Jump to content


Rugby League World
League Express
Garry Schofield Testimonial Brochure (Signed)


Photo
- - - - -

G4S and Serco face £50 million fraud inquiry


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
8 replies to this topic

#1 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 8,495 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 12:49 PM

G4S and Serco face £50 million fraud inquiry
Serious Fraud Office investigates claims of over-charging for government contracts
http://www.independe...ry-8703245.html

 

I really shouldn't read the news at lunchtime. :angry:


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com

www.johndrake.co.uk


#2 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 18,085 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:23 PM

I'm surprised that the SFO are going in.  HMRC have more powers these days and can more easily extend company criminal audits to private individuals without requiring separate permission.  The "R" guys have become very adept at using the powers they got when the "C" guys joined the fold properly in the current HMRC.  Also, the SFO only look for criminal conduct that could reasonably lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, HMRC have powers to go down to marginal levels of conduct.

 

That said, I suppose HMRC aren't that interested about extra taxable income being reported, that's probably rightly in SFO's territory.

 

I'd be significantly more worried about a horde of HMRC auditors coming in than the SFO.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#3 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 21,670 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 01:27 PM

What about the Government person who agreed to the contract being held to account?

#4 tonyXIII

tonyXIII
  • Coach
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:53 PM

What about the Government person who agreed to the contract being held to account?

 

Don't be bloody stupid!

 

Nobody ever seems to carry the can these days, except the low-paid!


Rethymno Rugby League Appreciation Society
Founder (and, so far, only) member.


#5 Li0nhead

Li0nhead
  • Coach
  • 780 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 01:46 AM

I'm surprised that the SFO are going in.  HMRC have more powers these days and can more easily extend company criminal audits to private individuals without requiring separate permission.  The "R" guys have become very adept at using the powers they got when the "C" guys joined the fold properly in the current HMRC.  Also, the SFO only look for criminal conduct that could reasonably lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, HMRC have powers to go down to marginal levels of conduct.

 

That said, I suppose HMRC aren't that interested about extra taxable income being reported, that's probably rightly in SFO's territory.

 

I'd be significantly more worried about a horde of HMRC auditors coming in than the SFO.

 

Short version: HMRC want to ensure you pay taxes owed. SFO want to ensure they have not committed fraud (well investigate alleged cases of fraud). There is a difference. But wither way they will find a way for us the taxpayer to lose out :)



#6 amm

amm
  • Moderator
  • 11,286 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 06:05 AM

Just watch as the enquiries and subsequent actions cost more than any monies recouped


Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#7 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,289 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 07:21 AM

What about the Government person who agreed to the contract being held to account?


We don't hear much of Tony Blair these days.

And yes, once the lawyers get involved, the costs will spiral.

Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.


#8 John Drake

John Drake
  • Admin
  • 8,495 posts

Posted 13 July 2013 - 10:36 AM

As G4S 'overcharging' and BBC payouts reveal, life in the UK just isn't fair
http://www.guardian....youts-life-fair
If all this were carrying on in period costume, we would be appalled by it – a Downton Abbey world of elites looking after themselves, the rich getting richer while the rest see even the crumbs that fall from the table rationed: a land of double standards where those with much expect more and believe that the rules, like taxes, are for the little people.
It's hard for us to see all this, because it clashes with our belief – more a hope, really – that society should get better, that we left such crude inequality in our past. Or, when we do see it, perhaps we are so resigned we simply shrug. But it's still there, right in front of one's nose.


John Drake
Site Admin: TotalRL.com
Email: john.drake@totalrl.com

www.johndrake.co.uk


#9 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 22,289 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:18 AM

I'm surprised that the SFO are going in.  HMRC have more powers these days and can more easily extend company criminal audits to private individuals without requiring separate permission.  The "R" guys have become very adept at using the powers they got when the "C" guys joined the fold properly in the current HMRC.  Also, the SFO only look for criminal conduct that could reasonably lead to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, HMRC have powers to go down to marginal levels of conduct.

 

That said, I suppose HMRC aren't that interested about extra taxable income being reported, that's probably rightly in SFO's territory.

 

I'd be significantly more worried about a horde of HMRC auditors coming in than the SFO.

 

 

I'm surprised that the SFO are going in.

 

you mean this SFO?


Life is like a sewer: What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.