NLJ this week: Greed but no fraud in £1.4bn SKAT case

Mr Justice Andrew Baker ruled that although the defendants acted with 'substantial greed' and 'pervasive dishonesty', SKAT could not prove fraud because it hadn’t relied on the alleged misrepresentations.

The judge criticised SKAT’s 'flimsy' review systems and noted its clerical approach meant no inducement occurred. The court confirmed the refund claims were invalid, but not deceitful, since participants didn’t knowingly mislead SKAT.

Gailani and Martin highlight that the ruling underscores the high evidential bar for proving fraud—even against sophisticated traders—and offers rare judicial guidance on 'systemic reliance' in complex financial litigation.