Hsbc

[Benfleet A1]

Big differences are the number of those involved that have donated to the Conservative party during this term of office when the accounts were officially reported to HMRC, that after that being reported the Tories employed the head of HSBC and that at PMQ's Cameron was asked 4 times if he ever discussed tax with Green and he failed to answer each time.

No he didn't. He stated what procedure he followed when appointing Green and also pointed out that Labour didn't object to him becoming a Lord.

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no difference in who is on this list regardless of their party political preference. If they have broken the law then haul them in. All of them.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No he didn't. He stated what procedure he followed when appointing Green and also pointed out that Labour didn't object to him becoming a Lord.

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no difference in who is on this list regardless of their party political preference. If they have broken the law then haul them in. All of them.

Yes haul them all in - something the government had the power to do when it came to light in 2010 and the opposition are powerless to do unless they come to power in May 2015

 

[Benfleet A1]

If it's illegal then it's criminal which makes it a police matter. The only reason both Tories and Labour are making noises about this is for political gain in a election year. The question that should be asked here is who's been burying this since 2007 when the original list was handed to authorities in France. Who's been hiding it from our authorities since then or who has, as is more likely, been attempting to cover the practice up in the first place.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

If it's illegal then it's criminal which makes it a police matter. The only reason both Tories and Labour are making noises about this is for political gain in a election year. The question that should be asked here is who's been burying this since 2007 when the original list was handed to authorities in France. Who's been hiding it from our authorities since then or who has, as is more likely, been attempting to cover the practice up in the first place.

It's a police matter if HMRC find evidence to pass on to the police but the level of staffing looking at tax evasion is set so low that it wouldn't be able to cope with the level of investigation needed. Is this a spectacularly poor understanding of investment in staff leads to massive financial reward or something more sinister.....

 

[Benfleet A1]

It's a police matter if HMRC find evidence to pass on to the police but the level of staffing looking at tax evasion is set so low that it wouldn't be able to cope with the level of investigation needed. Is this a spectacularly poor understanding of investment in staff leads to massive financial reward or something more sinister.....

Well I have a spectacularly poor understanding of financial matters, hence why I drive tipper lorries instead but as for something more sinister happening, well lets put it this way, does a hobby horse have a wooden dick? Surely if the French authorities were aware of this in 2007, then they would have made HMRC aware as a matter of course. Or am I showing my poor understanding again?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Well I have a spectacularly poor understanding of financial matters, hence why I drive tipper lorries instead but as for something more sinister happening, well lets put it this way, does a hobby horse have a wooden dick? Surely if the French authorities were aware of this in 2007, then they would have made HMRC aware as a matter of course. Or am I showing my poor understanding again?

If you bear in mind that TFL couldn't put through their price increases for a full month last year as Osborne and Johnson hadn't discussed with each other what they were doing I think assuming that French Revenue would pass on info to British Revenue about our revenue sources being breached might be a bit hopeful.

2010 is the year being stated as the point where HMRC were officially notified in all of the articles I have read.

 

[Holy Joe]

Why haven't we started criminal proceedings when numerous other countries have?

I think I've read that only Ireland has started criminal proceedings - no other country involved has.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I think I've read that only Ireland has started criminal proceedings - no other country involved has.

According to this, Australian authorities have recovered 30 million dollars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hsbc-scandal-nick-clegg-accuses-labour-of-letting-the-banks-run-riot-10033640.html

That makes me wonder just how more sinister this just might be.

 

[Neil_F]

This is so misleading.

The government are the ones most in the firing line - if there is nothing wrong with the way HSBC have set up these accounts then why haven't the government just stated that?

I haven't read the report. I was talking about the legitimate use of offshore accounts without tax avoidance motives. You can consider it misleading if you want.

 

[Neil_F]

According to this, Australian authorities have recovered 30 million dollars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...r-of-letting-the-banks-run-riot-10033640.html

That makes me wonder just how more sinister this just might be.

30 million Aussie dollars is nothing. The $120bn figure is also bogus. There may well be that much in assets but it doesn't mean it is all taxable.

yes, tax evasion has no doubt gone on and HMRC should allocate more resources to building prosecutions, but so much nonsense is talked on this subject.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I haven't read the report. I was talking about the legitimate use of offshore accounts without tax avoidance motives. You can consider it misleading if you want.

Off message then, that is not what the thread was about.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

30 million Aussie dollars is nothing. The $120bn figure is also bogus. There may well be that much in assets but it doesn't mean it is all taxable.

yes, tax evasion has no doubt gone on and HMRC should allocate more resources to building prosecutions, but so much nonsense is talked on this subject.

Then we are pretty much all in agreement - the question is why is so little effort / resources are being put into prosecuting tax evaders.

 

[Neil_F]

Perhaps the receipts (based on estimated liability and likelihood of conviction) doesn't warrant additional resources?

it would be politically difficult to do anything other increase resources these days. I suspect it won't lead to much in additional revenue though.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Perhaps the receipts (based on estimated liability and likelihood of conviction) doesn't warrant additional resources?

it would be politically difficult to do anything other increase resources these days. I suspect it won't lead to much in additional revenue though.

The pattern that HMRC have followed is that that don't make prosecutions they cut deals - and that alone can bring in some of the vast sums being avoided - all with a tiny staff. But much bigger staffing levels are invested in benefit fraud where the sums involved are relatively tiny. Who to 'go for' is purely political and based on self interest.

 

[Neil_F]

There is a difference in law between tax evasion and benefit fraud (the latter is considered theft). You may not like it but no government has changed the law on this.

the deals cut by Dave Hartnett were largely for multi-nationals who would fight Tribunal cases with armies of lawyers. I don't particularly blame HMRC for the approach they took; they could never compete so agreeing to recover something was deemed to be a better outcome.

I don't know if I agree with that approach or not in the absence of the facts, but I have sympathy with it. Many of those cases were avoidance schemes that HMRC could have lost and set a precedent for more extensive use.

HSBC is different. Here the allegation is of outright evasion that is contrary to existing statute. If the evidence is that clear cut then it would surely be obvious to take action and prosecute. I don't care how small the staff is, one prosecution is pitiful.

that leaves us with two options - there is insufficient evidence to prosecute or there is a political instruction not to pursue it. Now I don't believe in conspiracy - governments are too incompetent to organise them and institutions too leaky to maintain cover on that scale. Should we conclude therefore that there is insufficient evidence?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

My conclusion is that there is insufficient staff - and that is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government who set the staffing levels.

 

[Pubey]

My conclusion is that there is insufficient staff - and that is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government who set the staffing levels.

Not even sure it's just insufficient staff (it is strange that there are so many more DWP staff focussed on benefit fraud compared to HMRC staff tackling tax evasion), but incompetent and relatively risk-averse senior staff. My experience of quite high level civil servants is that they're mainly interest in not rocking the boat and hoping for an MBE.

To be fair, I think Neil (as usual) talks a lot of sense about this topic, even though we're probably at different ends of the political spectrum. It'll be really interesting to see what happens about this and I wonder how it will impact on the GE.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Not even sure it's just insufficient staff (it is strange that there are so many more DWP staff focussed on benefit fraud compared to HMRC staff tackling tax evasion), but incompetent and relatively risk-averse senior staff. My experience of quite high level civil servants is that they're mainly interest in not rocking the boat and hoping for an MBE.

To be fair, I think Neil (as usual) talks a lot of sense about this topic, even though we're probably at different ends of the political spectrum. It'll be really interesting to see what happens about this and I wonder how it will impact on the GE.

I think.....some people divert conversations onto technicalities because their politics are more one sided that they like to let on....

I too am interested in the outcome on this and it's influence on the General Election which is why in any conversations I have I want to highlight the fact that the efforts that have being put into this over the last 5 years at the same time as cutting expenditure to the bone is a reflection of where the current government's allegiances lie. I'm unashamed in wanting the realities of this situation to be noted by as many people as possible.

 

[Cricko]

Looks like both Conservative and Labour are as bad as each other in this one.

http://http://www.theguardian.com/b...aised-over-5m-from-hsbc-swiss-account-holders

Aside from the large font for Tories and small font for Labour [never biased this rag] the fact remains they are both guilty of either back handers, loans or both. Bent as hairpins the lot of them.

That is the main problem, they are all as bad as each other these days. They will probably set up some special select committee to look into this Bank Fraud which will consist of, yep you guessed it, a dozen Ex Bank Heads.

 

[Neil_F]

I think.....some people divert conversations onto technicalities because their politics are more one sided that they like to let on....

I presume this is aimed at me. If you mean that I consider the facts and look at root causes then, yes, you are right.

I've been very open about my politics - I am economically conservative and socially liberal. I believe in free trade, open markets and small government whilst, broadly, letting people do whatever they want with their lives. I can't abide social conservatism, but the main factor for me is always the economy and I have only ever voted Conservative. I don't consider myself partisan though and have criticised all parties on issues I disagree with.

the world is not as black and white as the Tories are heartless and evil and Labour always run out of other people's money.

On the subject of tax evasion there is a lot of screaming on both sides and talk of conspiracy whereas the likely reality is somewhat more mundane.