back to article Former QiComm CEO cleared in money-laundering case

The founder and former owner of telco integrator QiComm has been acquitted of money-laundering charges brought by HMRC - but said this came too late in the day to keep his biz afloat. Thuraisamy Pathmanabhan, also known as Pat Nabahm, was charged with conspiracy to conceal, disguise, convert, transfer or remove criminal property …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Facepalm

So, high tech innovative successful business destroyed, bunch of people made redundant, and no recourse whatsoever. If that's justice, I'm a banana.

2
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

you weren't aware? carrying cash is a crime!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

So you're a banana

You don't really believe a high tech innovative successful business is unable to open a bank account in France do you? Why would they be lugging around suitcases filled with paper money?

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: So you're a banana

" You don't really believe a high tech innovative successful business is unable to open a bank account in France do you? "

Have you fucking tried?

1
0
Silver badge

No recourse?

That remains to be seen.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: So you're a banana

My brother is working in London and he tried to open a bank account there. It wasn't easy but eventually he was successful.

If you believe that a company operating in France can not open a bank account in France, I've got a large steel construction in Paris for sale for a modest price . It's all hush hush however, so give me your bank details and I'll get back to you.

0
0
Thumb Down

Re: So you're a banana

You've clearly never tried to do business in France...

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Who is really guilty and what is the crime anyway!

Innocent until proven guilty IMO.. Hence if this case goes no further and the participants are innocent then that's it. The crime is then the destruction of this business. Look at the contribution this business made to the UK economy and the the employment of all the people involved. (I'm not one of them) . Whoever made the decision to prosecute should be held accountable and suitable compensation should be made with a full public apology from the senior officer of whatever agency triggered it. If the case can be proven, then the participants should face the law. But based on what MR Nabhan said, even a case of cash from a distant business unit, is still a long way from criminal laundering activities.

3
0

Another fine example of EU meddling.

There's a company I've been doing business with for years. They insist on cash payment. They have no means of electronic payment because they find it drives up their cost and hence their competitiveness.

Europe, however, has declared there can be NO cash transfers between businesses in excessof 3000 Euro (or was it 5 ? I forget).

So I can no longer do business with my valued supplier and have to source more expensive parts elsewhere for fear of having my butt thrown in the slammer on money laundering charges.

Which will, I estimate, affect my bottom line. And quite possibly my bottom.

Why can't we simply get rid of these morons...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

PC Plod strikes again...

There have been far too many cases recently of plod deciding someone is guilty and then relentlessly persuing a specious prosecution against them.

You see in the press cases of someone being arrested and then after weeks/months on police bail no charges being made. What ever happened to an interview under caution? Instead they go for the high profile dawn raid by the heavy booted goon squad.

There was an instance recently of them trying this against a respected QC (d'oh! dumb move...) who then successfully sued them for false arrest and imprisonment. Unfortunately the majority don't have recourse to this line of action.

I hate to use the term "Police State", but they do seem to feel they are judge and jury and consider everyone guilty of something - they just need to find the "evidence".

It is about time they remembered who they serve and that the last time I looked we are still innocent until proven guilty before a jury of our peers. While it is true we have no "right" under English Law, there is the presumption that "Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies" under common law and further this is enshrined under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which is is binding on all Council of Europe members (something those who want to leave the EU should consider).

(Anon - cause I don't fancy a 6am wakeup call from the boys in blue...)

0
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: PC Plod strikes again...

Didn't the recent high profile QC arrest turn out to be Constance Briscoe, who has now been charged (IIRC) with perverting the course of justice or something similar?

I agree with the rest of your comment. The Met's PR strategy seems to have leaked into its arrests policy: lots of dawn raids to grab the headlines (combined with a no-comment policy when journalists ask what the hell's going on, to prevent the headlines tipping into negative coverage), followed by months or even years on police bail with no charges brought.

Modern-day police believe they are the law, not just its enforcement arm. Under the smokescreens of "lengthy investigations" and "privacy" they are covertly disrupting the lives of people who, quite often, have done nothing wrong. Police forces have the ability to prevent a case from getting to court, thus effectively punishing innocent people by indefinitely delaying justice.

The worst part? It's all legal, and you have no route to challenge or question them. I think it's a matter of time before we see arrests combined with superinjunctions from police legal departments to stop people on police bail from being able to draw attention to their plight.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums