make up for what you lost on the Crouch deal.

Harry thinks that MM knows what he's talking about tax-wise, thinks it's sailing a little close to the proverbial wind but reckons that any normal person would try to reduce there tax liabilities by keeping this kind of thing off-shore so it ain't a problem.

H opens an account up and then totally forgets about it, these sort of investments don't turn over a profit in a couple of weeks and believes he only has to tell his accountant once that has happened. A little later MM tells him the investment went south so he presumes that everything has gone (again!)

When the Quest investigation comes about he remembers the account and tells them he's got this account but there ain't nothing in there.

Tosspot Beasley gets wind of the account and finds some monies going into it so ambushes H with this the day before the cup-final and H tells him it's the Crouch bonus to keep himself off the front page on cup-final day and promptly forgets about this conversation as it doesn't hit the headlines, everything's hunky-dory.

Now he finds himself in front of the beak.

IMO there's enough there to muddy the waters on each point necessary that none of them prove beyond reasonable doubt that he can be convicted for this offence.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that this wasn't a gift. Just the word of a NOTW reporter

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was a deliberate attempt to defraud.
Just the word of a NOTW reporter.

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that it was dishonest by ordinary standards.
Nothing reported at all

No proof beyond doubt that I have seen reported that if it was dishonest that H knew it to be so.
Nothing reported at all.

It may be that only the details that were thought to be interesting to the more general public was actually reported but from what I have read IMO there is no way that they have proved all of the requisite elements of the offence charged.

NOT GUILTY

Pretty much my take on it all too, good post.