Bernie Eccleston tax fraud

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

Eccleston has just made a guilty plea to charges of fraud in respect of failing to disclose offshore assets to HMRC valued at £400m.

He had previously stated he would plead not guilty. He is 94 years old. I assume he delayed the case as much as possible on the off chance he may expire before the trial. 

[duke63 565]

Bet he gets a fine and isn’t sent to prison which is what should happen. 

If you are wealthy enough you can beat justice   

 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

He might get a ten place grid penalty.

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

1 hour ago, duke63 said:

Bet he gets a fine and isn’t sent to prison which is what should happen. 

If you are wealthy enough you can beat justice   

 

HMRC has 2 options in this situation. It can charge tax, interest and a financial penalty or having spoken to the CPS, it can seek to prosecute. HMRC and the CPS would not have gone down the prosecution route if they didn't think there would be a custodial sentence. It should be noted that Eccleston will still have to pay the tax and interest, it is for the Judge to decide what sentence Eccleston is given. That won't be a financial penalty because HMRC could have done that. 

He won't get away with it because he's rich but he may because he's old. In my opinion it doesn't make any difference if you serve 3 years in the middle of your life or at the end. It's still 3 years. 

Edit

He has received a suspended sentence. What a ****ing joke. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[TheGunnShow 6,237]

I can't say I am keen on the idea of a tax evader going to prison as there are crimes where people's safety are more at risk and we're not sending them to jail for whatever reason. But he should definitely be paying back what he owes plus considerable interest.

More than anything, he should be forced to pay back such debts relatively quickly. If that means he has to sell assets, fine. But I'd much rather our government, regardless of stripe, are vigorous in such matters instead of kicking down on the poor/elderly/disabled/unemployed as they often appear to.

These evaders are the real shirkers.

[A Load of Squit 5,328]

I wish they'd show their working, I'm pretty sure it should be £652,634,837.

• He has agreed to pay the taxman £652,634,836 and has been sentenced

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I can't say I am keen on the idea of a tax evader going to prison as there are crimes where people's safety are more at risk and we're not sending them to jail for whatever reason. But he should definitely be paying back what he owes plus considerable interest.

More than anything, he should be forced to pay back such debts relatively quickly. If that means he has to sell assets, fine. But I'd much rather our government, regardless of stripe, are vigorous in such matters instead of kicking down on the poor/elderly/disabled/unemployed as they often appear to.

These evaders are the real shirkers.

Tax evasion is theft. Because people like him don't pay the right amount you have to pay significantly more. Would you be happy if he stole your wallet as long as you didn't get hurt? And how would you feel if you were laying dying at home but an ambulance didn't come because we don't have enough of them? We don't have enough ambulances because of people like Eccleston. He stole £650m from us. 

HMRC could have sought a further financial penalty of anything up to around £400m but instead choose to go for a custodial sentence. That's how much a stupid judge has cost us all today. 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[TheGunnShow 6,237]

Just now, dylanisabaddog said:

Tax evasion is theft. Because people like him don't pay the right amount you have to pay significantly more. Would you be happy if he stole your wallet as long as you didn't get hurt? And how would you feel if you were laying dying at home but an ambulance didn't come because we don't have enough of them. We don't have enough because of people like Eccleston. He stole £650m from us! 

HMRC could have sought a financial penalty of anything up to around £400m but instead choose to go for a custodial sentence. That's how much a stupid judge has cost us all today. 

 

Apples and pears - as one is a physical presence/threat with resulting psychological consequences in some cases and one is anything but. Agree that tax evasion is theft, but that just underlines why I maintain the best penalty for that is to repay considerably more than what was stolen as then crime won't pay.

I think you're agreeing with me in the rest of what you wrote as we've both basically said evaders are the real shirkers. My second paragraph really should have made that abundantly clear.

 

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I can't say I am keen on the idea of a tax evader going to prison as there are crimes where people's safety are more at risk and we're not sending them to jail for whatever reason. But he should definitely be paying back what he owes plus considerable interest.

More than anything, he should be forced to pay back such debts relatively quickly. If that means he has to sell assets, fine. But I'd much rather our government, regardless of stripe, are vigorous in such matters instead of kicking down on the poor/elderly/disabled/unemployed as they often appear to.

These evaders are the real shirkers.

 

[duke63 565]

Hardly surprising he has not gone to prison. As I said if you are rich enough justice means something else. 
Big fines don’t deter thieves like him. 
Prison might. 
 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

I wish they'd show their working, I'm pretty sure it should be £652,634,837.

• He has agreed to pay the taxman £652,634,836 and has been sentenced

Its obscene. That amount is what he owes them? And he can cough it up like that?

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Apples and pears - as one is a physical presence/threat with resulting psychological consequences in some cases and one is anything but. Agree that tax evasion is theft, but that just underlines why I maintain the best penalty for that is to repay considerably more than what was stolen as then crime won't pay.

I think you're agreeing with me in the rest of what you wrote as we've both basically said evaders are the real shirkers. My second paragraph really should have made that abundantly clear.

 

 

I'm not agreeing with you at all. You seem to think that tax evasion doesn't put people's lives at risk. How on earth do you think we pay for our emergency services? Give your head a wobble and try to imagine a world where no one paid tax 

[TheGunnShow 6,237]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm not agreeing with you at all. You seem to think that tax evasion doesn't put people's lives at risk. How on earth do you think we pay for our emergency services? Give your head a wobble and try to imagine a world where no one paid tax 

No, I said tax evasion does not represent a direct physical threat to a person, not "doesn't put people's lives at risk". We don't even have many burglars going to prison, and they actually physically (and mentally) traumatise many of their victims. But I take the view that prison is best saved only for those who are direct physical threats to people, so petty theft, burglary, rapists, drink-drivers and such - especially as we have a capacity problem as it is.

If Eccleston has had to pay a vast sum right away that's considerably higher than what he originally owed, plus interest, all legal costs and a premium for breaking the law then I think justice has been served. By definition he's not got away with it and he has indeed lost out - highlighting the idea that crime should not pay. As far as I'm concerned that is precisely what should happen in these cases.

This is the kind of thing I mean re. trauma from burglary. The likes of Eccleston really aren't a threat here.

How to cope after a burglary - Aviva

Well-Being and Functioning at Work Following Thefts and Robberies: A Comparative Study - PMC (nih.gov)

Burglary - Victim Support

Edited October 12, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,482]

Ecclestone is a billionaire…and still the greedy git didn’t want to pay his taxes…

Fast track backward to the year 1066 (you know, Hastings, Harold, Bayeux Tapestry and all that) and if you were to bank a million quid a year starting then you would STILL not be a billionaire in 2023…

OK…you’d also be dead but that is a mere technicality 😬👍

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

6 hours ago, Wings of a Sparrow said:

Ecclestone is a billionaire…and still the greedy git didn’t want to pay his taxes…

Fast track backward to the year 1066 (you know, Hastings, Harold, Bayeux Tapestry and all that) and if you were to bank a million quid a year starting then you would STILL not be a billionaire in 2023…

OK…you’d also be dead but that is a mere technicality 😬👍

But had you put that million quid into a ftse100-tracking ISA instead of a bank in 1066, you'd be a billionaire many times over. And no tax to pay. Of course, a couple of technicalities to overcome along the way.

[Herman 9,926]

Putting your money into a ISA is not the same as hiding your money to avoid tax.

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

11 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, I said tax evasion does not represent a direct physical threat to a person, not "doesn't put people's lives at risk". We don't even have many burglars going to prison, and they actually physically (and mentally) traumatise many of their victims. But I take the view that prison is best saved only for those who are direct physical threats to people, so petty theft, burglary, rapists, drink-drivers and such - especially as we have a capacity problem as it is.

If Eccleston has had to pay a vast sum right away that's considerably higher than what he originally owed, plus interest, all legal costs and a premium for breaking the law then I think justice has been served. By definition he's not got away with it and he has indeed lost out - highlighting the idea that crime should not pay. As far as I'm concerned that is precisely what should happen in these cases.

This is the kind of thing I mean re. trauma from burglary. The likes of Eccleston really aren't a threat here.

How to cope after a burglary - Aviva

Well-Being and Functioning at Work Following Thefts and Robberies: A Comparative Study - PMC (nih.gov)

Burglary - Victim Support

The rich aren't bothered about financial penalties. They know they will be able to afford to pay in the unlikely event they get caught. 

They are, on the other hand, terrified of prison. Now they know they don't have to worry about that either. 

[TheGunnShow 6,237]

33 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The rich aren't bothered about financial penalties. They know they will be able to afford to pay in the unlikely event they get caught. 

They are, on the other hand, terrified of prison. Now they know they don't have to worry about that either. 

Not sure there. They obviously don't want to lose that money, or they wouldn't try to evade the taxman in the first place. So a financially punitive punishment makes more sense in my book. Remember, many ultra-wealthy are asset-rich, not cash-rich, so they might have to fire-sale to finance a heavy fine payable within a short period of time.

Eccleston's had to lash out over £600m off the non-declaration of an asset worth £400m. Fair play to HMRC on that one, but re. your earlier comment about HMRC deciding to go for custody instead of another £400m showed for me that they dropped the ball there.

Speaking of the wealthy and offences that also, IMO don't really need prison, I wouldn't mind the UK justice system taking on a trait from Switzerland and Finland for traffic offences, namely fining offenders based on their ability to pay. Then you get cases like this:

Finnish businessman hit with €121,000 speeding fine | Finland | The Guardian

[dylanisabaddog 5,165]

43 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not sure there. They obviously don't want to lose that money, or they wouldn't try to evade the taxman in the first place. So a financially punitive punishment makes more sense in my book. Remember, many ultra-wealthy are asset-rich, not cash-rich, so they might have to fire-sale to finance a heavy fine payable within a short period of time.

Eccleston's had to lash out over £600m off the non-declaration of an asset worth £400m. Fair play to HMRC on that one, but re. your earlier comment about HMRC deciding to go for custody instead of another £400m showed for me that they dropped the ball there.

Speaking of the wealthy and offences that also, IMO don't really need prison, I wouldn't mind the UK justice system taking on a trait from Switzerland and Finland for traffic offences, namely fining offenders based on their ability to pay. Then you get cases like this:

Finnish businessman hit with €121,000 speeding fine | Finland | The Guardian

I'm afraid you're being a bit naive. 

Firstly, HMRC is required to report cases of this sort to the CPS and they alone decide whether to prosecute. I would imagine the CPS thought that Eccleston would be given a custodial sentence because he had been caught stealing more money than anyone in British history. I don't blame them, it was a conclusion that most right minded people would make. 

If financial penalties worked for tax evasion there wouldn't be any tax evasion. They don't work because the evaders know that in the unlikely event they get caught they will just get a fine. 

Unless you can convince people it's not worth the risk they'll carry on doing it. 

[TheGunnShow 6,237]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I'm afraid you're being a bit naive. 

Firstly, HMRC is required to report cases of this sort to the CPS and they alone decide whether to prosecute. I would imagine the CPS thought that Eccleston would be given a custodial sentence because he had been caught stealing more money than anyone in British history. I don't blame them, it was a conclusion that most right minded people would make. 

If financial penalties worked for tax evasion there wouldn't be any tax evasion. They don't work because the evaders know that in the unlikely event they get caught they will just get a fine. 

Unless you can convince people it's not worth the risk they'll carry on doing it. 

Thanks for the info about the reporting to CPS and that only they decide on prosecution. That is new territory for me. I still think the notion of going for prison here is a bit odd, but at least it clears up the notion of HMRC dropping the ball and debunks it.

But re. the rest of your statement I think the key bit is the bit in bold. The problem for me is not that financial penalties aren't a punishment, the major and underlying issue is that they're unlikely to be caught and be punished in the first place. Catching far more offenders and punishing them with serious fines is also a means of convincing fence-sitters that it's not worth the risk.

So I agree with your last sentence, I'm simply saying punitive financial penalties and a far greater risk of being caught out would do the same job. And it would free up prison space for people who are actually direct physical threats to others - we're also short of prison space.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

3 hours ago, Herman said:

Putting your money into a ISA is not the same as hiding your money to avoid tax.

Not an unexpected supporter of Ecclestone is he. If you said you liked him because he donated to the Labour Party, RTB and Jools would want him locked up.

His lawyers said he was too frail with hi sheart problems to stand trial. He didn't. He pleaded guilty.

[Yellow Fever 3,886]

He should still do a year in clink - if need be paid for with his own money.