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
Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll