HMRC

Midlands Trading Ltd was established in 2014. HMRC first became suspicious in 2015 during an unannounced inspection at their factory on Benson Street, Spinney Hills, Leicester.

Hifzurrehman and Ehsan-Ul-Haque Patel, directors of a Leicester textile company, have been jailed for setting up fake sub-contractors to evade £1.3 million in tax.

https://www.easterneye.biz/leicester-textile-company-directors-jailed/

The High Court has ruled in Upham and others v HSBC UK Bank Plc [2024] EWHC 849 that HSBC did not deceive hundreds of investors in a £1.3 billion fraud claim. The claim alleged that the bank had misled investors into financing a Disney movie tax relief scheme, later judged by HMRC as tax avoidance.

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/bankinglitigationlinks/2024/may/high-court-rules-hsbc-not-liable-in-fraud-claim-for-disney-film-financing-tax-scheme

The directors of a Leicester clothing company that supplied well known high street and online retailers have been jailed for a £1.3 million tax fraud.

Hifzurrehman Patel, 40, and Ehsan-Ul-Haque Dawood Patel, 46, set up a sophisticated network of front companies to evade VAT between 2014 and 2017.

The mastermind behind a seven-strong gang who set up 90 bogus companies to steal more than £800,000 in a VAT and car finance fraud has been jailed for six years.

Derby man Shahid Mohammad led the gang in the fraud which included a fake recruitment firm to steal identities. His co-defendants were handed suspended prison sentences.

A group that established 90 fraudulent companies has received sentences totalling more than 10 years.

Derby resident Shahid Mohammad led the group, creating front companies including a fake recruitment firm, in an attempt to steal over £800k through VAT and car finance scams.

Tax Policy Associates (TPA) has drawn attention to a form of VAT fraud which exploits companies which routinely receive VAT refunds. Fraudsters operate the scheme by submitting a paper form VAT484 (which is used to notify HMRC of changes to a VAT-registered business’s contact, bank or VAT return date details) purportedly on behalf of the company, changing the company’s bank details. HMRC process the form and issue the refund direct to the fraudulent bank account. TPA reports that this has already affected at least three FTSE 100 companies and an unknown number of smaller businesses.

https://www.taxjournal.com/articles/vat-refund-fraud-targets-businesses

Two brothers have been jailed after trying to steal £1m in a film tax fraud operation.

Craig Rees, 50 and Carl Rees, 52, from Warwickshire submitted inflated or “completely made up” tax relief claims to HM Revenue and Customs, the authority said.

Form VAT 484 has been used in fraudulent attempts to gain access to businesses’ VAT repayments.

A business can update its VAT details with HMRC online or using paper form VAT 484. This includes the business’ contact information, return dates and bank details. HMRC has reported that VAT 484 has been used in fraudulent attempts to gain access to businesses’ VAT repayments. HMRC is taking action to address this issue, including writing to businesses to confirm changes made to their details since January 2024.

Brothers who tried to steal £1 million in a ‘staggering and audaciously dishonest’ film tax fraud have been jailed for a total of 14 years.

Craig Rees, 50, and his 52-year-old brother Carl submitted fraudulent Film Tax Relief (FTR) and VAT claims to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

There have been recent press reports, based on data received by Bureau of Investigative Journalism, that the number of civil enquiries undertaken by the Fraud Investigation Service (FIS) into offshore, corporate and wealthy has halved in five years.

This may be a concern, but it is important to understand FIS’s role in HMRC’s compliance’s activities. Originally a creation of the former Inland Revenue, FIS is an elite specialist unit tasked with undertaking civil and criminal enquiries. The civil enquiries were conducted under Code of Practice 9 (COP 9) where serious fraud was suspected and Code of Practice 8 where COP 9 was not considered appropriate.