Reply to: Something is afoot with AML/Knox

[eek]

Also worth adding this link that Ian Richardson GT IoM posted yesterday https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/cour...ng-case-839728

the more junior people are off to court

[cojak]

And as I like to keep these threads all in one place…

https://forums.contractoruk.com/gene...0884-mone.html

[cojak]

In this case I suspect a lot of the money didn’t go to the UK front company but straight to the IoM company.

but it’s fraud by misrepresentation if SmartPay UK say Jane Smith is employed by SmartPay UK when she’s actually employed by SmartPay IoM

And Dan Neidle makes it public.

Eek called it!

https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1973659358652256700

[woody1]

Usually less subterfuge than that - nowadays the UK company will pay minimum wage with everything else sent to the overseas company and then “loaned” back

Can't see how any arrangement like that would ever get around the much tighter DR legislation that's in place now.

These companies must know they're selling a pup.

[eek]

Now that does sound underhand. At least with most schemes, agencies/clients paid the same UK company they had a contract with, albeit the UK company was just a front for an IoM outfit.

Makes you wonder what sort of subterfuge is going on with the schemes still operating today...

Usually less subterfuge than that - nowadays the UK company will pay minimum wage with everything else sent to the overseas company and then “loaned” back

[woody1]

I think you are right. The IoM company received the payments, but UK companies thought they were paying a UK company of the same name. This would bypass bank transfer checks by the payer.

https://www.ft.com/content/647f32ba-...8-b41dca599921

Now that does sound underhand. At least with most schemes, agencies/clients paid the same UK company they had a contract with, albeit the UK company was just a front for an IoM outfit.

Makes you wonder what sort of subterfuge is going on with the schemes still operating today...

[agentzero]

In this case I suspect a lot of the money didn’t go to the UK front company but straight to the IoM company.

but it’s fraud by misrepresentation if SmartPay UK say Jane Smith is employed by SmartPay UK when she’s actually employed by SmartPay IoM

I think you are right. The IoM company received the payments, but UK companies thought they were paying a UK company of the same name. This would bypass bank transfer checks by the payer.

https://www.ft.com/content/647f32ba-...8-b41dca599921

[woody1]

A few years ago I pulled the accounts from the mid-2000s, off Companies House, for one of these IoM scheme UK front companies. It was turning over £59m a year, and £57m went straight out the back door (ie. to the IoM). After paying wages for a handful of staff and office rent, it only made a tiny profit, and paid sod all CT.

[eek]

With virtually every scheme the money flowed like this:

Agencies ➔ UK "front company" ➔ IoM entity ➔ Contractors

If it is fraud, then HMRC have known this for more than 20 years.

In this case I suspect a lot of the money didn’t go to the UK front company but straight to the IoM company.

but it’s fraud by misrepresentation if SmartPay UK say Jane Smith is employed by SmartPay UK when she’s actually employed by SmartPay IoM

[woody1]

and suddenly you go from tax avoidance (which the employee gets shafted about) to fraud, which is a definite criminal offence...

With virtually every scheme the money flowed like this:

Agencies ➔ UK "front company" ➔ IoM entity ➔ Contractors

If it is fraud, then HMRC have known this for more than 20 years.

[eek]

Most schemes had this setup. By about the mid-noughties, agencies wouldn't touch anything IoM, so the schemes had to insert a UK company which the agencies probably assumed was a regular brolly.

and suddenly you go from tax avoidance (which the employee gets shafted about) to fraud, which is a definite criminal offence...

[woody1]

paperwork UK company, but employer and (probably) money going direct to the Isle of Mann

Most schemes had this setup. By about the mid-noughties, agencies wouldn't touch anything IoM, so the schemes had to insert a UK company which the agencies probably assumed was a regular brolly.

[cojak]

Not 100% sure which thread was the best one to post this on so this one will do

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/03/04/..._shadow_fraud/

Dan Neidle has evidence that MR Barrowman committed fraud by misrepresenting which company workers were working through (paperwork UK company, but employer and (probably) money going direct to the Isle of Mann).

Could you copy this to Couldn’t happen to a nicer couple - Contractor UK Bulletin Board please Eek?

Ta!

[eek]

Not 100% sure which thread was the best one to post this on so this one will do

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2024/03/04/..._shadow_fraud/

Dan Neidle has evidence that MR Barrowman committed fraud by misrepresenting which company workers were working through (paperwork UK company, but employer and (probably) money going direct to the Isle of Mann).

[cojak]

And all in public records!