back to article IT consultant gets 4 years' porridge for tax fraud

An IT consultant has been jailed for four years after lying about his income to avoid paying £170,000 in tax. Hamauon Khan, 46, also known as Billy Khan and Billy Love, was sentenced after an HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) investigation proved he had failed to declare his earnings. Khan had claimed he was unemployed for at …

Silver badge

I'm not condoning his actions....

But 4 years? FFS come on! Some rapists get less than that!

And if you're called Google or Facebook or AnOther BigCorp Plc you can just pay whatever you feel like yet still to a grateful fawning HMRC and you're welcomed with open arms by the suckers in government. Double standards , much?

18
4
Silver badge

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

In the governments eyes, *NO crime deserves gaol time like tax aviodance.

Of course, this only applies to the little people. Globalmegahypercord LTD need have no such worries, as a paltry fine of less than what this clown avoided paying will suffice and serve to teach them the error of their ways.

25
0
Silver badge

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

No, normal standards in a modern society.

The only crime bigger than not paying taxes as far as government is concerned is grand treason. Al Capone could tell you - if he was alive.

6
0

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

It was 2 years for tax fraud and 2 years for child support offences, these will run concurrently with usual parole, and if he's been inside awaiting trial he's probably already out.

This dates from the 2013 arrest with a guilty plea entered in Sept 2015. If he was on bail then he'll be out for the next tax year.

6
0

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

I'm reminded of the 17th century rhyme protesting enclosure laws (well, who wouldn't be?)

They hang the man, and flog the woman

That steals the goose from on the common;

But let the greater criminal loose

That steals the common from the goose.

32
0

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.

6
0
Headmaster

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

" tax aviodance" (sic) is not illegal no matter how much they try to conflate it with 'tax evasion' (which is).

P.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

No idea why you got a downvote for stating something which is a clear and well established fact.

Avoidance involves declaring your income and using legal methods (Such as pensions, ISAs etc) to reduce your tax liability, Evasion involves not declaring your income correctly in the first place (as this guy did)

4
0
Silver badge

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

Are you new here?

:-)

the phantom down-voter is alive and well..

Wonder why el-reg *doesn't let you see who + or - who. Liveleak does it.

*unless it does and I just don't know it.

1
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

Yet the punishment for fiddling your porn and stealing £100k+ if you're an MP is just to pretend to apologise, being allowed to keep the loot of course.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: I'm not condoning his actions....

And often as much difference as between lobbying and corruption.

Obviously law allow these mainly for the benefit of these that have enacted laws.

0
0
Facepalm

Gob

Smacked

0
0
Anonymous Coward

One word

Good.

2
1

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Re: Cost benefit analysis

You need to take into account potential future earnings, which are now undoubtedly diminished with his criminal record.

5
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge

FTFY...

Colin Spinks, assistant director of the Fraud Investigation Service, HMRC, said: “Khan has to pay the price for his deliberate attempts to steal money from UK taxpayers – money that could have been used to fund vital public services." But went on to add that "...most likely wasn't used that way however as we just bandy this term about to hide our own inability to correctly manage money. More likely is that the money was actually spunked on a failed IT project, some no-name MPs expenses, or used to crowd fund a missile that we ultimately fired at unarmed brown people somewhere in the Middle East".

13
2
Silver badge

Re: FTFY...

Wait, does killing unnamed and unarmed brown people somewhere in the middle east not count as a "vital public service"? I always assumed it was essential to our democracy, since we seem to spend so much of our money doing it.

4
0

huh?

" two years for the tax fraud and two years for the child support offences."

What child support offences? *reread story* Did I miss the bit where they talk about the child support offences? Or should someone remove the "the" before "child support offences"?

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: huh?

It was probably one of those mud slinging approaches the CPS likes to use today. He should have paid this much tax and if he had he would have had to pay this much child support so we'll go after him for that too.

As others have said if your a big company you get away with it or at least negotiate but the average man....... I think making him pay it back plus a fine would have been enough it would probably have reduced the cost of the trial and he could be out earning money and paying some tax instead of sitting in prison where we're paying to feed and clothe him.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Claimed to be unemployed

Took the dole benefits, didn't pay child support and tried to hide his earnings. That would have gotten him a minimum of 10 years in the States.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Claimed to be unemployed

So about half of what you get for a splif then?

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Minimum of ten years

Long jail sentences are mostly a complete waste of taxpayers' money. Prosecute the lawmakers instead, you know it makes sense.

3
0

"...money that could have been used to fund vital public services."

Or just as likely, wasted by the politicians.

2
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

He tried a shortcut

Look what happens when you try to skip the Panama route.

2
0
Bronze badge

Trekkie alert!

Probably going to hell for this but 'the chastisement of Khan'?

2
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: Trekkie alert!

Have an upvote for boldly going down that path

2
1

Re: Trekkie alert!

The Rap of Khan?

1
0

hmmm

No doubt he deserved penal servitude of some kind, there has to be some fairness in the application of sentences. Financial crime, hit him financially, big time, take all that he has, if necessary. When physically dangerous people walk away from horrible acts with little retribution or consequences that don't reflect the seriousness of the crime then something is wrong.

0
2
Silver badge
Trollface

There has been sheer greed for a substantial period and you have used the money for your own benefit for a lavish lifestyle and foreign holidays.”

I thought this was why we worked? Lifestyle and holidays. Or maybe we're supposed to work to give the government our money?

0
0
GBE

Shorter sentences for domestic holidays?

Sentencing Khan, Judge Laing QC said: "... and you have used the money for your own benefit for a lavish lifestyle and foreign holidays.”

So you get a shorter sentence if you spend your ill-gotten-gains on domestic holidays rather than foreign ones? Do Scotland and Wales count as foreign or domestic?

3
0

Re: Shorter sentences for domestic holidays?

If it was a caravan holiday in Wales in November then this would count against his sentence as time already served

6
0

Justice or injustice?

Billy Khan is a freelancer as it s mentioned here clearly, now my question is if his all belongs are taken away from him as a penalty for his fraud( though very hard word to be used here) as sentenced him jail, will it not be sufficient for any person? why such posts are created in number of online sites with culprit name and hence take away all the rights to re live a better life? to me such people are as unlawful as the culprit himself. but why there is no penalty for such people who provoke such things?

there i can see 36 posts but none of them was replied by the reporter herself.

in religion even when anyone pays for his sins he is purged but here it is reversed. such actions takes the rights to relive.

now if you google Billy khan, billy khan crawley or hamauon khan you would see all these links right there on front, in such circumstances how anyone can live a better life after he is all clear from penalties?

i would appreciate if anyone can answer.

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017