Harry - trial begins

[Real_madyidd]

I read an article a few days ago about Tax evasion and the likely sentences someone would get.

For a single instance of tax evasion the chances of a custodial sentence would be slim.
However for 2 counts of tax evasion,which is what Harry is charged with,a custodial sentence would be given.

So you are assuming guilt for both?

 

[yanno]

Not sure it's a good one. Redknapp claims the money was part of his bonus for selling Peter Crouch and Mandaric insists it was nothing to do with that. I guess it al depends if £189k represents approx 5% of Crouch's transfer fee. If it does I'm not sure how Mandaric can argue that it was unconnected with that.

And for Redknapp, if it was his fee then it needed to have tax paid on it and at the least to be declared to his accountant. You can't claim that you don't declare something because you later lost it. If he'd got paid that money then stuck it all on a horse and lost it HMRC would have still wanted the tax paid on the original sum, and he would still have been required to let his accountant know about it and declare it to HMRC - there can't be any argument on that point. I'm certain the "I was too scatter-brained guv!" defence doesn't work either. If it did then anyone caught dodging tax would simply use that defence and get off. Your responsibilities are clearly laid out in the law and you are expected to do fulfil them. Just as telling the cop you'd forgotten the speed-limit doesn't wash, for example.

Unless it wasn't a bonus and it was as Mandaric states, in which case why was Harry so adamant in the interview that it was a bonus for the sale of Crouch. If he's saying it wasn't now, then why was he saying something different then?

For me it all looks pretty gloomy for Harry I'm afraid.

I agree with much of the analysis, but not necessarily with the conclusion.

They've got separate lawyers and defences, so it looks as if Milan and 'Arry at some stage in the past decided it was each man for himself.

Given this, at face value, Mandaric was generous to Redknapp in his testimony today.

However, they have given fundamentally different accounts of the purpose of the money.

Redknapp says, essentially, that it was his additional 5% cut for selling Crouch for a profit. Whilst Mandaric says it had nothing to do with football.

If it was the 5% additional cut for making a profit on Crouch, then it would attract tax. Redknapp claims he was assured the tax had already been paid by Mandaric.

So, it was perhaps inevitable that Mandaric would testify that the money was not the "extra 5% cut" for Crouch, and nothing to do with football, because otherwise he would be liable for ensuring that the tax was paid.

If the jury believes Redknapp's claim that the money was for transfer sales, then he is also guilty of not ensuring that tax was paid - albeit with his defence being that he believed the tax bill had already been settled. However, on this finding, Mandaric would quite possibly also be found guilty of perjury and conspiring to defraud the revenue.

Alternately, if the jury believes Mandaric's account that it was a gift, then I'm not sure where this leaves the case.

If the jury believes neither account is credible, then they may both end up behind bars.

 

[stemark44]

I am assuming nothing,I am merely pointing out that if Harry is found guilty there is a very good chance that he will go to jail.

If it was down to me and even if he was guilty of 100 counts of tax evasion,I still wouldn't want to see him go to jail.

 

[Real_madyidd]

I am assuming nothing,I am merely pointing out that if Harry is found guilty there is a very good chance that he will go to jail.

If it was down to me and even if he was guilty of 100 counts of tax evasion,I still wouldn't want to see him go to jail.

That's cool. Apparently 101 wrongs do make a right!

Edit - sorry, that was dalmations make a coat.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Everyone seems to be forgetting - Harry claims he told his accountant, and made him fully aware that he had this money being transferred. He didn't tell the accountant about the Rosie account before as he had forgotten there was anything in it. From what i read, he told his man that, as far as he was aware, the tax had been paid on it already. At this point (assuming all this is true) then surely the accountant would've known what Harry was like with regards to being aware of his finances and should've taken it upon himself to check if the tax had been paid. Even if the money sat offshore and wasn't declared for twenty years, as long as it was declared when it was transferred to be invested/spent in this country then what difference does it make? As a resident of the UK, do you have to declare all earnings, domestic and foreign, even if that money hasn't touched these shores physically, or virtually in the form of investments or whatever?

 

[yanno]

Everyone seems to be forgetting - Harry claims he told his accountant, and made him fully aware that he had this money being transferred. He didn't tell the accountant about the Rosie account before as he had forgotten there was anything in it. From what i read, he told his man that, as far as he was aware, the tax had been paid on it already. At this point (assuming all this is true) then surely the accountant would've known what Harry was like with regards to being aware of his finances and should've taken it upon himself to check if the tax had been paid.

RSS - yes, that is Redknapp's defence in all its "I'm a financially chaotic kind of guy" glory.

However, if a key component of that defence is that he had forgotten to tell his accountant about the Rosie account - for whatever reason - then he may be strictly liable.

Certainly, the accountants can't be blamed if they weren't told of the Rosie account.

If any of us had a bank account containing sums on which a five figure sum of tax was payable, I wouldn't expect the Revenue to accept "financial chaos" as an excuse. It may be accepted as mitigation.

 

[sloth]

I agree with much of the analysis, but not necessarily with the conclusion.

They've got separate lawyers and defences, so it looks as if Milan and 'Arry at some stage in the past decided it was each man for himself.

Given this, at face value, Mandaric was generous to Redknapp in his testimony today.

However, they have given fundamentally different accounts of the purpose of the money.

Redknapp says, essentially, that it was his additional 5% cut for selling Crouch for a profit. Whilst Mandaric says it had nothing to do with football.

If it was the 5% additional cut for making a profit on Crouch, then it would attract tax. Redknapp claims he was assured the tax had already been paid by Mandaric.

So, it was perhaps inevitable that Mandaric would testify that the money was not the "extra 5% cut" for Crouch, and nothing to do with football, because otherwise he would be liable for ensuring that the tax was paid.

If the jury believes Redknapp's claim that the money was for transfer sales, then he is also guilty of not ensuring that tax was paid - albeit with his defence being that he believed the tax bill had already been settled. However, on this finding, Mandaric would quite possibly also be found guilty of perjury and conspiring to defraud the revenue.

Alternately, if the jury believes Mandaric's account that it was a gift, then I'm not sure where this leaves the case.

If the jury believes neither account is credible, then they may both end up behind bars.

That's pretty much how I see it too.

The only thing I'd note is that if it was a payment in relation to his job he would have been expected to declare it in the year that he received the payment. He should have told his accountant and he would have told him whether tax was due on it and then on declaring it to HMRC they would have decided whether the accountant was correct.

You can't simply not tell your accountant about a payment you received for a job you've done, and have him present accounts to HMRC which don't include that payment; that's breaking the law right there.

And as I say being scatter-brained is no excuse under the law. Even if it were credible that he demanded an extra 5% from Mandaric in the first place, flew to Monaco to open the account, had the money paid into it and in the space of 12 months forgot to mention it to his accountant - it might be true but it's not a convincing argument if you ask me.

Everyone seems to be forgetting - Harry claims he told his accountant, and made him fully aware that he had this money being transferred. He didn't tell the accountant about the Rosie account before as he had forgotten there was anything in it. From what i read, he told his man that, as far as he was aware, the tax had been paid on it already. At this point (assuming all this is true) then surely the accountant would've known what Harry was like with regards to being aware of his finances and should've taken it upon himself to check if the tax had been paid. Even if the money sat offshore and wasn't declared for twenty years, as long as it was declared when it was transferred to be invested/spent in this country then what difference does it make? As a resident of the UK, do you have to declare all earnings, domestic and foreign, even if that money hasn't touched these shores physically, or virtually in the form of investments or whatever?

The point is you have to declare your income in the year that it was paid. Forgetting isn't an excuse under the law.

And then later remembering he had money in that account (not sure how that sudden recall has been explained, anyone know?), then he would also have needed to tell the accountant where it had come from so it could be declared at that point - was it declared by Redknapp at that point? Genuine question...

 

[Dinghy]

I don't know how it affects anything, but I see the defence as being that Arry thought that he was due 10%, Milan 5% on the Crouch transfer. It transpired that it was contractually 5% and Milan was correct. Milan then, to keep his friend sweet, 'gifted' Arry an investment which went sour.
Any legal bods/tax experts know the consequences if this is the case? Declarable/non-declarable? Legal or not?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

That's pretty much how I see it too.

The only thing I'd note is that if it was a payment in relation to his job he would have been expected to declare it in the year that he received the payment. He should have told his accountant and he would have told him whether tax was due on it and then on declaring it to HMRC they would have decided whether the accountant was correct.

You can't simply not tell your accountant about a payment you received for a job you've done, and have him present accounts to HMRC which don't include that payment; that's breaking the law right there.

And as I say being scatter-brained is no excuse under the law. Even if it were credible that he demanded an extra 5% from Mandaric in the first place, flew to Monaco to open the account, had the money paid into it and in the space of 12 months forgot to mention it to his accountant - it might be true but it's not a convincing argument if you ask me.



The point is you have to declare your income in the year that it was paid. Forgetting isn't an excuse under the law.

And then later remembering he had money in that account (not sure how that sudden recall has been explained, anyone know?), then he would also have needed to tell the accountant where it had come from so it could be declared at that point - was it declared by Redknapp at that point? Genuine question...

I said this a while ago in this thread. Germany fore-isntance has a zero tolerance policy re taxation. They don't assume you are innocent until proven guilty, if you "forget" to file something you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise and even then you'll pay for the trouble. Some very high profile people have been banged up in Germany recently for tax evasion.

On the face of it, this is a very straightforward case. The beauty for Redknapp and Mandric is that it is not tax inspectors or judges who will decide if they have fucked up - because technically they have - it is a dozen punters with very little knowledge of tax law, some of whom will be bamboozled by the confused dimwit defence, some of whom will sympathise anyway because Harry's "a giver", and they actually have a chance of the majority of that jury deciding they're not sure what exactly they are guilty of and not convicting them for one reason or another.

I have three questions though if anyone knows.

Where is Mandric domiciled for tax purposes ?

Will Mandric and Redknapp be getting legal aid (I believe they will won't they) ?

Who the fuck in their right mind swaps Nice football club for Portsmouth FC ?

 

[Real_madyidd]

Is this even happening today?

 

[bigturnip]

Is this even happening today?

Yep, nothing much of note from this mornings proceedings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16810852

Not heard anything from this afternoon yet.

 

[Audere]

It was all Milan by the sound of it.

 

[wooderz]

Just thought it's a bit off by the powers that be to put this trial slap on deadline day!

 

[Audere]

Yeah, I can see the judge saying 'Have a day off Mr Redknapp I hear you are a bit of a wheeler dealer so please use this time wisely.'

'And dont forget to pay any tax on any profit you make this time. You cheeky scamp!'

 

[bigturnip]

Just thought it's a bit off by the powers that be to put this trial slap on deadline day!

It's a bit more off for the powers that be to make half the Premier League teams play just a couple of hours before the deadline. Arsenal are the only team from the top 6 not playing tonight so will be in the best position to move quickly for any last minute quality players that become available. Why not just have a full programme of fixtures tomorrow?

 

[jbstarr14]

It's a bit more off for the powers that be to make half the Premier League teams play just a couple of hours before the deadline. Arsenal are the only team from the top 6 not playing tonight so will be in the best position to move quickly for any last minute quality players that become available. Why not just have a full programme of fixtures tomorrow?

So, Daniel and the directors are doing what tonight?

 

[bigturnip]

So, Daniel and the directors are doing what tonight?

I would imagine watching a game of football while talking on their phones a lot, but for many clubs the manager takes a more active role in player recruitment. While it's all very well saying that the clubs have had a whole month to sort things out, the very nature of the transfer deadline means that a lot of options don't become available until the last minute.

It's about time the transfer windows were scrapped, why not just say you can sign who you want between 1 June and the Friday before the start of the season, after that you can buy a maximum of 3 players during the season?

 

[MattyP]

So, was chatting to someone today who works at one of the big accountancy firms and one of the tax partners reckons Harry will go down for two years.

I'm posting this not because I want it to happen (I don't), merely that one would imagine they have a better grasp of the rules than a lot of us do. I didn't ask why/how they came to that conclusion, before anyone asks.

 

[Kendall]

Probably been posted a million times already:

 

[Spurs_Bear]

I think there's some kind of mock teamsheet going round too....haven't seen it though.