Ecclestone Caught!

[SueEllen]

by HMRC.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...uilty-to-fraud

Former Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone has pleaded guilty to fraud at Southwark crown court after failing to declare more than £400m of overseas assets to the UK government.
Ecclestone had pleaded not guilty to the charges in August, but changed his plea at a case management hearing on Thursday.

Ecclestone ran Formula One from the late 1970s until January 2017, a position that made him one of the most prominent people in global motorsport.

He was accused of fraud by false representation after allegedly failing to declare the existence of a trust in Singapore.

[tazdevil]

Bernie into fraud, who'd have thunk it Been well known for decades

[Snooky]

From BBC News:

Speaking in court following Ecclestone's guilty plea, prosecutor Richard Wright KC said the defendant had knowingly given an "untrue or misleading" answer to HMRC when he told them he had no further trusts outside the UK.

He continued: "As of July 7 2015, Mr Ecclestone did not know the truth of the position, so was not able to give an answer to the question.

"Mr Ecclestone was not entirely clear on how ownership of the accounts in question were structured.

"He therefore did not know whether it was liable for tax, interest or penalties in relation to amounts passing through the accounts.

Don't HMRC understand that not every taxpayer has access to expensive tax consultants or accountants to explain this stuff to them? Sounds like an honest mistake to me.

[northernladuk]

From BBC News:



Don't HMRC understand that not every taxpayer has access to expensive tax consultants or accountants to explain this stuff to them? Sounds like an honest mistake to me.

That was first thought as well. The amount of money he's got spread all over the world. The chances of him actually managing to do the right thing by HMRC appears to be an utter nightmare to me. Trying to follow the rules to the letter with that amount of money on a global scale then it's hard to think he wouldn't have messed up somewhere. We know how mindless some of the tax policies are, and then brexit etc. Hardly surprising he's over stepped or misunderstood a policy. Look at the problems we have just working out taxation for a contractor in Europe/Ireland/America on here.

I'd imagine he's very little clue what's actually happened and how he got there but he's ultimately responsible and had to take the hit. I'll bet he'll be turning it back on whatever accountant has done this to him.

[woody1]

If there was a decent chance his barrister could have persuaded a jury that it was an "innocent error" or even "carelessness", would he have pleaded guilty to deliberate evasion (fraud) though?

[northernladuk]

If there was a decent chance his barrister could have persuaded a jury that it was an "innocent error" or even "carelessness", would he have pleaded guilty to deliberate evasion (fraud) though?

There is no such thing (generally) in the tax world. Ignorance isn't a defense for HMRC. It is also likely to be so complex it's worth challenging HMRC because their policies are such a mess but in this case he lost. He did something (rightly or wrongly) and HMRC says it's wrong so that's that. But I'm just guessing. I'd have to read the article and get in to the detail to know.

We could be completely wrong and this was just a blatant attempt to commit outright tax fraud. Just strikes me everything an rich celeb/business man goes to court for fraud I doubt they knew what they were doing and the accountants were dealing with the detail. It would be interesting to know what action he took against his accountants that would have advised/handled it.

[woody1]

If you look at HMRC's discovery powers, they can go back:

4 years for "innocent error"
6 years for "carelessness"
20 years for "deliberate" ie. evasion/fraud

The penalties are far harsher for "deliberate", including potential criminal prosecution. They never prosecute for innocent errors or even carelessness.

For HMRC to prosecute Eccleston they must have had some compelling evidence against him, and I imagine he might have been advised to plead guilty for a lesser sentence.

[northernladuk]

Article is now on Daily mail so I can actually read it. Appears he's been working with them for many years which supports the 'complex' argument but there are some pretty hooky carry on's mentioned.

[woody1]

Also, bear in mind that Eccleston would have been able to hire the best legal representation that money can buy but even they couldn't save his ass.

Not many of us would be in that position if we had our collars felt by HMRC.