• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Something is afoot with AML/Knox"

Collapse

  • woody1
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by woody1 View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • woody1
    replied
    Originally posted by agentzero View Post

    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • agentzero
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • woody1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by woody1 View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • woody1
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by woody1 View Post

    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • woody1
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    And all in public records!

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
    ...
    Well, Carnegie Knox have relocated to the same address as Wharfside, and that address has A LOT of companies recently changed address to there.
    Both Carnegie Knox and Wharfside are still operating, but Wharfside are about to take on their customers (under the guise of rebranding).

    This is due to happen in August.
    It happened in August, and then in December Carnegie Knox became CKBL and is a bit late filing their accounts.

    I'm going to throw a new name into the mix now: Innovate Global. I've no idea what it's going to be used for, but stay away from them.

    Other names to watch out for: Soldaldo and Perree (both of whom are based in the BVIs, but are very recent)

    Leave a comment:


  • eazy
    replied
    I used them for Accountancy services only - they prepared company annual accounts only. Never joined any of their schemes, was contacted by HMRC re loans but got all clear. They were local, 5 min drive from the office. Since they have closed their local office and moved to Birmingham, looking for a new accountant.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by eazy View Post
    I was with Carnegie Knox, received this last week

    ----------------------
    As you will be aware we moved our Aberdeen office to The Wharf in Birmingham a little while ago.


    We are now taking this opportunity to relaunch and are changing our name to Wharfside Accountancy Services. What does this mean for you?

    You will see no change in your accountant, FreeAgent and Xero, the services we offer and how you engage us. The only change will be your agent registered with HMRC will be Wharfside Accountancy Services.

    You will shortly receive a new engagement letter to sign, agent registration forms and a new Direct Debit link from your accountant. They will also include their new contact details.

    The changes will take affect from 1st August and we will issue our first invoices for accountancy services on 25th August for August accountancy services.

    We will be expanding our services offering to not only contractors but to all types of small and medium businesses.

    Your accountant will be in touch next week with some further details.

    We look forward to continuing to work with you.
    Please tell me you are no longer with Carnegie Knox, Wharfside, or any of their associated companies!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X