header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
14 November 2025 / Yasseen Gailani , Alexander Martin
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Commercial , Tax , Fraud
printer mail-detail

Concealment, dishonesty & exploitation—but no fraud

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235676
The High Court has ruled that the Danish tax authority can’t recover £1.4bn in refund claims. Yasseen Gailani & Alexander Martin explain
  • The judgment is a reminder for claimants of how high the bar is for proving fraud, even where a defendant has been dishonest.

In the recent case of Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners LLP and others [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm), the High Court found that the Danish tax authority could not recover £1.4bn paid out to various hedge fund managers, including British trader Sanjay Shah, for invalid tax refund claims. This case illustrates the importance of rigorous scrutiny of payment approvals and appropriate training and supervision for employees, particularly for public bodies.

The claimant was the Danish Customs and Tax Administration, Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT). The defendants were various funds and traders implicated in a ‘cum-ex’ dividend scheme, a well-publicised alleged tax fraud involving Danish dividend tax refunds between 2012 and 2015. Cum-ex trading involved trading listed shares

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll