Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

G4S and Serco face £50 million fraud inquiry

9 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As G4S 'overcharging' and BBC payouts reveal, life in the UK just isn't fair
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/g4s-overcharging-bbc-payouts-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017