Police bring a civil claim against Tate's?

[DaveCWK]

I've not seen anything like this before - can anyone explain why a UK police force would be bringing a civil case against someone, regarding not paying any tax in "any" country?

Some selective quoting from the following article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjk3xglre0ko

Devon and Cornwall Police is bringing a civil claim against the brothers and a third person, referred to only as J.
They are accused of paying no tax in any country on their online business revenue between 2014 and 2022.
The force is seeking to recover around £2.8 million in seven frozen bank accounts, an application the three defendants are contesting.
...
Devon and Cornwall Police alleges that this was fraud by false misrepresentation.
Ms Clarke said all three would not provide any evidence in the case.
...
The proceedings are civil, which uses a lower standard of proof than criminal cases.
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring will decide on the balance of probabilities whether what the police claim is true.

[DaveA8]

That is the oddest thing, if it was tax, HMRC would deal with it and if it was evasion it would be a criminal matter. Also not paying tax on $21m of revenue is only an issue if there was profit.
The bit that sticks out is the £2.8m frozen, I wonder if this is an effort to force their hand to get more details as no doubt the court will want to know that the £2.8m is legitimate.

[Simpo Two]

I would cut out the messy time-consuming middle bit, put them in jail and give their ill-gotten gains to the poor.

Done

[Tony1963]

Simpo Two said:

I would cut out the messy time-consuming middle bit, put them in jail and give their ill-gotten gains to the poor.

Done

Put the funds towards shutting down the nasty sex-trade in this country. Women brought in from abroad by gangs, then years as slaves before being discarded penniless.

[Simpo Two]

Tony1963 said:

Put the funds towards shutting down the nasty sex-trade in this country. Women brought in from abroad by gangs, then years as slaves before being discarded penniless.

Yep, that would do. Part of 'illegal immigration', a topic that's only going to get bigger.

[mac96]

This discussion may help:

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/in-wha...

[ATG]

From the accounting link above it sounds like it may not be a civil action, but an action in which the burden of proof happens to be the same as in a civil action. I.e. it is still the Crown V Scumbag, but the outcome is financial (all your bank accounts are belong to us) and the burden of proof is balance of probability.

[eldar]

ATG said:

From the accounting link above it sounds like it may not be a civil action, but an action in which the burden of proof happens to be the same as in a civil action. I.e. it is still the Crown V Scumbag, but the outcome is financial (all your bank accounts are belong to us) and the burden of proof is balance of probability.

In summary, guilty until you demonstrate otherwise? The crown needs no evidence beyond suspicion?seems somewhat draconian.

[ATG]

eldar said:

ATG said:

From the accounting link above it sounds like it may not be a civil action, but an action in which the burden of proof happens to be the same as in a civil action. I.e. it is still the Crown V Scumbag, but the outcome is financial (all your bank accounts are belong to us) and the burden of proof is balance of probability.

In summary, guilty until you demonstrate otherwise? The crown needs no evidence beyond suspicion?seems somewhat draconian.

No. From my cursory reading of someone else's cursory post, the Crown would need sufficient evidence to prove that some cash sitting in an account was more likely than not the proceeds of crime. That's clearly not just a suspicion and it's clearly not an assumption of guilt. It's the same test that's used if I'm suing you in a civil court. If the outcome of the action is that your bank account is frozen or seized, it's not like you're being sent to prison. You can also appeal.

It may still be the case, but certainly in the past there were criminal sanctions (fines, imprisonment) for breaching financial regulations where the test was balance of probability. That was genuinely concerning.

[eldar]

ATG said:

eldar said:

ATG said:

From the accounting link above it sounds like it may not be a civil action, but an action in which the burden of proof happens to be the same as in a civil action. I.e. it is still the Crown V Scumbag, but the outcome is financial (all your bank accounts are belong to us) and the burden of proof is balance of probability.

In summary, guilty until you demonstrate otherwise? The crown needs no evidence beyond suspicion?seems somewhat draconian.

No. From my cursory reading of someone else's cursory post, the Crown would need sufficient evidence to prove that some cash sitting in an account was more likely than not the proceeds of crime. That's clearly not just a suspicion and it's clearly not an assumption of guilt. It's the same test that's used if I'm suing you in a civil court. If the outcome of the action is that your bank account is frozen or seized, it's not like you're being sent to prison. You can also appeal.

It may still be the case, but certainly in the past there were criminal sanctions (fines, imprisonment) for breaching financial regulations where the test was balance of probability. That was genuinely concerning.

That makes more sense, thanks.

[Chrisgr31]

I am currently in holiday in Cornwall and this was on the local news. I didn’t pay proper attention but fairly sure they said Devon and Cornwall was leading the case as one or more of the bank accounts used was registered to an address in Devon/Cornwall.

[Four Litre]

DaveCWK said:

I've not seen anything like this before - can anyone explain why a UK police force would be bringing a civil case against someone, regarding not paying any tax in "any" country?

Some selective quoting from the following article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjk3xglre0ko

Devon and Cornwall Police is bringing a civil claim against the brothers and a third person, referred to only as J.
They are accused of paying no tax in any country on their online business revenue between 2014 and 2022.
The force is seeking to recover around £2.8 million in seven frozen bank accounts, an application the three defendants are contesting.
...
Devon and Cornwall Police alleges that this was fraud by false misrepresentation.
Ms Clarke said all three would not provide any evidence in the case.
...
The proceedings are civil, which uses a lower standard of proof than criminal cases.
Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring will decide on the balance of probabilities whether what the police claim is true.

I did wonder if this was just bad reporting as I cant see why the police would be going after potentially unpaid tax, are they now working for HMRC?! Surely the police would only be involved if they were going after the money if it had been proven to be made from the proceeds of crime?

The whole Tate debacle is all rather strange, this is no different!

[Derek Smith]

Four Litre said:

I did wonder if this was just bad reporting as I cant see why the police would be going after potentially unpaid tax, are they now working for HMRC?! Surely the police would only be involved if they were going after the money if it had been proven to be made from the proceeds of crime?

The whole Tate debacle is all rather strange, this is no different!

Back in the day, the police and HMRC, and other government agencies, did a fair bit of work together.

I've 'helped out' customs and excise. They have limited powers in some ways and require police for various aspects. Mind you, they have vast powers and authority in many other specifics, even to the extent of being able to authorise searches, even having a book of them ready for the details to be, briefly, written in. My unit had to stop vehicles for them. One of the drivers had precons for drugs supplying, and C&E authorised a search of the place he was dossing in. Nothing too specific either. Don't upset C&E. They have ways of getting back at you.

[5lab]

I don't think it could be a regular civil case as the police have suffered no loss?

[paddy1970]

In the UK, it is relatively uncommon for a police force to bring a civil case; however, this can occur in certain circumstances, particularly when it involves the recovery of assets believed to be obtained through unlawful means.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) allows UK authorities, including police forces, to pursue civil actions to recover the proceeds of crime. These proceedings do not require a criminal conviction and operate on the balance of probabilities (i.e., it is more likely than not that the assets are proceeds of crime) rather than the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt).

In this case, Devon and Cornwall Police are alleging that the individuals involved have committed fraud by false misrepresentation. The accusation is that they did not pay any tax in any country on their online business revenue over several years, which is being construed as fraudulent activity.

The police have frozen approximately £2.8 million across seven bank accounts, believing these funds to be the proceeds of the alleged fraudulent activity. This step is often taken to prevent the dissipation of assets that may be subject to recovery.

The defendants are contesting the police's application to recover these funds. In civil proceedings, both parties present their evidence, and the judge (in this case, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring) decides based on the balance of probabilities.

Civil cases, such as this one, require a lower standard of proof compared to criminal cases. The judge must be convinced that it is more likely than not that the police's allegations are true. This makes it somewhat easier for authorities to recover assets suspected to be linked to criminal activity, even without a criminal conviction.

The police claim that the defendants have not provided any evidence to counter the allegations, which may weigh against them in the civil proceedings.

[Tango13]

Derek Smith said:

Back in the day, the police and HMRC, and other government agencies, did a fair bit of work together.

I've 'helped out' customs and excise. They have limited powers in some ways and require police for various aspects. Mind you, they have vast powers and authority in many other specifics, even to the extent of being able to authorise searches, even having a book of them ready for the details to be, briefly, written in. My unit had to stop vehicles for them. One of the drivers had precons for drugs supplying, and C&E authorised a search of the place he was dossing in. Nothing too specific either. Don't upset C&E. They have ways of getting back at you.

Do the wide ranging authority for searches go back to the days of brandy and tobacco smuggling several hundred years back?

I read somewhere that the customs and excise didn't need search warrants because they would have to go before the local magistrates to obtain one and there was usually a fairly high chance the magistrate was part of the smuggling gang.