header-logo header-logo

17 November 2017 / Nicholas Griffin KC
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Bribery , Profession , Commercial
printer mail-detail

No safe havens? Pt 2

nlj_7770_griffin

Corporate facilitation of tax evasion: the new frontier. The second & final part of an exclusive analysis by QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers

  • What do the new criminal offences mean in practice?
  • What are the Government’s parallel civil and other criminal anti-evasion measures?
  • The future for corporate responsibility for economic crime & the direction of travel for economic crime more generally.

In our first article we discussed the scope and impact of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (CFA 2017)—a major plank of the Government’s attempts to tackle tax evasion—and its failure to prevent offences (see ‘No safe havens? Pt 1’, NLJ , 10 November 2017, p 10). Of particular concern is whether the wide extraterritorial effect of CFA 2017 places unmanageably onerous obligations on multinational organisations to foresee and prevent tax evasion risks on a global scale, given that the sanctions for failure are now criminal as well as regulatory in nature. Here, we consider what the new criminal offences mean in practice, and how they sit

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