Fairline Dorset Limited---VAT Fraud

[Jim@sea]

What are you suggesting here, that putting the boat laptop through the books should lead to a 3 year prison term, or that it was OK to steal £210,000 of tax payers money because no boat owners lost out ?

When I sold cars I used to put my boats through the books and I would claim back the VAT when I bought them. However I did buy a boat from the Channel Islands and put that in my stock book. But I did declare it as an Import when I brought it into Holyhead. I sold it 3 years later.
2 years after that I had a VAT inspection and the Inspector asked to see my "Used Cars Stock Books" for the previous 3 years, after forensic examination he could not find the Channel Islands Boat. So he asked how I dealt with the VAT. Fortunately I had put it in my "Used Van Stock Book" and when he saw it, ie., Bought X Sold X £3000 X VAT £600 ('15%) . The then asked if I had an Importation Document, which I had saved from Holyhead. He said that had I not had that document he would have charged me VAT at 15% on the total sale price. However my garage was up near Kendal and the VAT Inspector had come 300 miles from a Marina on the South Coast where they had done an exercise on checking every boat on the marina for VAT paid. And that was 30 years ago when they were not even using computers, so how anyone could try it on today beats me.

[DAKA]

If the judge was 100% accurate in his summing up then we need to be more concerned about the actions of Yacht Brokers, you got another snippet of proof regarding widespread dodgy dealings

Daka,

Where did you fid reference to the summing up? I have not been able to find anything more concrete than the summary news stories. I would love to read more being connected and only knowing the facts as they pertain directly to me.[/QUOTE]

I really dont wish to get dragged into this, other than to make a newbie feel welcome and valued .
I was having a private joke with Tranona following another thread, he says suggests the Judge is 100% right , as I understand it ,the Judge specifically called Williams the Director of Yacht Brokers

Dont pay too much attention, its a side issue and I hope Tranona spotted the humour

[JFJ]

Pete

You seem to be questioning the reliability of the court findings. HMRC does not go to court on a whim - they only go if they are pretty certain of their case or there is a legal principle that is being challenged (not unusual in complex law like VAT). They do not always win - for example recent case of Harry Redknap.

So, in the absence of any new information not available to the court, or an error in the court process, his guilt is proven. As already said the poster has not provided any new facts, although even then they would not be much use to anybody here unless they know exactly what the court heard. If there is anything new it is possibly grounds for appeal.

All we have so far from the poster is that the guilty party is a good bloke who has been stuffed by his accountants. Hardly the basis for forming any rational view that is different from the court's.

Point taken just a shame that James did not have a dog called Rosie and a mega bucks barrister or a bank account in Monaco

[PaulGooch]

Point taken just a shame that James did not have a dog called Rosie and a mega bucks barrister or a bank account in Monaco

Can you tell us, has an appeal been launched ?

[Tranona]

Point taken just a shame that James did not have a dog called Rosie and a mega bucks barrister or a bank account in Monaco

So, are you now blaming his predicament on inadequate legal representation as well as dodgy accountants?

[ARA]

Originally Posted by JFJ View Post
Point taken just a shame that James did not have a dog called Rosie and a mega bucks barrister or a bank account in Monaco

How much did he spend on his legal fees.... £210,000.00 ??

There seems to be no further facts forthcoming from JFJ so I think that I am.... out.

[DAKA]

Remember, he was not acting as a "broker" in this instance, but as a trader -

The value of this forum is amazing, you may have just given JFJ the grounds he needed for an appeal on the basis the judge didn't understand the difference between a Broker and a dealer, what an idiot , an innocent man may be behind bars after all







dont worry , not meant as a serious post !

[henryf]

If I might:

One of the biggest fears faced by anyone buying a boat is that they get duped into some fraud involving Vat. They worry about being faced with a bill for 20% of the value of their boat either at current or then value and in many cases they won't have the means to pay.

The boat has to be sold but you can't sell it because it isn't vat paid and so the nightmare continues.

With this as a backdrop it is hard to see anyone convicted of fraud involving Vat on boats getting much Sympathy on this forum whether a "fellow human being" or not.

Boat brokers don't generally sell that many boats in the course of a year, they should also be very well versed in the rules and practices when it comes to selling boats otherwise they shouldn't be doing the job. They would be a danger and a menace to others.

Given the size of the Vat content on a significant boat I think you would know whether or not you had sent off the cheque. You also know the huge significance of whether a boat is Vat paid or not, it's the first thing you consider when writing out the advert.

I am not privy to the details of the case but on the face of it I struggle to see how the person now convicted could in any way be seen as an innocent person caught in the crossfire unless he was that naive (I held off using the word stupid) that he really shouldn't have been in business for fear of causing someone serious financial loss.

I can well imagine that the humiliation, upset and worry felt by both convict and their family is significant when said convict is not a career criminal who sees time in the pen as a badge of honour. However as a society we have decided that prison is a reasonable form of punishment, it is well publicised and we are all aware that breaking the law could lead us there. If there are specific flaws in the legal process which have lead to the conviction then that is a different matter and they must be addressed by professionals not anonymous people posting on an Internet forum. Should this result in the case being overturned I would hope and expect the news to be given equal publicity on here.

Henry

[DAKA]

Remember, he was not acting as a "broker" in this instance, but as a trader - as you say another example of dodgy dealings when individuals (or companies) are trading in boats. It is in situations like this when the person is not accountable direct to the client that the opportunity for "dodgy dealing" arises. From the little we have heard the buyers knew nothing about it.

Serious question if I may now.

James Williams was an employee of at least one Yacht Brokers.

I assume the Yacht Brokerage was reasonably large in order to gain a Fairline agency, I assume they were part of a Yacht Brokers / dealers association .
I assume they had professional Indemnity Insurance in place at the time of the incidents.

If any individuals are now struggling would the Professional Indemnity policy cover any of the losses ?

If Fairline have their own PI cover could fairline have contingent cover for their agents.

[Tranona]

To be honest, I don't know what the setup was, and there is nothing on the web to indicate that the business that committted the fraud still exists - it was after all several years ago.

Don't think PI would be relevant as that would not cover fraud in trading. Anyway, from my limited understanding of the case from the reports, no customer lost and the fraud came to light in a VAT inspection because there was an imbalance between the level of input and output tax. While it possible to have a business where the level of input tax is less than the recorded output tax, selling boats to UK customer is not one of them.

Maybe, as our new friend suggests there was some sort of accounting scheme to exploit a loophole that went wrong, or he just pocketed the money he charged customers for VAT rather than passing it onto HMRC.

Maybe more will come out if there is an appeal.