Redknapp Cleared

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16925280

So the exact amount 'arry missed out on from the Crouch sale was found in an offshore account, 'arry conveniently forgot about the account and no tax was ever paid on it.

Clearly even a barrowboy, if he's rich enough, can get away with withholding duty everyone else has to pay, HMRC needs to get decent lawyers or, as we've just heard, anyone with money can get away with it.

Scuzzer!

Harry didn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box in all of this.

lorus59 wrote:Harry didn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box in all of this.

I disagree. Getting away with it, shows he is a criminal [allegedly] mastermind!

I am disappointed about this. He had no defence. If the foreign account wasn't for tax, what was the reason for it? I don't think he should have been sent to jail for 10 years or anything but getting off scot free is not right for me.

Adam D wrote:

lorus59 wrote:Harry didn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box in all of this.

I disagree. Getting away with it, shows he is a criminal [allegedly] mastermind!

If he did get away with it that's down to his lawyers not Redknapp so does being able to afford the best QC's around make him a criminal mastermind.
It seems strange that if as the prosecution claimed the money paid into his account was bonuses from the transfer of Crouch and a win over Man Utd then surely it would have to appear somewhere in the clubs accounts therefore making the jury's decision easy. If it came from Mandaric's personal account or an account not directly connected to the club then they can't deem it to be a bonus or any part of Redknapp's earnings from Portsmouth FC.

What. A. Joke.

If it came from Mandaric's personal account or an account not directly connected to the club then they can't deem it to be a bonus or any part of Redknapp's earnings from Portsmouth FC. .

Wouldn't he still be liable for tax on it?

Farcical

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:What. A. Joke.

If it came from Mandaric's personal account or an account not directly connected to the club then they can't deem it to be a bonus or any part of Redknapp's earnings from Portsmouth FC. .

Wouldn't he still be liable for tax on it?

If it was to be an investment as has been claimed by the defence then no he wouldn't.

Im delighted he got off. Now he can take up England dutie's and the spuds will be back to mid table where they belong.

The whole case doesn't make any sense.

I don't know how much Redknapp was earning at Portsmouth but say he was on £1m a year after tax then if that money was a bonus then that is an extra £189k he would never have earned if Portsmouth hadn't sold Crouch or beat Man Utd so why not just pay the £30k tax on it instead of trying to avoid paying it.

What's easier paying £30k tax and having a £159k bonus or not paying it and worrying about getting caught after all the extra tax would equate to (at most) 2.5% of his salary from Portsmouth add to that any other income it was probably less than 1%

Is he really that greedy or is his accountant really that incompetent?

Why is everyone assuming hes guilty. The guy listening to the case all the way through for BBC said it didnt make sense.

Why would 2 guys who are worth a lot of money and already paid a lot in tax, go to all this trouble for 110k??

7 million it cost HMRC in all this and who pays it, us the taxpayer. Complete nonsence.

Even worse it coming to court when Mandoric and Storrie were taken to court last year and the same outcome was reached.

Sand wrote:Why is everyone assuming hes guilty. The guy listening to the case all the way through for BBC said it didnt make sense.

Why would 2 guys who are worth a lot of money and already paid a lot in tax, go to all this trouble for 110k??

7 million it cost HMRC in all this and who pays it, us the taxpayer. Complete nonsence.

Even worse it coming to court when Mandoric and Storrie were taken to court last year and the same outcome was reached.

One thing my grandad told me as a nipper that has always stuck, was his idea that the very rich, unless they invent anything, stay rich by avoiding taxes and lying about what they're really worth, we can see just how true this is when we look at how much tax the top earners pay, simply put, the richer you are, the greedier you are.
As for this case in particular, a payment was paid to 'arry by Milan, this payment went into an offshore account and no tax was paid on it, those are undisputable facts, how this isn't classed as tax evasion, god only knows.

Sand wrote:Why would 2 guys who are worth a lot of money and already paid a lot in tax, go to all this trouble for 110k??

Whether they did it deliberately or not is not the issue here, the fact is that the payment was made, no tax was paid, so the tax was avoided.

The fact that the bashed in old knacker has got away with it is an example of all that is wrong with this country, it makes me sick.

"What's easier paying £30k tax and having a £159k bonus or not paying it
and worrying about getting caught after all the extra tax would equate
to (at most) 2.5% of his salary from Portsmouth add to that any other
income it was probably less than 1%"


he would have paid 40% in tax of the 189 k not the figure you came up with.

and people do it- its like anthony warrel thompson nicked onions- why= because he felt he could.

its all immaterial harry has been cleared- the problem is he would have been cleared by the jury even if he was guilty- fair enough i suppose, he is in line to be englad manager- He just MIGHT have done something abit naughty- but the reality is we all have done the odd bit of cash work, all claimed a little bit to much expenses, claimed vat on a household item, knicvked staionary, etc etc.

its not exactly crime of the century- this case should never have gone to a crown court. HMRC should have just demanded the tax to be paid , end of story- i take it he will still have to pay it anyway!!

Not sure we'll ever know (and I don't much care about that) but Mandaric, Redknapp and Storrie looted PFC, perhaps not for personal gain, hence their current predicament.

Mandaric might be a clever businessman, 'Arry's a super Manager and Storrie obviously a first class shmoozer, but they ran PFC as if money was going to grow on trees, not a penny invested in the ground or facilities, huge salaries and transfer fees paid with little chance of any long-term gain (except for them). No investment in the future whatsoever. Despicable.

Glad these charges were dismissed - if there was a case to answer, the prosecution didn't make it.

If 'Arry "is a criminal mastermind", I would say that's an insult to every self-respecting criminal out there.

ReallyReal wrote:
One thing my grandad told me as a nipper that has always stuck, was his idea that the very rich, unless they invent anything, stay rich by avoiding taxes and lying about what they're really worth, we can see just how true this is when we look at how much tax the top earners pay, simply put, the richer you are, the greedier you are.
As for this case in particular, a payment was paid to 'arry by Milan, this payment went into an offshore account and no tax was paid on it, those are undisputable facts, how this isn't classed as tax evasion, god only knows.

So if someone put a sum of money into your bank account for investment purposes or as a gift would you declare it to HMRC and pay 20% of it in tax?

The whole thing is a total joke. The two of them are worth millions of pounds and do you really think they are going to hatch a plan to save paying less than 1% of their annual income in tax?

If it was millions of pounds they were trying to avoid paying then maybe they would but for £30k to someone who is a multimillionaire is ridiculous and not going to happen.

Who at HMRC decided it was such a good idea to spend at least £8 million of tax payers money chasing £30k?

It would be better if they dealt with certain multinational companies who, after recieving their VAT bill, are entitled to write to HMRC and demand that up to 75% of it is written off otherwise they will move their business abroad and stop others from operating their businesses from Gibraltar where they don't have to pay as much in tax when the majority of their income is made in the UK.

mystiroakey wrote:"What's easier paying £30k tax and having a £159k bonus or not paying it
and worrying about getting caught after all the extra tax would equate
to (at most) 2.5% of his salary from Portsmouth add to that any other
income it was probably less than 1%"


he would have paid 40% in tax of the 189 k not the figure you came up with.

and people do it- its like anthony warrel thompson nicked onions- why= because he felt he could.

its all immaterial harry has been cleared- the problem is he would have been cleared by the jury even if he was guilty- fair enough i suppose, he is in line to be englad manager- He just MIGHT have done something abit naughty- but the reality is we all have done the odd bit of cash work, all claimed a little bit to much expenses, claimed vat on a household item, knicvked staionary, etc etc.

its not exactly crime of the century- this case should never have gone to a crown court. HMRC should have just demanded the tax to be paid , end of story- i take it he will still have to pay it anyway!!

It was reported on the BBC website as 30k. If it was 30k or 45k what difference does it make. He would still have ended up with well over 100k as a bonus and the percentage paid in tax would have been 2% at the very most of his entire annual income.

braveheart101 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"What's easier paying £30k tax and having a £159k bonus or not paying it
and worrying about getting caught after all the extra tax would equate
to (at most) 2.5% of his salary from Portsmouth add to that any other
income it was probably less than 1%"


he would have paid 40% in tax of the 189 k not the figure you came up with.

and people do it- its like anthony warrel thompson nicked onions- why= because he felt he could.

its all immaterial harry has been cleared- the problem is he would have been cleared by the jury even if he was guilty- fair enough i suppose, he is in line to be englad manager- He just MIGHT have done something abit naughty- but the reality is we all have done the odd bit of cash work, all claimed a little bit to much expenses, claimed vat on a household item, knicvked staionary, etc etc.

its not exactly crime of the century- this case should never have gone to a crown court. HMRC should have just demanded the tax to be paid , end of story- i take it he will still have to pay it anyway!!

It was reported on the BBC website as 30k. If it was 30k or 45k what difference does it make. He would still have ended up with well over 100k as a bonus and the percentage paid in tax would have been 2% at the very most of his entire annual income.

where was it reported to be 30k.

redknapp would have been on say 1 mill a year- the bonus putting him up to 1,189,000. redknapp would be paying the higher rate of tax(40% at the time- 50% now)

the tax on the bonus would be 75k not 30k or 45k

that represents 10% of his take home from pompey

anyway as i stated previously its immaterial the amount - some people like trying it on, immaterial of the amount that is gained. the risk/reward wasnt probally worth it in this case.

however plenty do more than just one dodgy thing, they do loads- it all amounts up

not saying he did it on purpose or not, and in all fairness i dont care.

braveheart101 wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:
One thing my grandad told me as a nipper that has always stuck, was his idea that the very rich, unless they invent anything, stay rich by avoiding taxes and lying about what they're really worth, we can see just how true this is when we look at how much tax the top earners pay, simply put, the richer you are, the greedier you are.
As for this case in particular, a payment was paid to 'arry by Milan, this payment went into an offshore account and no tax was paid on it, those are undisputable facts, how this isn't classed as tax evasion, god only knows.

So if someone put a sum of money into your bank account for investment purposes or as a gift would you declare it to HMRC and pay 20% of it in tax?

The whole thing is a total joke. The two of them are worth millions of pounds and do you really think they are going to hatch a plan to save paying less than 1% of their annual income in tax?

If it was millions of pounds they were trying to avoid paying then maybe they would but for £30k to someone who is a multimillionaire is ridiculous and not going to happen.

Who at HMRC decided it was such a good idea to spend at least £8 million of tax payers money chasing £30k?

It would be better if they dealt with certain multinational companies who, after recieving their VAT bill, are entitled to write to HMRC and demand that up to 75% of it is written off otherwise they will move their business abroad and stop others from operating their businesses from Gibraltar where they don't have to pay as much in tax when the majority of their income is made in the UK.

If someone put money into my bank account I'd tell no-one, if however someone wanted to give me some money and asked me to open an offshore account to put it into, I'd know there was something suss about it and declare it immediately, simply because I don't have masses of loot stashed away to pay a top class lawyer £1000 per hour to help me get off when I'd inevitably be found out.
Both Milan and 'arry are clearly dodgy, maybe no dodgier than most who earn such sums of money, but this whole case stinks to high heaven and the only reason they got off was because HMRC are inept and they paid a fortune to the best lawyers to get them out of a big hole.

he was always gonna be cleared..

he was only ever gonna get at the maximum, a heavy fine and a slap on the wrist anyway

Is he going to be made to pay the tax now at least and some of the legal costs?

Yes it would be dumb to trick the tax man for such a small amount, but maybe he is dumb.

If the foreign account wasn't for tax evasion, what was the reason given for flying out of the country to set up an account? He never gave a reason, did he? So he has no defence!

"
Is he going to be made to pay the tax now at least and some of the legal costs?"

i think he was cleared of criminal charges and his defense was that he didnt remeber or was inept or whatever

therefore he will surely still have to pay the tax, he still owes it and he will have to pay interest, but he was cleared of wrong doing in the criminal court so he wont have to pay court fees.

hmrc should have just demanded the money, accepted his excuse in the first place and not taken him to crown court which wasted 8 million of our tax payers money

No, he won't have to pay tax on it, that's the point, according to this case it was money that didn't need taxing. It was a personal gift, rather than an official bonus.

Crimey wrote:No, he won't have to pay tax on it, that's the point, according to this case it was money that didn't need taxing. It was a personal gift, rather than an official bonus.

...and that just goes to show how flawed our judicial system is, as everyone knows that was a lie, it was clearly a payment of some kind, sadly though as 'arry and Milan backed each others story, they both get away scot free and the country loses out on a lot of money.

ReallyReal wrote:

Crimey wrote:No, he won't have to pay tax on it, that's the point, according to this case it was money that didn't need taxing. It was a personal gift, rather than an official bonus.

...and that just goes to show how flawed our judicial system is, as everyone knows that was a lie, it was clearly a payment of some kind, sadly though as 'arry and Milan backed each others story, they both get away scot free and the country loses out on a lot of money.

The jurors clearly didn't think it was a lie otherwise they would have been found guilty.

It cost the country a hell of a lot more money taking them to court. As someone already said HMRC should just have demanded it be paid instead of wasting upwards of £8 million trying to make a point which didn't work or just dropped it. As Alan Sugar said if it had been a businessman who isn't well known it would never have gone to court.

braveheart101 wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

Crimey wrote:No, he won't have to pay tax on it, that's the point, according to this case it was money that didn't need taxing. It was a personal gift, rather than an official bonus.

...and that just goes to show how flawed our judicial system is, as everyone knows that was a lie, it was clearly a payment of some kind, sadly though as 'arry and Milan backed each others story, they both get away scot free and the country loses out on a lot of money.

The jurors clearly didn't think it was a lie otherwise they would have been found guilty.

It cost the country a hell of a lot more money taking them to court. As someone already said HMRC should just have demanded it be paid instead of wasting upwards of £8 million trying to make a point which didn't work or just dropped it. As Alan Sugar said if it had been a businessman who isn't well known it would never have gone to court.

No, there was zero evidence, that's why 'arry got off, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with anything else, the only possible way he could have been found guilty from the evidence brought to the court, was if he admitted it, or Milan did and they both told the same lie.

If there was zero evidence then why did it end up in court?

Do you really think HMRC are that stupid as to waste 5 years and £8 million on taking them to court and hoping one or both of them admit to something?

braveheart101 wrote:If there was zero evidence then why did it end up in court?

Do you really think HMRC are that stupid as to waste 5 years and £8 million on taking them to court and hoping one or both of them admit to something?

On the evidence, it seems so.

braveheart101 wrote:If there was zero evidence then why did it end up in court?

Do you really think HMRC are that stupid as to waste 5 years and £8 million on taking them to court and hoping one or both of them admit to something?

Nail, head, hit

I don't know who's more stupid Redknapp for allegedly trying to avoid paying tax on £189k or HMRC for wasting 5 years and £8 million on chasing it.

I'd have thought that after that amount of time they would have a rock solid case that they couldn't lose regardless of Redknapp and Mandaric having their pick of the best QC's in the country.

ReallyReal wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:

Crimey wrote:No, he won't have to pay tax on it, that's the point, according to this case it was money that didn't need taxing. It was a personal gift, rather than an official bonus.

...and that just goes to show how flawed our judicial system is, as everyone knows that was a lie, it was clearly a payment of some kind, sadly though as 'arry and Milan backed each others story, they both get away scot free and the country loses out on a lot of money.

The jurors clearly didn't think it was a lie otherwise they would have been found guilty.

It cost the country a hell of a lot more money taking them to court. As someone already said HMRC should just have demanded it be paid instead of wasting upwards of £8 million trying to make a point which didn't work or just dropped it. As Alan Sugar said if it had been a businessman who isn't well known it would never have gone to court.

No, there was zero evidence, that's why 'arry got off, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with anything else, the only possible way he could have been found guilty from the evidence brought to the court, was if he admitted it, or Milan did and they both told the same lie.

I am very confused- Arrys defense was and always has been that he is rubbish with money and that it was an oversight. never that it was a gift.

none of this makes sense- the fact is if the defense was that it was a gift rather than a bonus- even though the whole defense also revolved around the fact that the money was for a bonus due to croches sale and totenham beaten man u!!- it prooves wholehaertedly that harry was evading tax!!

i honestly thought the defesne was to stop any criminal charges(for purposely evading tax), however its quite obvious he needs to still pay the tax plus interest- if he has gotten away with that- its insane

I thought it was only the prosecution who claimed it was a bonus and the defence claimed it was an investment.

It was an alleged bonus from Portsmouth beating Man United and selling Crouch. It has nothing to do with Spurs.

He doesn't have to pay tax or interest on it because it wasn't taxable, that's the whole point of the case. If after it all, he had to pay tax plus interest, then he was guilty.

It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit, and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's taxable if it's just a personal gift.

The dodgy part is obviously the offshore account i.e. why was it needed if it was only a gift? Obviously, the jury felt that all the other evidence outweighed the confusion surrounding the offshore account.

Crimey wrote:He doesn't have to pay tax or interest on it because it wasn't taxable, that's the whole point of the case. If after it all, he had to pay tax plus interest, then he was guilty.

It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit, and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's taxable if it's just a personal gift.

The dodgy part is obviously the offshore account i.e. why was it needed if it was only a gift? Obviously, the jury felt that all the other evidence outweighed the confusion surrounding the offshore account.

Lots of people have offshore accounts does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of people comply with the laws and only spend 6 months a year in Britain to avoid paying Capital Gains tax does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of businesses are based abroad so as to pay a lower rate of tax even though their income is made in Britain does that make them all dodgy?

just read it up - the evidence against them was that it was for the transfer of crouch and beating united- they denied that in court- the evidence was from the news of the world and due to the problems they have been facing with tapped phones it effectively got thrown out!

i undedrstand it now.

if they could have prooved it was related to football matters from a reliable source it would have made the difference!

"It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit,
and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a
gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's
taxable if it's just a personal gift."

If i gave my employee a gift of cash from my personal account- tax has still been paid on the gift!- there is no benefit from me paying them out of my personal account or from me paying him a higher amount from my business account.

say i gave one of my staff 200 out of my personal account- i would have allready paid 20%(or will do) corp tax on the amount. thefore 50 quid, total equals 250

if i paid them 250 out of my company account they then pay 50 quid cis tax( i actually do for them - but thats immaterial to the point) and take home 200


it makes little differnce, milan isnt stupid - he understands this, there was no reason to do what he did unless it was dodgy, therefore this case shouldnt have really been about tax evasion- more about money laundering. no tax was paid on that money, or he wouldnt have done waht he did!!

braveheart101 wrote:

Crimey wrote:He doesn't have to pay tax or interest on it because it wasn't taxable, that's the whole point of the case. If after it all, he had to pay tax plus interest, then he was guilty.

It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit, and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's taxable if it's just a personal gift.

The dodgy part is obviously the offshore account i.e. why was it needed if it was only a gift? Obviously, the jury felt that all the other evidence outweighed the confusion surrounding the offshore account.

Lots of people have offshore accounts does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of people comply with the laws and only spend 6 months a year in Britain to avoid paying Capital Gains tax does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of businesses are based abroad so as to pay a lower rate of tax even though their income is made in Britain does that make them all dodgy?

no thats nothing to do with it- you have to be a resedent or have the business in the tax haven- a bank account on its own in the country cannot be used to pay less tax.

he has been cleared, there's nothing that will change it, therefore trying to come up with other things to charge him with are pointless.

The Bank of England have just given bankers and other financial players Fifty billion pounds in the hope that these bankers / other financial players will help to finance the "recovery" (through lending the money onwards and increasing their bonuses).

it wouldnt be redknapp who laundered money- it would be milan. but surely thats obvious

mystiroakey wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

Crimey wrote:He doesn't have to pay tax or interest on it because it wasn't taxable, that's the whole point of the case. If after it all, he had to pay tax plus interest, then he was guilty.

It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit, and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's taxable if it's just a personal gift.

The dodgy part is obviously the offshore account i.e. why was it needed if it was only a gift? Obviously, the jury felt that all the other evidence outweighed the confusion surrounding the offshore account.

Lots of people have offshore accounts does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of people comply with the laws and only spend 6 months a year in Britain to avoid paying Capital Gains tax does that make them all dodgy?

Lots of businesses are based abroad so as to pay a lower rate of tax even though their income is made in Britain does that make them all dodgy?

no thats nothing to do with it- you have to be a resedent or have the business in the tax haven- a bank account on its own in the country cannot be used to pay less tax.

Nothing to do with what? Which point is that a reply to?

the dodgy aspect was why they put money in a forign bank account if it was just a gift(it is immaterial if the country is a tax haven or not).

the only thing i can think of was to hide it from HMRC, due to the fcat that modric hasnt paid tax on it in the first place, could have been a cash bung to him in the first place.

basically i am glad redknapp is cleared- its obvious its milan that is
the really dodgy one, whatever has happened its down to him, maybe redknapp was
abit ignorant, and perhaps trying to play the clever businessman when
its obvious he is just a pawn and isnt!

Them fat cats get away it - time and time again!

Crimey wrote:He doesn't have to pay tax or interest on it because it wasn't taxable, that's the whole point of the case. If after it all, he had to pay tax plus interest, then he was guilty.

It was seen as a personal gift for signing Crouch, and making a profit, and for beating United. I suppose, it would be if your boss gave you a gift of £200 if you worked a bit later for a week. I don't think it's taxable if it's just a personal gift.

Gift or not, it should be liable for Capital Gains Tax at the very least. You can't just give someone a couple of hundred thousand and not expect it to be taxed at some point

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/intro/gifts-inherit-divorce.htm

Wire transfers from Monaco straight to Harry's UK account from a football related bonus in the UK... can't believe how dumb the jury is.

The jury must've had Spurs supporter(s) on board.