Categories:Crime,UK

Former 39 Essex Street silk guilty of £600,000 VAT fraud

  • Print
  • Comments (16)

Readers' comments (16)

  • Bizarre. His poor family.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • With Solicitors' Professional Indemnity Insurance rates amongst the highest in all professions - because of solicitors pocketing their client’s funds (and supposedly running off to the Bahamas etc) – this isn’t the time for those in glass houses to throw stones.
    I also find it amusing that Harry Redknapp is cleared of all tax avoidance when it is found that he has substantial funds in a bank account in his dog’s name, yet an ethnic minority origin QC is convicted despite thinking that his chambers paid the VAT (at 17.5%) due out of the circa. 22% it took from his fees.
    Strange that, wouldn’t you say?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re: Anonymous at 4.46pm. What on earth is the relevance of the description of this swindler as being of "ethnic minority origin"? He was a highly paid (justified, no doubt, by being very talented) silk who, for 12 years, failed to account for a significant amount of tax. His origins, ethnic or otherwise, have nothing to do with it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Total agree with Anonymous at 5.15pm.
    I can't believe that one juror thought he was not guilty. Anonymous 4.46 is obviously myopic and willing to turn the other cheek on a totally misplaced and irrelevant basis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • HMRC should take a greater interest in chambers and law firms.
    Always remember seeing a two partner law firm just outside Manchester where one of the partners, unbeknownst to the other, was had set up a nominee company which got all the disbursement elements of his projects.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No doubt "anonymous" at 4.46pm also finds it equally unjust that an an "ethnic minority origin QC" has been so clearly discriminated against his whole life that he has only made it to be a QC earning top buck. How tough it must be in England to get ahead if from a "minority" background.
    I do agree that the Redknapp decision seemed bizarre, but suspect that any "influence" here (if there was any) would have been more to do with his then being in contention for the England managerial role rather than anything else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I remember working with Rohan Pershad as a trainee solicitor on a litigation case. That was more than 10 years ago.
    In criminal cases the question is whether there is criminal intent. Now, he basically argued stupidity or ignorance. The jury did not believe him, and found intent i.e. dishonesty. It may have been the invalid VAT number that did it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Such a shame for the man and his family.
    You wonder how he ever dreamed he could get away with it. If 600k is 17.5% and he also had to pay 22% he still made £2m in that time. I can only imagine that being part of the barrister elite and the rareity of such cases, affected his judgement. Very sad.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There can be no other explanation for his conviction by the jury. The multicultural jury were BNP loving racists itching for a chance to show this upstart who was boss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hard to find any sympathy for him - he was a very rich guy living a very comfortable life who was simply greedy and didn't want to make his contribution to the public good. Status obsession is always depressing, but when showing off your wealth is so important to you that you're willing to break the law for it, a short jail term is the wake-up call that you and your social circle need.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (16)