back to article VAT fraudster gets 9 years for refusing £40m bill

Emmanuel Hening, already serving the longest sentence ever secured against a VAT-fraudster, has seen another nine years added onto his sentence. A court last week added to his 15-year sentence because he has failed to repay £40m demanded by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Vat fraudster Henning Hening, who has dual …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Paul_Murphy

    That's easy

    >criminals that they cannot hide, even in prison,

    After all - we know where you live.

  2. Jason Hall

    Vodaphone

    "The additional nine year jail term given to Hening sends the strongest warning yet to criminals that they cannot hide, even in prison, from our actions to seek further justice... we will continue our efforts to reclaim his criminal profits."

    Oh yeah, Vodaphone seem to be really scared don't they?

    1. My Opinion
      Thumb Down

      Who are scared?

      Are you referring to one of the largest companies in the world?

      You see, I've never heard of Vodaphone.

      On the other hand, I have heard of Vodafone.

  3. Chris Martin 2

    Vodafone

    Isnt the VF tax avoidance something like 600m? Think in private eye magazine they compared it to being the same amount as the cock up that inland revenue made who said that they cant afford not to get it back.

    1. Steven Jones

      £6bn

      The claim was that it was £6bn, not £600m. However, this isn't the same sort of thing. This VAT fraud was quite simply lying on the VAT forms. In the case of Vodafone it was a "difference of opinion" about the allowability of Vodafone's tax avoidance scheme. In effect, HMRC have said that tax avoidance schemes are only allowable if they say they are, although ultimately they could get tested in court (and HMRC do not win all these cases - there are plenty where they don't).

      If HMRC were confident enough about the allowability of the scheme, then they could have pushed on with it, although there was no guarantee of winning. So in this case they compromised for what they could get. Of course what can't also be ignored is the danger of a pyrhhic victory. Evenr if HMRC had won that one, it's open for large companies to move operations between countries and, in the longer term, more revenues could be lost than gained.

      The truth is that countries are in competition for jobs, investment and corporate tax revenues. Turning it into some sort of morality play is a big miostake. It's a hard-headed investment decision for both companies and states alike.

      nb. any extra tax paid by corporations will be refelected by lower share prices and/or dividends. That might be OK if it only hit the very wealthy, but it doesn't. It affects many people with savings, endowment policies, pensions and a whole host of other things.

      1. Ted Treen
        Pint

        I'll drink to that...

        Sensible unemotional reality. Such pragmatism is rare in forums. I couldn't have put it so succinctly.

        Good man.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Grenade

    So.. and feel free to slap me down here..

    but, how do they assume they will get their hands on the £40m? First, they're in jail. Second, they reportedly made £54m. Spread amongst eight members, the amount he got can't be much more than 10m assuming an unfair split (even with a fair split it's only about 6.5m each).. I'm not sure I see the logic in the request. Third - did he refuse or simply not have the money?? Big difference.

    1. Richard 120

      re: Unfair split

      Considering they've asked him to pay back £40m and two other gang members £3.8m and £4.7m.

      I'd be assuming it was a very uneven split and this guy was the ringleader, directors get paid in the millions while people working for a company get less than 10% a directors salary, why do you assume that criminals do not operate on a similar sliding scale?

      It's not like this was the great train robbery, there wasn't a bundle of cash with some crooks round it saying one for you, one for me, one for you, one for you etc.

      And as for the did he refuse or did he simply not have the money, he's a criminal.

      By what means are you going to detemine "He doesn't have the money", you can easily appear to have no money whilst having a crapload of stuff and a crapload of money, particularly if you're a criminal (which this guy is, if it wasn't clear) if he turns around and says "I'd really love to pay you back, but I don't have the money (my dog ate it)" are you going to believe him? (Just to be absolutely clear, he's a CRIMINAL)

      Here's the logic in the request -

      "Tell us where the fucking money is so we can take it back and we might let you out of jail"

      Or would you prefer the guy to walk free and then suddenly find £40m quid (it was down the back of the sofa, never knew it was there, how lucky is that)?

      So.. is that enough slapping down?

      1. Mark 65

        Not quite

        Whether he has the money or not is quite important as the justice system needs to work within the confines of the law it supposedly enforces - it is not proportionate to try to force someone to pay back that which they have pissed up the wall. Where the burden of proof lay is a different argument. It's all crap anyway as if he got 15 years originally the 9 would be concurrent.

  5. zaax
    FAIL

    £4.4M football players pay

    Thats football player wages at £4.4 Million a year.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good job if you can get it..

    I'd love to earn 40m over 25 years whilst staying at the ritz.

  7. Graeme 7
    Alien

    Peanut Head

    Is it just me or does that guy have one of the strangest peanut (in the shell) shaped heads ever seen?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Never going to get a penny

    I'm pretty sure they will never get a penny of this money.

    While they're safely locked away for many years to come the rest of the gang who they don't know about will now be free to take the rest of the proceeds.

  9. Citizen Kaned

    hold on....

    so - 9 years for keeping his gob shut about the 40m

    so thats 6 years for 40m - where do i sign up?

    thats assuming someone hasnt robbed his stash in that time! now that would be funny

  10. cannon
    Big Brother

    Worst Crime

    Tax evasion, thats not a crime against a person so why such a long sentence, actually thats a longer sentence than some murders and defiantly most rapists......

    1. Richard 120
      Flame

      Not a crime against a person?

      No, it's not a crime against an individual.

      It's a crime against the entire tax paying population of the UK.

      Consider the services funded by 40m tax, isn't the NHS funded by the taxpayer?

      I wonder if any underfunded NHS hospitals have had anybody die in them because a drug wasn't available or a neo-natal unit didn't have the equipment it needed, there'll be some individuals affected there, hope you don't end up being one of them.

      1. dssf

        Crime against the entire tax paying population

        Certainly the ranking politicians want their cut before the public gets a go at the money. Seems like if one has great, seductive oratory skills and convinces the public individuals they have a DUTY to hold on to their cash, such an orator would be declared an enemy of commerce and state stability. By a stretch, such orators would be locked up and charged with treason...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Crime against the Man

      It's a crime against The Man rather than the person. And it has always been thus.

      Councils want to up parking fines to £120 and they think this is proportionate. Now look at the sort of fine you could get for a "minor" crime against the person such as common assault. Proportionate my arse.

    3. My Opinion
      Thumb Down

      Are you definitely defiant?

      Is that you who's being defiant, or the rapists who are being defiant?

      And just what is being defied?

      We need a definite answer.

  11. corestore

    This is supposed to be justice??

    So, this guy, who has committed a non-violent 'paper' crime (a large one, admittedly), against an institution rather than an individual, gets a total of 24 years - apparently because the victim is HMG and they didn't get the money back. Boo hoo.

    Does anyone else see a slight problem with this? 'Justice', for instance? That's literally more than many murderers and almost all rapists end up serving!

    1. My Opinion
      Boffin

      Simple solution

      If he gives the money back then perhaps they'll knock off the extra 9 years.

      Murderers and rapists can't refund their crimes.

      The decision for this guy - "simples".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Yeah but...

      I mean, his head IS shaped like a peanut!

  12. Shocked Jock
    Flame

    HMRC (mis)management

    Presumably the £40m was a figure dreamt up by HMRC. What seems clear is that there is no chance of getting the money back, even if it hasn't been disbursed already. So the only consequence of this decision is extra costs for keeping this man in prison.

    Vodafone, on the other hand, is a whole different game - the company was liable, the evidence was well documented and the funds clearly exist. However, the HMRC decided to be nicer to that corporate entity than it generally is to any citizens. Wasn't that kind of them? Don't wait with bated breath for revelations about how senior management of HMRC have close personal connections, and quite possibly commercial ones, with directors of Vodafone, or you'll suffocate.

    A bit like the scam over the premises of HMRC, really - owned by an offshore company that was put into that position by the helpful senior management of HMRC. The same management, in fact, that is more interested in cutting workforce numbers and cosying up to conrporations than in gaining income for public funds.

  13. My Opinion
    WTF?

    Stelios

    Am I alone in thinking this guy looks like Stelios?

  14. Bernard

    Where's the problem?

    I've always been baffled by people who think white collar crime is automatically less of a problem for society than violent crime.

    Unfortunately because it is such a widespread view, and the people who commit white collar crime are usually well connected, these crimes rarely get either the scrutiny or the sentencing they deserve.

    If you don't think that tax evasion and corruption cause real world damage then you should spend a few brief moments studying the stastics and you'll quickly spot that countries which don't vigorously enforce these kinds of laws are characterised by crushing poverty and the routine disappearance of funds allocated for education, health and infrastructure.

    1. gratou
      Unhappy

      Less of a problem indeed

      I'd much prefer a guy stole $1000 from my account (and many others') than he assaults or burglars me (or them), thank you very much. Violent crime is the most traumatic, and should be the most punished, there is not doubt.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like