Harry due in court on Monday 23rd January 2012 (merged)

[bluemiester]

I don't think people are really following this case, just reading the headline grabbing stuff. It looks as if he's going to get off or at most get a fine or a ticking off and most seem to be saying he's guilty. I'd love him to be guilty, but ultimately there is no decent evidence and the motive is incredibly flimsy. It's amazing this has got to court and I can only think that it was done as deterent.

Redknapp really isn't pleading ignorance as his main defence and nor is the fact he's claimed to be disorganised or can't read or write of any real significance. The only "evidence" the prosecution seem to have of any value is the an interview with the NOTW. The trouble with that is that Harry himself wouldn't have been benefiting from the tax evasion in that scenario, so it seems more likely he was lying to the journalist as he claimed today. As much as we'd all like Redknapp to be guilty, he isn't. The most that can realistically happen is that they find him guilty in the sense that he was neglegent and give him fine and the judge will give him a bit of a ticking off. But those hoping he's going to be right in the shit are going to be disappointed.

The cps has a criteria for prosecution and would not proceed without more evidence than a notw interview. Also the prosecution lawyer is a big hitter, expensive and with a rep to protect. I think this is tip of the iceberg.

So why haven't they presented it? I know the media ahven't been able to relay every detail of the cae, but it's highly unlikley we'd not have heard of decent prosecution evidence. You say it's the tip of the iceberg but the prosecution make the closing speach tomorrow, so nothing new is going to come out. All they have is the account with tax being paid on it, but without the NOTW interview, what hope do they have?

No matter how people try and spin it, it's does beggar belief that Redknapp and Mandaric would go to such lengths to avoid such a small amount of tax. Without the interview to the NOTW, it becomes even more inconcievable. Most people seem to be focusing on the mental drivel that keeps coming out of Redknapps mouth and thus losing focus on the case itself. This is also because the case against him is so weak, that from a reporting point of view, Redknapp soundbites are all there are to go on.<br /><br />-- Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:55 pm --<br /><br />

ultimately there is no decent evidence and the motive is incredibly flimsy.

Motive? In a 'stealing money' case? Not sure how much more motive a person needs tbh.

Be realistic, is £10,000 a real motive for someone who earns what Redknapp earns? The motive is flimsy as shit. As if he'd go to all that trouble to avoid paying the tax on a profit from a loan. And if it was a payment (the bonus he claimed to the NOTW), then it's Mandaric who is in the shit as he has confirmed he told Redknapp the tax had been paid, as he'd expect from his employer.

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

So they have payments into an account no tax paid.

Might not be the most henious thing ever but it is there and thats the charge.
This has all come from the quest inquiry into football corruption.Could just be they needed a high profile prosecution to justify the outlay. However the tax mans gaze is increasingly fixed on football.

 

[bluemiester]

So they have payments into an account no tax paid.

Might not be the most henious thing ever but it is there and thats the charge.
This has all come from the quest inquiry into football corruption.Could just be they needed a high profile prosecution to justify the outlay. However the tax mans gaze is increasingly fixed on football.

The non payment of tax isn't being denide, but the intentional evasion is. It didn't so much come from the quest inquiry, that was over. A key point that makes things even more ridiculous is that it was Redknapp who made HRMC aware of the account. He could have closed it and brought the money back to the UK in brown paper bags and no one would have been any the wiser. It is most likey that they need a high profile prosecution and hope a fine for Redknapp will satisfy. But I'm not even convinced he'll get that. I think he should and may well get off.

 

[TCIB]

I don't think people are really following this case, just reading the headline grabbing stuff. It looks as if he's going to get off or at most get a fine or a ticking off and most seem to be saying he's guilty. I'd love him to be guilty, but ultimately there is no decent evidence and the motive is incredibly flimsy. It's amazing this has got to court and I can only think that it was done as deterent.

Redknapp really isn't pleading ignorance as his main defence and nor is the fact he's claimed to be disorganised or can't read or write of any real significance. The only "evidence" the prosecution seem to have of any value is the an interview with the NOTW. The trouble with that is that Harry himself wouldn't have been benefiting from the tax evasion in that scenario, so it seems more likely he was lying to the journalist as he claimed today. As much as we'd all like Redknapp to be guilty, he isn't. The most that can realistically happen is that they find him guilty in the sense that he was neglegent and give him fine and the judge will give him a bit of a ticking off. But those hoping he's going to be right in the shit are going to be disappointed.

Are you a tax lawyer ? or have experience in this stuff ?.
I ask as i have an opinion he is guilty and the law see's tax fraud pretty seriously so i'm told. If you can give us some precident or itk stuff that would be appreciated.
I have no experience myself in this field.

I do not expect a custodial sentence but either way we can't have him managing England, the guy is a joke.

I repeat :)

 

[bluemiester]

I don't think people are really following this case, just reading the headline grabbing stuff. It looks as if he's going to get off or at most get a fine or a ticking off and most seem to be saying he's guilty. I'd love him to be guilty, but ultimately there is no decent evidence and the motive is incredibly flimsy. It's amazing this has got to court and I can only think that it was done as deterent.

Redknapp really isn't pleading ignorance as his main defence and nor is the fact he's claimed to be disorganised or can't read or write of any real significance. The only "evidence" the prosecution seem to have of any value is the an interview with the NOTW. The trouble with that is that Harry himself wouldn't have been benefiting from the tax evasion in that scenario, so it seems more likely he was lying to the journalist as he claimed today. As much as we'd all like Redknapp to be guilty, he isn't. The most that can realistically happen is that they find him guilty in the sense that he was neglegent and give him fine and the judge will give him a bit of a ticking off. But those hoping he's going to be right in the shit are going to be disappointed.

Are you a tax lawyer ? or have experience in this stuff ?.
I ask as i have an opinion he is guilty and the law see's tax fraud pretty seriously so i'm told. If you can give us some precident or itk stuff that would be appreciated.
I have no experience myself in this field.

I do not expect a custodial sentence but either way we can't have him managing England, the guy is a joke.

I repeat :)

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

 

[DTeacher]

Say Hi to Louise, Jamie.

;o)

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

A common form of shoplifting is the ' i have spent a hundred quid so this little bit won't hurt'
Being an Idiot is no defence. No real feelings about Harry but fraud is fraud no matter the sums involved.

 

[IM NOT REALLY HERE]

Are you a tax lawyer ? or have experience in this stuff ?.
I ask as i have an opinion he is guilty and the law see's tax fraud pretty seriously so i'm told. If you can give us some precident or itk stuff that would be appreciated.
I have no experience myself in this field.

I do not expect a custodial sentence but either way we can't have him managing England, the guy is a joke.

I repeat :)

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

Really, so if i don't pay tax for the next few years I will be ok?

Say Hi to Louise, Jamie.

;o)

pmsl

 

[Dj1979]

Are you a tax lawyer ? or have experience in this stuff ?.
I ask as i have an opinion he is guilty and the law see's tax fraud pretty seriously so i'm told. If you can give us some precident or itk stuff that would be appreciated.
I have no experience myself in this field.

I do not expect a custodial sentence but either way we can't have him managing England, the guy is a joke.

I repeat :)

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

its more than 10 grand tax its 40% of 190 grand. if it was a loan why set up an account in a tax haven and not declare it? why register the account in the name of a dog? assuming redknapp was getting a wage why not loan him the money into that account? why did harry not tell his accountant who supposedly took care of all his finances, which i would imagine would also include knowing the need for the claimed loan about the monaco account? he set up the account he knew and transfered money from the account and still never declared it. if he wasnt dodging tax what was he doing exactly?

 

[TCIB]

Are you a tax lawyer ? or have experience in this stuff ?.
I ask as i have an opinion he is guilty and the law see's tax fraud pretty seriously so i'm told. If you can give us some precident or itk stuff that would be appreciated.
I have no experience myself in this field.

I do not expect a custodial sentence but either way we can't have him managing England, the guy is a joke.

I repeat :)

I'm not a tax lawyer, but there has to be sufficient evidence he is guilty in order to convict. I think people think there is more to this case than there is and that it's more technical than it seems. But really it's come down to wheter or not he meant to avoid paying tax on a relatively small amount of money or not. Was it a loan or payment is also important as it changes the amount of tax owed and who has done the most wrong out of Mandaric and Redknapp. If it was a payment then Harry didn't really stand to gain, so Mandaric will get most of the blame. If it's deemed a loan then Harry hasn't paid the tax on the profit, which I beliieve is about £10,000. But even the most anti Redknapp types must find it tough to believe that was done deliberately, given he informed HRMC about the account and nothing else has been found.

He may get a fine or he might get nothing. But either way I find it very difficult to see how you can really think he's guilty per se. If he gtes a fine it will be for being an idiot, rather than deliberate tax evader. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient motive and the evidence against him seems to be nothing more than the NOTW interview. The way he dealt with the account itself seems perfectly in line with his previous business dealings. It just seems incredibly strange that a guy who has paid £8 million in tax would go to all that effort for the sake of £10,000. It looks even odder given they went through about a decade of his earnings and found nothing.

It seems to me people think he's guilty becasue they don't like him. I don't like him either, but the justice system can't work like that. In my opinion people need to start coming around to the idea that he's innocent and has been treated badly. I definitely thnk he's dodgy guy and wouldn't be at all surprised if he tooks bungs etc in the past. But this time he looks innocent to me.

There is no point debating here as we'll end up as the defence and prosectution and it will get tedious. But if he does get off, people should known that there really was very little to convict him with and it's been a bit unfair on him.

Thanks for the reply. I am inclined to disagree then bud. He is guilty as sin from what i can see. It is just the severity of punishment i think that is left now.

I do not beleive his excuses will cut any mustard and it is in the public eye also. They can't seem to be lenient on tax evasion.

I think you also need to accept your opinion is just that and coming to the conclusion and reasonings you do is at best ill judged.

I feel more than enough has been given to the public to show he is a liar and a criminal. This is though just the opinion i have formed from the info given.