An adult magazine distributor has been jailed for 16 months today for falsely claiming almost £75,000 in VAT repayments.(HMRC)

Porn magazine distributor jailed for VAT fraud

23 August 2012 16:26
An adult magazine distributor has been jailed for 16 months today for falsely claiming almost £75,000 in VAT repayments.
Kenneth Drake, 55, from Chatham, Kent, pleaded guilty to submitting false Value Added Tax (VAT) repayment claims to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) by providing fake documentation to support the claims relating to purchases and sales of adult magazines and DVDs for his company ‘Top Shelf’.

Martin Brown, Assistant Director, HMRC Criminal Investigation said:

“Drake got greedy and today’s sentence is a warning to anyone considering committing this type of fraud. HMRC are clamping down on VAT fraudsters, and we are investing more time and resources than ever to identify tax cheats and bring them to justice.”

HMRC officers discovered that Drake claimed to have paid VAT on goods purchased from three companies that didn’t exist. When questioned, he admitted to creating the false paperwork to claim the fraudulent VAT repayment claims. He pleaded guilty to VAT fraud offences in July at a previous hearing, and was sentenced at Lewes Crown Court today (23 August 2012).

Notes

1. Defendant’s details: Kenneth Drake (DOB: 15/12/1956) of 284 Walderslade Road, Chatham, Kent, was charged with Cheating the Public Revenue by claiming fraudulent VAT repayments totalling £74,900.94. He was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment at Lewes Crown Court today, 23 August 2012.

2. Anyone with information about individuals or businesses involved in this type of fraud, is encouraged to contact the Customs Hotline on 0800 59 5000 or email: customs.hotline@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk

3. The actual amount of fraud committed was £74,900.94.

HMRC has won three key court decisions against tax avoidance schemes during July.

Tax avoidance ‘hat-trick’ delivers gold

20 August 2012 10:39
HMRC has won three key court decisions against tax avoidance schemes during July.
These schemes – if unchallenged – would have diverted £200 million from the UK Exchequer.

HMRC’s Director General of Business Tax, Jim Harra, said:

“These wins in the courts are a victory for the vast majority of taxpayers who do not try to dodge their taxes. They send a clear message to tax avoiders – HMRC will challenge tax avoidance relentlessly and we will beat you.

“We have now had three major court successes in avoidance cases in the last month alone and I hope this sends a very clear message: These schemes don’t come cheap, you carry a serious risk that you’ll end up paying the tax and interest on top of a set-up charge which can run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. So you have to ask yourself whether it’s really worth it.

“These were complex cases which show HMRC’s experts doing what they do best, delivering great results for the UK.”

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said:

“The Government is committed to tackling aggressive tax avoidance schemes and HMRC will pursue their users through the courts where necessary. These three HMRC wins are very welcome, demonstrating that if an avoidance scheme promises results that seem too good to be true, they probably are.”
DETAILS
1. Schofield (Court of Appeal, 11 July)

Concerned capital gains tax on a £10 million gain realised in 2003/2004. The wider tax protected is £90 million.

The taxpayer sold his business, making a profit of about £10 million. He used a tax avoidance scheme to create an artificial loss so that he wouldn’t have to pay tax on the profit he made when he sold his business. He spent a lot of money on a scheme which, according to the Court of Appeal, did not work.

The taxpayer had paid out over £200,000 for this failed scheme, not including the costs relating to the litigation.

2. Sloane Robinson Investment Services (First Tier Tribunal, 16 July)

The directors of Sloane Robinson were paid significant bonuses. They considered a number of tax avoidance schemes, modifying the one they had chosen when the legislation was changed to counter that type of scheme. The First Tier Tribunal ruled the modified scheme didn’t work either. About £13 million of tax was at stake.

3. Barnes (Upper Tribunal, 30 July)

This scheme aimed to exploit a mismatch between two tax regimes. UK government bonds (gilts) generating an interest coupon were borrowed for one day when an interest coupon was due. A payment representative of that coupon was then made to the lender, for which tax relief was claimed. At the same time the scheme envisaged that no tax would be due in respect of the interest coupon received.

The scheme has been described by the First Tier Tribunal as a “designed and marketed tax avoidance scheme” which had been taken up by well over 100 individuals. The total tax at stake was around £100 million.

There was no mismatch but the law was changed in 2005 making this clear and the rules were reformed further in 2008, making this type of scheme unworkable for the future.

4. These three schemes follow a landmark decision in June, (Greene King, 14 June) where the First Tier Tribunal decided that a scheme to avoid tax actually produced the result that tax was payable twice.

This case involved finance provided within a group of companies. The aim was that one group company would get tax relief on payments to another group company, without tax on the second company’s receipt. The judges said that the appellants had no evident difficulty with getting relief for payment that was not matched by taxation of the receipt. They could not legitimately complain if the scheme failed in its purpose and instead resulted in their paying tax twice.

All of the decisions mentioned above may be subject to appeal.

UK businesses are not doing enough to manage the risk of bribery and corruption. (TLT LLP)

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk

 

Bribery Act 2010 – UK businesses are not doing enough

Updated August 2012

July 2012 marked the one year anniversary of the Bribery Act 2010. However, recent surveys have shown that UK businesses are not doing enough to manage the risk of bribery and corruption. This leaves them exposed to enforcement action, criminal sanctions and the associated adverse commercial implications of having to disclose a criminal conviction.

Not enough in the banking sector

Towards the end of 2011, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) conducted a thematic review into anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) systems across various banks, and published its findings in March 2012.

The FSA found that the firms it sampled “…had more work to do to implement effective anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls”. In particular, the FSA found a number of common weaknesses including:

    Inadequate ABC risk assessment policies;
    Ineffective oversight by senior management;
    Insufficient ABC internal auditing;
    Significant issues with dealings with third parties to win or retain business;
    Insufficient processes to ensure that cumulative gifts and hospitality were reasonable;
    Insufficient action having been taken to take account of the Bribery Act 2010.

The report also indicated that “the investment banking sector has been too slow and reactive in managing bribery and corruption risk” and that “firms’ understanding of bribery and corruption was often very limited”.

Not enough by UK businesses

Similar conclusions have been reached by Ernst & Young following their recent Global Fraud Survey which involved 1,700 heads of legal, chief financial officers and compliance and internal audit executives across UK businesses.

The survey has revealed that the risks from fraud and bribery are increasing. For example:

    47% of Chief Financial Officers said they would not rule out giving cash or personal gifts in order to retain business;
    14% of UK executives said they would provide personal gifts to secure business; and
    42% of employees across UK businesses believed their management were likely to cut corners when it comes to appropriate business behaviour.

The survey also indicated that not enough is being done by UK businesses to effectively manage anti-bribery and corruption risks. It was found that:

    Less than half of the chief financial officers questioned had attended anti-bribery and corruption training;
    Less than one third of respondents knew that their company could be liable under the Bribery Act for the actions of third party “associated persons”;
    More than one in five UK companies fail to carry out regular pre-acquisition due diligence checks and only 60% do this post-acquisition;
    Only one in four UK companies have taken any action to punish anti-bribery and corruption breaches;
    Only 28% of companies use regular reviews by external law firms or other professional services to ensure that they are compliant.

What are the risks?

If successfully convicted of a bribery offence:

    Individuals can be jailed for up to ten years and/or receive an unlimited fine;
    Companies can receive unlimited fines;
    Directors convicted of bribery offences may be disqualified for up to 15 years;
    Senior officers of a commercial organisation may also be personally liable if a bribery offence is found to have been committed with their consent or connivance; and
    Organisations may be excluded from tendering for public contracts.

In particular, the Act creates a new strict liability offence for failure of an organisation to prevent bribery by persons “associated” with it. This offence applies to all companies, partnerships and business organisations formed in the UK wherever they do business in the world. It also applies to companies or partnerships formed abroad but which carry on business in the UK.

An “associated person” means anyone who performs services for or on your behalf of your business. It includes employees and may also include, for example, agents, contractors and subsidiaries.

Business will only have a defence if they can show they have “adequate procedures” in place to prevent bribery.

What are “adequate procedures”?

“Adequate procedures” are not defined in the Act but the Government has published guidance to assist businesses to understand what will constitute adequate procedures. The guidance sets out the following six principles of compliance:

    Proportionate Procedures;
    Top-Level Commitment;
    Assessment of Risk;
    Due Diligence;
    Communication (including training); and
    Monitoring and Review.

It is up to each organisation to implement policies and procedures that will minimise bribery risk, taking into account the main risk areas of the organisation and its global presence. The higher the risks the more an organisation will need to do.

This article will also be published in Mortgage Finance Gazette.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at August 2012. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases; we cannot be held responsible for any action (or decision not to take action) made in reliance upon the content of this publication.

TLT LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales number OC 308658 whose registered office is at One Redcliff Street, Bristol BS1 6TP England.

© 2012 TLT

Photographs of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Most Wanted tax fugitives are today being published for the first time online.

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk

Top tax cheats put in the frame

16 August 2012 00:01
Photographs of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) Most Wanted tax fugitives are today being published for the first time online.
To help in the effort to hunt down the United Kingdom’s biggest tax fraudsters, HMRC will place photographs of its Most Wanted on its flickr channel and ask members of the public to assist in finding them.

The Most Wanted are tax criminals who have absconded after being charged with a crime or during trial. HMRC has worked with Crimestoppers to gather information from the public that may help capture these criminals and others like them, but this is the first time that HMRC has published photographs and details of tax dodgers’ crimes.

David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary, said:

“The Government is absolutely committed to tackling tax evasion and fraud. These criminals have collectively cost the taxpayer over £765m and HMRC will pursue them relentlessly. We hope that publishing their pictures in this way will enable members of the public to contribute to the effort to catch them.”

Tax evasion and fraud cost the taxpayer around £10bn. The Government is committed to cracking down on those who try to dodge their responsibility to pay tax and has invested over £900m in HMRC in order to raise an additional £7bn each year in tax revenue.

HMRC’s Top 20 Most Wanted can be seen.  Click through to

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk
Adam Umerji aka Shafiq Patel

Cesare Selvini

Darsim Abdullah

Dimitri Gaskov

Emma Elizabeth Tazey

Gordon Arthur

Hussain Asad Chohan

John Nugent

Leigang Liang

Malcolm McGregor McGowan

Mohamed Sami Kaak

Nasser Ahmed

Olutayo Owolabi

Rory Martin McGann

Sahil Jain

Timur Mehmet

Vladimir Jeriomin

Wayne Joseph Hardy

Yehuda Cohen

Zafar Baidar Chisthi

People can report leads on the Most Wanted fugitives via HMRC’s Customs, Excise and VAT fraud reporting hotline on 0800 595 000, by email or post here, or through the Crimestoppers website http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org

Notes
1. If you’re calling from abroad please telephone:
•    If calling from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Republic of Ireland, Netherlands: 00800 555 95000
•    If calling from mainland Spain: 900 988 922
•    If calling from any other country, please treat the call as an international call to the UK

A British man living a luxury lifestyle in Monaco, who was arrested as he was about to leave the UK during an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) investigation, has been jailed for four years today for masterminding a £673,000 VAT fraud.

Monaco tax fraudster jailed after failed flee attempt

09 August 2012 14:47
A British man living a luxury lifestyle in Monaco, who was arrested as he was about to leave the UK during an HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) investigation, has been jailed for four years today for masterminding a £673,000 VAT fraud.
William Batchelor, 61, was arrested on arrival at Luton Airport in November 2010 just before he was due to board a flight back to Monaco. He had learnt that HMRC was investigating fraudulent VAT repayment claims relating to his property company JCV Properties Ltd, which he had used to finance his extravagant Monaco lifestyle of luxury apartments and classic cars.

Croydon Crown Court heard that after an HMRC investigation began, Batchelor confessed to the fraud to his accountant, who was not involved in the fraud. This involved a number of false VAT repayment claims, involving the creation of bogus invoices claiming to be for the purchase of land. Despite Batchelor telling his accountant ‘the game is up”, attempts by HMRC to arrange a meeting with him to discuss his tax affairs were not successful.

HMRC discovered that the suspect planned to return to Monaco, and had booked a flight out of the UK to Nice in the south of France. However, HMRC officers arrested Batchelor before he could board his flight and he was later charged with VAT fraud.

Martin Brown, Assistant Director, HMRC Criminal Investigation said:

“William Batchelor used false invoices to cheat honest taxpayers out of £673,000. He used the proceeds of that crime to fund his Monaco lifestyle which included a vintage Mercedes car worth over £100,000. HMRC was determined that he should remain in the UK to face our investigation.

“Anyone tempted to cheat the VAT system should beware; we are investing more time and resources than ever to identify tax cheats and bring them to justice.”

After initially pleading not guilty, he claimed that he had been targeted by “mobsters” demanding cash and that this had forced him into the VAT fraud. However, these claims were rejected by the court as there was no evidence that the money fraudulently claimed from HMRC was ever paid to any third party. Batchelor subsequently pleaded guilty. He returned to Croydon Crown Court for sentencing today.

Confiscation action to recover the proceeds of Batchelor’s crimes is now underway and assets have been seized.

Notes
1. Defendant’s details: William Batchelor, formerly of Les Acantes, Avanue Des Citronniers, Monte Carlo, Monaco. D.O.B 04/02/1951. While awaiting sentence, Batchelor’s address was 175 Burrage Road, London SE18.

2. Batchelor was charged with obtaining fraudulent VAT repayments totalling £673,343.77 over a two year period from August 2008 to October 2010.

Three men from Blackburn have been jailed today for evading over £4.5 million in VAT due on platinum trading.(HMRC)

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk

Blackburn men jailed for pocketing the VAT

09 August 2012 10:15
Three men from Blackburn have been jailed today for evading over £4.5 million in VAT due on platinum trading.
The men, all from Blackburn, were sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court following investigations by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) that identified three north west based companies importing platinum ingots from Italy and selling them on without paying the VAT due to HMRC.

Alan Lee, HMRC Director of Criminal Investigation said:

“HMRC officers identified suspicious trading between several north west companies in 2006 and 2007. Their customers were paying VAT on items they bought but the metal traders were not declaring it. They simply pocketed the cash for their own personal gain. Tax fraud and attempts to launder the proceeds of crime are treated extremely seriously by HMRC, and we will relentlessly pursue any individuals or crime gangs believed to be attacking the Public Revenue in this way.”

In court, HMRC evidence proved that Shabir Karim (41) was the principal controller who orchestrated the trading and he was assisted by accomplices Kamran (41) and Imran (38) Bhatti. A fourth man involved, Raymond Bowden (69) of Altrincham in Cheshire absconded during the trial and was found guilty in his absence – a bench warrant has been issued for his arrest and he will be sentenced when found.

The jailed men, who were all found guilty of cheating the revenue, will be disqualified as directors and subject to Crime Prevention Orders upon release. They also face Proceeds of Crime assessments.

Notes

1. Details of the individuals sentenced today are:
•    Shabir Karim (dob 24/12/71) of Billinge End Road, Blackburn, Lancashire was a director of Bullion Traders and the principal controller of the fraud. His Honour judge Warnock described Karim as a “manipulative, selfish and calculating man who controlled the fraud from start to finish”. Karim was sentenced to seven years in jail and upon release is disqualified from acting as a company director for eight years and subject to a Crime Prevention Order (CPO) for four years.
•    Kamran Bhatti (dob 31/12/71) of Churchill Road, Blackburn, Lancashire was the director of KB Jewellers, was linked to RBA Trading and Regal Metals and was the front man in the fraud. HHJ Warnock said he “destroyed documents” and was “a willing helper and organiser in the fraud”. Kamran was jailed for five years and upon release is disqualified from directorship for six years and subject to a CPO for four years.
•    Imran Bhatti (dob 17/08/73) of Brooklands Terrace, Blackburn, Lancashire was the director of Regal Metals. Imran is Kamran’s brother. In court the judge said he 2formed and fronted one of the bogus trading companies”. Imran was sentenced to five years in jail, with a six-year director disqualification and a four-year CPO.
2. Details of fourth individual found guilty:
•    Raymond Bowden (dob 13/03/43) Barrington Road, Altrincham, Cheshire was the director of RBA Trading. Bowden was found guilty today but absconded during the trial and the court has issued a bench warrant for his arrest he will be sentenced when found. Bowden was often a courier for the shipments, collecting the imports at UK airports.

The Danny Alexander review & ‘controlling persons’: a genuine threat to the future of Interim Management?

The Danny Alexander review & ‘controlling persons’: a genuine threat to the future of Interim Management?

If you are a career interim and are not aware of the Danny Alexander review and HMRC Consultation on ‘Controlling persons’, then you definitely need to read this blog!

The review and consultation are a knee-jerk reaction to the political hot potatoes of tax avoidance and executive pay which has come about after Ed Lester, acting Chief Executive at the Student Loans Company, was revealed to be an interim on a daily rate for three years.

It appears that the Treasury and HMRC feel that their own poorly-written law; IR35, ‘remains the correct approach’ to tax poorly-managed interim assignments but admits that ‘IR35 can be difficult to understand’. Confusingly, the government do not feel that this is the case with what they call ‘controlling persons’ or people in the public eye who can cause embarrassment to a government who are tough on success and tough on the causes of success.

Therefore, the government would like to introduce a new raft of legislative sledgehammers to crack this particular nut, by insisting that all interim executives are taxed by the engaging client at the same rate as an employee.

Should it come to pass, this legislation would effectively kill the interim market as we know it. In doing so it would deal a very severe blow to UK Plc as some of our most talented and experienced executives would suddenly be tied to one organisation rather than spreading their expertise across a number of businesses purely when they are needed or worse, they would claim unemployment benefits or take their taxes off-shore.

Has the government really thought about the amount of jobs and therefore tax income that interims create or save, by helping businesses grow or orchestrating a turnaround in their fortunes? I suspect not.

If, as a professional interim, you value your independence, your ability to add value to a range of clients at the same time and don’t wish to be forced into early retirement or an unsatisfying permanent job I suggest you start to lobby your local MP and ensure they understand the commercial and fiscal benefits of the interim market to UK Plc. The IMA and the IIM are presenting their response to the Treasury and HMRC but we need to mobilise the support of interim managers individually to get this poorly thought-out legislation off the agenda.

If you are a career interim and are not aware of the Danny Alexander review and HMRC Consultation on ‘Controlling persons’, then you definitely need to read this blog!

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk

The Danny Alexander review & ‘controlling persons’: a genuine threat to the future of Interim Management?

If you are a career interim and are not aware of the Danny Alexander review and HMRC Consultation on ‘Controlling persons’, then you definitely need to read this blog!

The review and consultation are a knee-jerk reaction to the political hot potatoes of tax avoidance and executive pay which has come about after Ed Lester, acting Chief Executive at the Student Loans Company, was revealed to be an interim on a daily rate for three years.

It appears that the Treasury and HMRC feel that their own poorly-written law; IR35, ‘remains the correct approach’ to tax poorly-managed interim assignments but admits that ‘IR35 can be difficult to understand’. Confusingly, the government do not feel that this is the case with what they call ‘controlling persons’ or people in the public eye who can cause embarrassment to a government who are tough on success and tough on the causes of success.

Therefore, the government would like to introduce a new raft of legislative sledgehammers to crack this particular nut, by insisting that all interim executives are taxed by the engaging client at the same rate as an employee.

Should it come to pass, this legislation would effectively kill the interim market as we know it. In doing so it would deal a very severe blow to UK Plc as some of our most talented and experienced executives would suddenly be tied to one organisation rather than spreading their expertise across a number of businesses purely when they are needed or worse, they would claim unemployment benefits or take their taxes off-shore.

Has the government really thought about the amount of jobs and therefore tax income that interims create or save, by helping businesses grow or orchestrating a turnaround in their fortunes? I suspect not.

If, as a professional interim, you value your independence, your ability to add value to a range of clients at the same time and don’t wish to be forced into early retirement or an unsatisfying permanent job I suggest you start to lobby your local MP and ensure they understand the commercial and fiscal benefits of the interim market to UK Plc. The IMA and the IIM are presenting their response to the Treasury and HMRC but we need to mobilise the support of interim managers individually to get this poorly thought-out legislation off the agenda.

A professional gambler, who staked substantial sums of ‘dirty’ cash at casinos in Birmingham and London and at top horse racing meetings, has been ordered to repay criminal profits (HMRC)

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk

Payback time for Midlands ‘casino’ money launderer

03 August 2012 16:49
A professional gambler, who staked substantial sums of ‘dirty’ cash at casinos in Birmingham and London and at top horse racing meetings, has been ordered to repay criminal profits of nearly £2 million within six months or return to jail for ten years.
Birmingham man, Jatinder Singh Batth, also known as Micky Singh, was jailed for 18 months in March 2009 for money laundering offences following an investigation by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC).
Singh was convicted after it was proved that he had laundered cash from organised crime gangs, including money from a £1.8m ‘missing trader’ VAT fraud (codenamed Op Elemi).
Richard Meadows, Assistant Director of Criminal Investigation for HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), said:
“Batth’s activities ensured he was able to fund a luxurious lifestyle and further increase his wealth using funds derived from criminality. We will not stop in our pursuit to bring those involved in this type of criminal activity before the courts and reclaim their criminal profits for public funds.”
Assets belonging to Batth currently restrained and frozen by HMRC include:
•    A 50 per cent share of the Coventry Stadium in Brandon, worth around £500,000
•    A flat in St John’s Wood, London, worth over £1million
•    A house in north London, worth over £120,000
•    Various bank accounts
Background
HMRC investigators uncovered the sophisticated money laundering plot during an investigation into a missing trader VAT fraud, Operation Elemi, which resulted in a total of eight men being jailed for nearly 34 years. Their trials showed the defendants received the proceeds of crime in the UK and had acted as couriers to launder hundreds of thousands of pounds by exploiting the gambling industry.
During the trials the court heard that money would be placed on deposit at casinos and withdrawn a day or so later. Other sums would be gambled. Thousands of pounds would be passed over the tables in order to disguise the original source of the banknotes. Monies gambled or exchanged at the casino provided the defendants with an apparently legitimate explanation as to their source.
In raids carried out across the West Midlands by HMRC investigation officers over £700,000 was seized. Around £200,000 was found in a residential property stashed in two holdalls. Additionally a further £150,000 was found stuffed in a Harrods carrier bag in a vehicle; Micky Singh claimed that this cash was his. All of the cash was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and has been reclaimed for the public purse. Some of the money was about or in the process of being laundered and some had just been laundered.
Forensic testing of some of the bank notes seized showed they were highly contaminated with heroin and cannabis. The results indicated such large amounts of cash could only become so polluted if they had been in contact with items or people significantly contaminated with drugs shortly before their seizure. The cash was in fact drugs money. It has since been returned to the issuing banks, including the Bank of England and Bank of Scotland, for destruction due to the high level of drugs contamination.
Notes
1. A photograph of the defendant is available on request or via HMRC’s flickr channel http://www.flickr.com/hmrcgovuk
2. Details of the defendant’s confiscation order today, 3 August 2012, at Birmingham Crown Court and sentencing on Friday, 6 March 2009 at the same court include:
• Jatinder Singh Batth (also known as Micky Singh) (DOB 15.05.69) formerly of Billy Lane, Barnt Green, Birmingham, and currently of Flat 13, Templar Court, 43 St Johns Wood Road, London, was sentenced to 18 months in prison.
He was charged and found guilty of Money Laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 amounting to £150,000.
Confiscation Order – £1,984,805 to be paid within six months return to jail for ten years. He would still owe the money.
3. Details of the defendants sentenced on Monday, 16 February 2009 at Birmingham Crown Court include:
•    Zulfiqar Ali (DOB 10.09.53) of 9 Cockthorpe Close, Harbourne, Birmingham, was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
Ali’s role was as a cash courier and occasional gambler to aid and launder money.
Confiscation Order – £260,610 to be paid within 12 months.
Paid: £3,250 to date.
•    Harbinder Singh Sandhu. (DOB 14.06.75) of 8 Jubilee Park, Woodville, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, was sentenced to 12 months in prison.
Sandhu’s role was as a cash courier to aid the money laundering operation.
They were charged and found guilty with Money Laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
4. Details of the defendants sentenced in June 2008 at Birmingham Crown Court and confiscation orders secured on 7 October 2010 at the same court include:
• Harvinder Singh Batth (DOB 6.11.75), of 67 Roman Lane, Little Aston, Staffordshire, was sentenced to a total of nine years in prison. Six years for conspiracy to Cheat and three years for Conspiracy to Launder Money to run consecutively. He was disqualified from being a company director for 15 years.
Confiscation Order: £500,000 to be paid within six months or serve a further 3.5 years in prison.
Assets restrained: a property at 67 Roman Lane, Little Aston, Sutton Coldfield, and designer jewellery.
Batth was a principal player in the VAT fraud and money laundering racket. He was the Chairman of a company, Anisha Brokers, which was used to divert the proceeds of the VAT fraud.
Paid: £296,000 to date.
• Jasbinder Singh Bedesha (DOB 26.07.61) Al Seef Tower, Dubai Marina, Dubai, was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison.
Bedesha was granted a re-trial and was again sentenced to seven and a half years on 4 February 2011.
He was a principal player in the VAT fraud and money laundering racket. He named a company of which he was President, after his daughter, Anisha Brokers and used it to divert the proceeds of the VAT fraud.
• Sukhjinder Singh Shergill (DOB 29.11.75) of 3 Snapdragon Drive, Walsall, was sentenced to a total of seven and a half years in prison. Four and half years for Conspiracy to Cheat and three years for Conspiracy to Launder Money to run consecutively. He was disqualified from being a company director for 15 years.
Confiscation Order: £55,292 to be paid within six months or serve a further 18 months in prison.
Assets restrained: Designer jewellery and Cartier watches, £9,000 in cash, a Vauxhall Corsa and a cherished number plate – S11 ERG
Shergill was involved in the VAT fraud and acted as a ‘banker’ by administering the cash deposit scheme.
Paid: £17,500 to date.
• Suckjit Singh Birring (DOB 12.04.72) of 15 Weeford Drive, Sutton Coldfield, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for Conspiracy to Launder Money.
Confiscation Order: £200,000 to be paid within six months or return to prison for 2.5 years.
Assets restrained: a property at 15 Weeford Dell, Sutton Coldfield, a BMW X5 Sports Automatic, a VW Golf GT TDI, and £20,000 in cash.
Birring acted as a gambler and courier and for the money laundering activities.
Paid: £49,900 to date.
• Jatinder Singh Salh (DOB 15.04.73) of 6 Harvestfields Lane, Sutton Coldfield, was sentenced to three and a half years in prison for Conspiracy to Launder Money.
Confiscation Order: £136,637 – £10,162 to be paid within two months and the remainder within six months or return to prison for 30 months.
Assets restrained: a property at 6 Harvestfield Way, Sutton Coldfield and a property in Spain and £59,000 in cash.
Salh acted as a gambler and courier and for the money laundering activities.
Paid: £88,096 to date.

Boris Johnson Entertains the crowd at the Olympics!

http://www.lease-a-finance-director.co.uk/blog/Boris%20Mayor%20of%20London%20Hanging%20about/02082012