Ok, this is not a bung in the same sense, but surely it is a kind of bung from the Chairman of Pompey?
Redknapp Court Case
- Thread starter Wandering Yid
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Ok, this is not a bung in the same sense, but surely it is a kind of bung from the Chairman of Pompey?
The LMA and FA would've been aware of the clause in his contract but ultimately that's Mandaric's fault.
I feel a little more relaxed about it now. Hopefully guilty so as to eliminate England, but non custodial so he stays with Spurs. Happy days!
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Interesting - from what I can remember of the George Graham scandal it was again tax evasion that made the episod epublic, maybe there weren't laws preventing 'bungs' at the time, since then of course the anti-bribary act has come into force which means the whole receiving payment through unoffical means is in itself breaking a law, although 'Arry is charged with tax evasion from the transactions from years ago so this law can't apply (I assume ?).
George Graham return from his ban and went on to manage Leeds and of course Tottenham so a precident was set then that Tottenham had no issue employing a manager who had previously been involved in bungs/unsolicited payments, so 'Arry is safe unless more comes out of the court case.
Fans are also usually blinkered, I expect there'll be Tottenham fans who couldn't care less what he's done and whether he does it again as long as he's managing the best Tottenham team in 30 years.
As I said yesterday England will swerve him now so providing he avoids a long prison sentence it's a win-win for Tottenham...
It not a bung, it is his bonus, it was written in his contract, it is a legitmate bonus. However, knowing the financial state that Pompey were in the Banks would have swallowed the transfer fee leaving 'Arry in the lurch, out of pocket and becoming a creditor of the club. He's probably agreed with Mandric the he had to personally guarantee his money before going back to Pompey, I certainly would have done. The FA won't have a problem with that.
Unless the judge is trying to make a name for himself, a 60 odd year old with a heart condition will not go to jail over unpaid taxes.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
I agree. However, dodging taxes, lying about it when caught, and putting the public purse to great cost over is something that the judiciary takes an exceedingly dim view of. That's assuming he's found guilty, of course. Juries tend to think less of the Revenue than they do of tax dodgers. Harry may get off with it, even if he is guilty!
This was 2002, Pompey were more than financially sound.
As for the old health card, they won't need to play that, 'Arry will know that the England job disappears further into the distance with every ounce on media attention on this case, he must as some point show remorse and regret and agree to pay a heavy fine, I don't see the old boy doing time...
I would have been more inclined to agree with you had 'Arry copped a plea. If found guilty, the bench is likely to take an extremely dim view at the cost to the public purse of a full two week trial.
From the CPS manual. It looks liek if he goes down he won't be available for the 2014 World Cup
Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax
Date Produced: 1 December 2009
Title: Revenue Offences
Offence: Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax
Legislation: Section 144 Finance Act 2000
Mode of Trial: Either Way
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 7 years
Seriousnesss and Aggravating Factors:
The planning of an offence
High level of profit from the offending.
Offenders operating in groups and gangs
Whether others were drawn in and corrupted
'Professional offending'
An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
Offending carried out over a significant period of time
Use of another persons identity
Abuse of position of trust
Mitigating Factors
A prompt plea of guilty
Peripheral involvement
Behaviour not fraudulent from the outset
Misleading or incomplete advice
Voluntary cessation of offending
Complete and unprompted disclosure of the extent of the fraud
Voluntary restitution
Financial Pressure
Relevant Sentencing Guidelines
The Sentencing Guidelines Council Sentencing for Fraud (statutory offences)
Guidelines to Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax under S144 for the Finance Act 2000
NOTE: Where the actual amount is greater or smaller than the figure on which the starting point is based, that is likely to be one of the factors that will move the sentence within the range.
Fraudulent from the outset, professionally planned and either fraud carried out over a significant period of time or multiple frauds
£500,000 or more (SP based on £750,000): SP: 5 years custody, Range: 4-7 years custody
£100,000 or more, and less than £500,000 (SP based on £300,000): SP: 4 years custody, Range: 3-5years
£20,000 or more, and less than £100,000 (SP based on £60,000): SP: 2 years custody, Range: 18 months - 3 years custody
Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax
Date Produced: 1 December 2009
Title: Revenue Offences
Offence: Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax
Legislation: Section 144 Finance Act 2000
Mode of Trial: Either Way
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 7 years
Seriousnesss and Aggravating Factors:
The planning of an offence
High level of profit from the offending.
Offenders operating in groups and gangs
Whether others were drawn in and corrupted
'Professional offending'
An attempt to conceal or dispose of evidence
Offending carried out over a significant period of time
Use of another persons identity
Abuse of position of trust
Mitigating Factors
A prompt plea of guilty
Peripheral involvement
Behaviour not fraudulent from the outset
Misleading or incomplete advice
Voluntary cessation of offending
Complete and unprompted disclosure of the extent of the fraud
Voluntary restitution
Financial Pressure
Relevant Sentencing Guidelines
The Sentencing Guidelines Council Sentencing for Fraud (statutory offences)
Guidelines to Fraudulent Evasion of Income Tax under S144 for the Finance Act 2000
NOTE: Where the actual amount is greater or smaller than the figure on which the starting point is based, that is likely to be one of the factors that will move the sentence within the range.
Fraudulent from the outset, professionally planned and either fraud carried out over a significant period of time or multiple frauds
£500,000 or more (SP based on £750,000): SP: 5 years custody, Range: 4-7 years custody
£100,000 or more, and less than £500,000 (SP based on £300,000): SP: 4 years custody, Range: 3-5years
£20,000 or more, and less than £100,000 (SP based on £60,000): SP: 2 years custody, Range: 18 months - 3 years custody
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Please learn to read and comprehend before posting. You'll look less of a fool that way.
The thing here is why Harry has let this run to this stage, why would he employ legal representation more expensive than the amount of tax in dispute. I know for a fact there was a loophole for offshore bank accounts some time ago...I had one. I worked abroad at the time but I was advised it didn't matter if my days IN the country, exceeded the allowance. I'm led to believe this loophole has since been plugged. I'm not saying such a simple thing has been missed, nor am I 100% with all the legislation over it, but it would be wise to wait for the defence, as the whole subject has been a changing minefield for years.
As usual we have a thread full of nobheads not in any position to comment.
As usual we have a thread full of nobheads not in any position to comment.
H
Hoddle is a god
Guest
Harry's problem, among many, is that, to the ordinary man and woman in the street (ie the composition of every jury), there is usually only one reason why someone would open an off-shore bank account - and it isn't to establish a safe place for the Christmas booze fund.
Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty, and it's not for Harry to justify why he opened an off-shore bank account to stash a sum of money that he did not mention to the Revenue, but if there was a more innocent explanation for it, it would be in his own interests to make it known, when he comes to give his own evidence.
Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty, and it's not for Harry to justify why he opened an off-shore bank account to stash a sum of money that he did not mention to the Revenue, but if there was a more innocent explanation for it, it would be in his own interests to make it known, when he comes to give his own evidence.
