Nadim Zahawi

[west didsblue]

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.

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/

 

[metalblue]

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/

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.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

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.

 

[bonespost]

 

[Gingers Dad]

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.

Sunak is beholden to these corrupt idiots for getting him in the job. That's why he's a weak PM

 

[Gabriel]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

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?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

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?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

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.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

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?

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…….