Nadim Zahawi

metalblue said:
Maybe he isn’t being prosecuted because he hasn’t done anything illegal? If he had he would be facing criminal prosecution. Then he would be getting 4 years or more.

The alternative to this narrative is that the HMRC is corrupt to the core and can be brought off, for that you’d need some actual evidence.
Click to expand...
Maybe he didn't technically break the law but the following summary doesn't make good reading for his defence.
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/
 
west didsblue said:
Maybe he didn't technically break the law but the following summary doesn't make good reading for his defence.
https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/01/19/zahawi_story/
Click to expand...

Absolutely not a good look mate. As you say he technically didn’t break the law (probably but we don’t have all the details). However there is a moral point here and no one held a gun to his head to become and MP - before becoming an MP he must have known his tax affairs were a little questionable and should have done the right thing.
 
metalblue said:
Absolutely not a good look mate. As you say he technically didn’t break the law (probably but we don’t have all the details). However there is a moral point here and no one held a gun to his head to become and MP - before becoming an MP he must have known his tax affairs were a little questionable and should have done the right thing.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that he didn't break the law or that he did. His highly paid legal team managed to sow enough doubt to make a criminal prosecution problematic, and together with a 30% surcharge, presumably the HMRC legal team decided it was not in the public interest to pursue it further. Whether his position as the political head of HMRC was relevant to that decision is one I would like to find out and is unlikely to be forthcoming whilst the current government is in power.
There's absolutely no doubt it stinks, and I believe that he's managed to avoid criminal charges either on a technicality or because of political pressure. I strongly suspect that someone who had done the same without being part of the current government would be facing criminal charges, and the doubts sown would have been tested in a court case. Just my opinion though.
 
west didsblue said:
Looking likely to me that the ethics investigation was purely for the purpose of giving Sunak a reason for not sacking Zahawi earlier and for him to pretend he has acted decisively upon receipt of the results of the investigation. Transparent as fuck.
Click to expand...
Sunak is beholden to these corrupt idiots for getting him in the job. That's why he's a weak PM
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
The cost of sending her to prison and putting her kids in care will likely be more than the £20K. Unlike the tax man and very wealthy individuals, she can’t offer to pay back the cash and therefore ‘get away with it’.
Sadly, as a woman, she’s also much more likely to go down for this type of an offence than a man is. Also cannot see any benefit to society of her ‘going down’ when community service would be much more appropriate, she could likely keep her job and carry on looking after her kids.
Click to expand...
It’s a very harsh sentence irrespective of comparisons with Zahawi. Benifit fraud of less than £50k, especially when it’s a change in circumstances (rather than being dishonest from the outset) normally end in a community order or a suspended sentence, especially if the defendant has dependants.

Don’t agree with you analysis about a woman being more likely to go to prison for an offence such as this. It’s actually pretty rare. What are you basing that on?
 
A few million - you naughty boy, get back in the cheap seats and work your way back.

20 grand - get to prison, you vermin.

I wonder what the difference is?
 
metalblue said:
Maybe he isn’t being prosecuted because he hasn’t done anything illegal? If he had he would be facing criminal prosecution. Then he would be getting 4 years or more.

The alternative to this narrative is that the HMRC is corrupt to the core and can be brought off, for that you’d need some actual evidence.
Click to expand...
I think he’s probably been dishonest. And if he has, he’s guilty of fraud, as it’s undeniably a false representation and he made a gain. If he was convicted after a trial he’s be looking at 6-8 years given the sums involved, depending on how the court viewed his culpability. Would a breach of trust apply, given his position? Arguably not; that’s normally reserved (for example) for carers who rip off OAPs.

Not sure how the offer and payment of the penalty would hamper any private prosecution against Zahawi on an abuse of process basis, but if I had the time and the resources this is something I’d consider. We can all forget or overlook things, and make mistakes, even fundamental ones, but a government minister should be held to a higher standard because the test for dishonesty will be more easily met by them, especially with the sum involved. It certainly deserves to be put to a jury and for them to be required to ask if was this an honest mistake, given it was around £3 million, his experience in business, the resources of professional advice that were at his disposal, and the ancillary steps that were taken in relation to the dispersal of the proceeds. All these factors make an honest mistake less likely.

It seems to me, on the face of it, that he has as much of a case to answer as the woman who was sentenced for benefit fraud that was posted about earlier. I think, on the balance of probability, that he was dishonest, and that a jury may conclude the same to the higher, criminal standard of proof of being sure, once they had heard the evidence. It’s certainly in the public interest to prosecute if the evidence is there. Suspect someone at HMRC lost their bottle. Wonder whether the advice of counsel was sought, or whether the decision was made internally. The answer to that question will almost certainly be exempt from any FOI request, lamentably.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s a very harsh sentence irrespective of comparisons with Zahawi. Benifit fraud of less than £50k, especially when it’s a change in circumstances (rather than being dishonest from the outset) normally end in a community order or a suspended sentence, especially if the defendant has dependants.

Don’t agree with you analysis about a woman being more likely to go to prison for an offence such as this. It’s actually pretty rare. What are you basing that on?
Click to expand...
I’ve probably mis-spoken on women being more likely to go to prison and was basing it on the percentages of offenders in prison for ‘nonviolent crimes‘ they’ve committed. That is, 68% of women in prison have committed nonviolent offences compared to 60% of men In prison.
I‘ve also looked at convictions for indictable offences and noted that the conviction rate for benefit fraud is higher for women (58/42) but a higher proportion of men then get a community sentence as opposed to a prison sentence (53/51).
I could also have misunderstood the data…….
 
I di
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I’ve probably mis-spoken on women being more likely to go to prison and was basing it on the percentages of offenders in prison for ‘nonviolent crimes‘ they’ve committed. That is, 68% of women in prison have committed nonviolent offences compared to 60% of men In prison.
I‘ve also looked at convictions for indictable offences and noted that the conviction rate for benefit fraud is higher for women (58/42) but a higher proportion of men then get a community sentence as opposed to a prison sentence (53/51).
I could also have misunderstood the data…….
Click to expand...
I did caveat what I said with the amount of the fraud. North of £100k and pretty much everyone does stir, but the figures are quite striking and seem to undermine what I’ve saId to some extent.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
Saw this article in the twitter replies:

www.mirror.co.uk

'Hard working and decent' mum jailed for £20,000 benefit fraud

Angela Prendergast, from Hull, made a genuine working and child tax claim in 2011 however she failed to declare a change in her circumstances after her partner moved in with her
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk



A 'hard working and decent' mum has been jailed for a £20,000 benefit fraud.

Angela Prendergast, 49, from Hull, made a genuine claim for working and child tax benefits in 2011 on the basis she was a single parent with a limited income.



She failed to tell the Department of Pensions that her partner had moved in with her in July 2016, changing their circumstances.

The mum withheld the information for nearly two years, despite informing her local authority about the move, Hull Live reports.

Hull Crown Court heard that Prendergast claimed over £20,000 until she eventually contacted the DWP at the end of May 2018.


Prosecuting barrister Michele Stuart-Lofthouse told the court that Prendergast believed she could continue to claim tax credits as her partner was only living at her property part-time.

She said: “The defendant failed to notify the Department of Work and Pensions as she was obliged to declare any changes in her circumstances.

“She had been claiming these benefits, which had been renewed yearly since July 2011, on the basis she was a single parent with two dependent children and had limited income.




“The tax credits stopped in June 2018 when the defendant notified the Department of Work and Pensions that her partner had moved in on May 31.”

After notifying the DWP, an investigation was carried out which revealed that Prendergast’s partner had actually moved in with her in July 2016.

Prendergast had contacted Hull City Council about her change in circumstances which affected her housing benefit and council tax.



She failed to tell the Department of Work and Pensions about a change in her circumstances (

Ms Stuart-Lofthouse told the court that Prendergast claimed her partner had been living with her for three to four nights a week but this was only for correspondence but did not contact the DWP for almost two years.

"The defendant was interviewed in September 2018 and she confirmed she claimed working tax and child tax credits until May 31, 2018, when she declared her partner had moved in to her address.

"She informed Hull City Council that he had moved into her address in 2016 but was only using it for correspondence. She believed he was not living there full-time and she could still claim tax credits and did not consider to seek advice."

His honour Judge Mark Bury asked: “Why did she notify the local authority that her partner moved in but not the Department of Work and Pensions?”

Mitigating barrister Mark Savage told the court that the money was “not used to fund a lavish lifestyle”.

He said: “She accepts there is no excuse and she accepts fully her culpability. She at the time was struggling with two young children and holding down a responsible and stressful job. She was in debt.

“I would urge the court to accept that she is ordinarily a hardworking and decent woman raising two children on her own and doing very well by all accounts in a responsible high pressure job. She is not ordinarily irresponsible but someone who provides a great deal for society.

“She should have made a phone call or written to the Department of Work and Pensions. She has not used this money to fund a lavish lifestyle, she doesn’t have one.

“She and her partner do not have a great deal of money. What that money enabled her to do was pay forward some debts. She doesn’t smoke, she doesn’t drink, they don’t go on holidays and she doesn’t buy expensive clothes.

“This has been hanging over her for two years and she has had to come to terms with what she has done.”

The court heard how Prendergast had a previous offence of benefit fraud way back in 1998 in which she was given a conditional discharge.

Judge Bury told her that this was “relevant to your present position” as he passed a sentence of four months imprisonment.

He said: “You had been paid over £20,000 of taxpayers money to which you were not entitled to.

“Your initial claim was a genuine one. You were a single parent and you had dependent children so in 2011 when that claim began there was no suggestion of the claim being fraudulent. I entirely accept that.
Click to expand...
I would think there are thousands of women claiming this benefit and having their partner live with them. I know of several of my niece’s friends who are doing it without anyone checking on them
 
More of this very sticky web...


www.source-material.org

Zahawi played active role in offshore-linked lender – SourceMaterial

New evidence links Conservative minister Nadhim Zahawi to an offshore company he has denied benefiting from
www.source-material.org www.source-material.org

"Zahawi, who had already advocated for the wider peer-to-peer lending industry as an MP, used his brief tenure as chancellor last summer to introduce legislation heralding further deregulation of the already lightly policed sector."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top