Redknapp Charged

[Abrak]

Its up to the jury to decide. My bet is they'll hammer Mandaric and let @Arry off. Unless the scammers have managed to get a man on the jury...then he'll be doing bird all right.

there's no way he's going to jail. he'll get off on the doddy defence, a poor persecuted rich man who has surely paid enough in tax already hasn't he?

any normal joe who had done this would be getting porridge.

Looking for a precedent, I was thinking back to the 1989 Ken Dodd trial as well. Apparently Dodd had £336,000 in undeclared cash in his house but was still acquitted of tax evasion.

lester piggott went to jail but i can't remember what he did that was different from doddy. dodd basically said 'i'm rich and have already paid more than my fair share' and was let off i think.

redknapp's knowingly broken the law and should go to jail for it. don't think he will though. suspended sentence at best.

Lester Piggott went to jail for one simple reason. After he was found avoiding taxes through offshore accounts he basically agreed to pay the taxes and a 1m penalty. What happened is that he tried to pay it all out of an account that the inland revenue had never found previously nor had he declared. So the revenue refused their offer and prosecuted.

Ken Dodd's defense I do not believe was that he had already paid enough taxes. It was based on the fact that 1) although accountants think they are often funny or a comedian, you will never find a comedian who is an accountant 2) money is inherently 'fungible' so unless he placed it into say an account it is difficult to claim it is taxable.

Or in basic terms usually when it come to a bill you are often asked whether you need a receipt. If the answer is no the bill is often settled at a discount in cash. Generally a receipt will involve VAT and also be proof of payment. And cash is cash in it.

[smokie36]

Was that "innit"?

My level of English has collapsed since posting here as well Abrak...its the price you have to pay.

I'm sure you knew that already!

[StevieH]

not guilty, on all counts. despite essentially confessing during the trial. same goes for mandaric.

ah, british justice. teaching those corrupt southeast asian amateurs how it is really done.

[smokie36]

not guilty, on all counts. despite essentially confessing during the trial. same goes for mandaric.

ah, british justice. teaching those corrupt southeast asian amateurs how it is really done.

Tsk what a thing to say about old 'Arry. He's a free man...

[stoneyboy]

What a surprise,they only shaft the working man in the UK,people like these can do no wrong.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

[smokie36]

What a surprise,they only shaft the working man in the UK,people like these can do no wrong.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

I was under the impression this decision was made by a jury.

[stoneyboy]

What a surprise,they only shaft the working man in the UK,people like these can do no wrong.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

I was under the impression this decision was made by a jury.

Yes 5 yids and 8 Portsmouth fans no doubts.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

[smokie36]

What a surprise,they only shaft the working man in the UK,people like these can do no wrong.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

I was under the impression this decision was made by a jury.

Yes 5 yids and 8 Portsmouth fans no doubts.

Sent from stoney's iPad using ThaiVisa app

The only certainty is there were no West Ham fans on the jury.

[cardholder]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

[alfieconn]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

[smokie36]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

As 'Arry himself said on the steps of Southwark Crown Court its been a terrible five years hanging over his head.,,and yet now, even when he's faced a jury and been found innocent of all charges, still the mob wait to lynch him.

Very disappointing indeed.

Edited February 8, 2012 by smokie36

[katana]

Saw these points raised on another forum:

1) Redknapp set up an offshore account in another name (his dog's name rosie47). If he had nothing to hide, why not use his real name?

2) Apparently Redknapp said that Mandaric did not have a UK bank account, so had to pay from a US account into the account opened for him in Monaco. Why couldn't Redknapp just have had it paid into his UK account?

[Abrak]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

No not at all. What you have to remember is that 'guilt' must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly he was charged with 'evasion' not 'avoidance. The charge is much more serious. In order to prove 'evasion' requires at a minimum 'actus reus' or a deliberately guilty act. Where this was particularly helpful for Redknapp is that as Mandaric was his employer and generally deducted taxes at source he could and did claim that any payments from Mandaric had there taxes paid as usual. So long as Redknapp claimed that he believed the tax had already been paid (even if it was income) he was free of guilt of tax evasion). The judge specifically instructed the jury on this. And explicitly told the jury that Redknapp could not be guilty unless Mandaric was.

[Abrak]

Saw these points raised on another forum:

1) Redknapp set up an offshore account in another name (his dog's name rosie47). If he had nothing to hide, why not use his real name?

2) Apparently Redknapp said that Mandaric did not have a UK bank account, so had to pay from a US account into the account opened for him in Monaco. Why couldn't Redknapp just have had it paid into his UK account?

1) Well if you have something to hide setting an offshore account under the name of your dog would seem mentally retarded. Still it wouldnt be quite as retarded as travelling to an offshore tax free domicile to set up a UK account to pay domestic UK taxes. P.S. have you seen HSBC fees? I am rather surprised there was any money left after he was finished with it.

2) I can guess at this one. What Mandaric was actually wishing to do was avoid UK tax liabilities etc. As soon as it was paid into his UK account both parties would have been subject to tax.

[StevieH]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

No not at all. What you have to remember is that 'guilt' must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly he was charged with 'evasion' not 'avoidance. The charge is much more serious. In order to prove 'evasion' requires at a minimum 'actus reus' or a deliberately guilty act. Where this was particularly helpful for Redknapp is that as Mandaric was his employer and generally deducted taxes at source he could and did claim that any payments from Mandaric had there taxes paid as usual. So long as Redknapp claimed that he believed the tax had already been paid (even if it was income) he was free of guilt of tax evasion). The judge specifically instructed the jury on this. And explicitly told the jury that Redknapp could not be guilty unless Mandaric was.

good points. prosecution obviously hasn't done enough to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt. i also wonder how much the jury was swayed by the fact that a large chunk of the prosecution's case was a phone call with a journalist from the news of the world, that now totally discredited and loathed sunday rag.

that said, if redknapp had been in front of the FA blazers panel that convicted luis suarez on the 'balance of probabilities' 'appy 'arry would now be looking at five years in parkhurst.

[smokie36]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

No not at all. What you have to remember is that 'guilt' must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly he was charged with 'evasion' not 'avoidance. The charge is much more serious. In order to prove 'evasion' requires at a minimum 'actus reus' or a deliberately guilty act. Where this was particularly helpful for Redknapp is that as Mandaric was his employer and generally deducted taxes at source he could and did claim that any payments from Mandaric had there taxes paid as usual. So long as Redknapp claimed that he believed the tax had already been paid (even if it was income) he was free of guilt of tax evasion). The judge specifically instructed the jury on this. And explicitly told the jury that Redknapp could not be guilty unless Mandaric was.

good points. prosecution obviously hasn't done enough to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt. i also wonder how much the jury was swayed by the fact that a large chunk of the prosecution's case was a phone call with a journalist from the news of the world, that now totally discredited and loathed sunday rag.

that said, if redknapp had been in front of the FA blazers panel that convicted luis suarez on the 'balance of probabilities' 'appy 'arry would now be looking at five years in parkhurst.

I hear he's the new poster boy at the FA offices.

[Abrak]

Absolutely <deleted> incredible !

Happy Harry is as guilty as sin and has always been an East End "second hand car dealer".

Don't get me wrong, I admire his managerial skills but he is as bent as nine-Bob note where business is concerned.

So are you saying that the jury was bent ?

No not at all. What you have to remember is that 'guilt' must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly he was charged with 'evasion' not 'avoidance. The charge is much more serious. In order to prove 'evasion' requires at a minimum 'actus reus' or a deliberately guilty act. Where this was particularly helpful for Redknapp is that as Mandaric was his employer and generally deducted taxes at source he could and did claim that any payments from Mandaric had there taxes paid as usual. So long as Redknapp claimed that he believed the tax had already been paid (even if it was income) he was free of guilt of tax evasion). The judge specifically instructed the jury on this. And explicitly told the jury that Redknapp could not be guilty unless Mandaric was.

good points. prosecution obviously hasn't done enough to convince the jury beyond all reasonable doubt. i also wonder how much the jury was swayed by the fact that a large chunk of the prosecution's case was a phone call with a journalist from the news of the world, that now totally discredited and loathed sunday rag.

that said, if redknapp had been in front of the FA blazers panel that convicted luis suarez on the 'balance of probabilities' 'appy 'arry would now be looking at five years in parkhurst.

Again only my personal view, if Harry was subject to 'a balance of probabilities' verdict I very much doubt a 'five year sentence could be justified'

My personal belief (that some poster is about to give me enormous grief for' is that the crown showed a bit of a tax fiddle rather than criminal activity. If they had charged him with not declaring an offshore account nor paying the necessary taxes, they probably would have won but Harry would nor have been subject to a large sentence. If we keep it very simple Harry was accused of 'cheating' the revenue while he claims he simply didnt know there were taxes due.

I would also guess that as the trial is now over the people (Carmine, Smokie) etc who understand the real reason behind it and know about Quest and Steven's McKie and Zahavi might bother to tell us or might simply keep it to themselves

[smokie36]

Its probably sufficient to say Abrak that the days of suitcases full of money or gold have already returned.

In some quarters anyway. Until the next time...

[StevieH]

I hear he's the new poster boy at the FA offices.

if i were a betting man i would have put twenty quid on harry being the england manager for the euro 2012 tournament about a week ago.

oh wait a minute, i am and i did.

[smokie36]

I hear he's the new poster boy at the FA offices.

if i were a betting man i would have put twenty quid on harry being the england manager for the euro 2012 tournament about a week ago.

oh wait a minute, i am and i did.

I hope you win a few quid. What a difference a day can make eh?

[Abrak]

I have already pointed out that the evidence for 'tax evasion' is way higher than 'tax avoidance'

Still here is the instruction of the judge to the jury.....

He also said that if Redknapp honestly believed, as he told the court, that tax had been paid on the money by Mandaric on the payments in the United States, he could be acquitted.

“If he honestly believed there was no tax in respect of UK tax, that provides Mr Redknapp with a defence to either or both charges,” the judge said.

The second line is particularly odd. I mean if you set up an offshore account in Monaco, presumably you do it in the belief that money your deposit will not be liable to tax in the UK. If the money was to be liable to tax in the UK I might as well put it in my UK account. Of course you might assume that Mandaric had already paid the tax for you which would also be fine.

I mean by definition you set up an offshore account on the basis the money you place in it is not subject to UK tax. And if all I have to do is believe that I am not subject to UK tax to be taxed by the UK authorities, I can state not only that 'I believe I am not subject to tax' but 'I also know' that I am not subject to tax'. I can also state that I can set up an offshore account in the 'honest belief' and '100% certainty' that it is not subject to UK tax.

I mean if all you have to do is 'honestly believe' you already 'know' dont you?

[KamalaDreamer]

Bloody good football manager is Harry.

Not guilty in the English Court will do.

[katana]

...Well if you have something to hide setting an offshore account under the name of your dog would seem mentally retarded...

I didn't realise his dog was that well known lol Edited February 8, 2012 by katana

[alfieconn]

Expecting Josephine to be on here today congratulating Ari

[StevieH]

I hear he's the new poster boy at the FA offices.

if i were a betting man i would have put twenty quid on harry being the england manager for the euro 2012 tournament about a week ago.

oh wait a minute, i am and i did.

I hope you win a few quid. What a difference a day can make eh?

hehehe. i love it when a plan comes together.

[MrRed]

What odds did you get?

I keep telling Carmine that he will never be England manager.......reverse psychology is a proven gamblers dream.

[StevieH]

I hear he's the new poster boy at the FA offices.

if i were a betting man i would have put twenty quid on harry being the england manager for the euro 2012 tournament about a week ago.

oh wait a minute, i am and i did.

I hope you win a few quid. What a difference a day can make eh?

hehehe. i love it when a plan comes together.

25s. this was before the FA pulled the captaincy from brave JT but there were rumblings of it, hence my punt.