header-logo header-logo

10 November 2017 / Nicholas Griffin KC
Issue: 7769 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Bribery , Profession , Commercial
printer mail-detail

No safe havens? Pt 1

nlj_7769_griffin

Corporate facilitation of tax evasion: the new frontier. A special two-part analysis by QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers

  • The Criminal Finances Act 2017 includes new corporate criminal offences of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, which came into force at the end of September.
  • These are strict liability offences coupled with reverse burden ‘reasonable prevention procedures’ defences, akin to the Bribery Act 2010. They have far-reaching implications.

There is no doubt that the recent years of austerity have naturally triggered debate surrounding the adequacy of the Government’s tax enforcement methods. In tandem, the HSBC Switzerland ‘secret accounts’, the ‘Panama papers’ scandals have highlighted significant holes in the current regulatory and criminal enforcement regimes. It is no coincidence that the events in 2015 and 2016 were immediately followed by Government consultations on better tackling tax avoidance and evasion alike. This month’s striking publication of the ‘Paradise papers’ has raised similar concerns.

Following these consultations, the Government has sought to strengthen the legislative tools at its disposal to tackle

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll