[Closed] Banker bashing Monday!

jambalaya - Member

Binners I am not saying we shouldn't pursue people......

That's pretty much what you've been implying throughout this thread.

If you are now claiming that you think HMRC should go after these people and prosecute them, then I don't know why you didn't say that 12 hours ago when you first commented.

I think what we've got here is a case of you unable to defend the indefensible, after initially trying to, and now giving up.

Stephen Green - ordained CoE priest.

The combination of religion and high finance makes my skin crawl.

When this info was handed over, back in 2010 so it's not even a current news event really

Presumably the likes of Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris et al should be freed as it was all a long time ago and attitudes have changed etc, and it's not fair that they should be punished for things they did years ago when no one was as bothered about it? 🙄

Shocker a rich person/business/investment bank exploiting loop holes or dodgy tax.

TBF at some point we all been guilty of some sort of dodge dealings (even if its only a few quid)

The German authorities have been much more proactive in using this data to recover taxes and prosecute offenders. They even played mind games giving the dodgers a chance to put their tax affairs in order before revealing who they actually had information on. The director of Bayern Munich (and friend of Merkel) was sent to prison.

The UK has really been dragging their feet on this, and the obvious conclusion is that they were hoping it would go away and tax evasion could go on, unchallenged, as usual.

UK's lax approach may also be due to the fact that a good chunk of the world's Tax Havens are under the jurisdiction of the Queen, as [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories ]British Overseas Territories[/url], [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_dependencies ]Crown Dependencies[/url] and [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm ]Commonwealth Realms[/url]

[img] [/img]

Shocker a rich person/business/investment bank exploiting loop holes or dodgy tax.

If you think there is nothing shocking or newsworthy about a Britain's biggest high street bank engaging in criminal activity, which presumably is the purpose of your sarcasm, then it is precisely that sort of attitude which helps to explain why the UK government feels there is little need to punish those responsible.

Are there other categories of criminals who you think don't deserve to be punished ?

MSP tax evasion in Germany is far worse than in the UK. In Germany they think its perfectly legitimate to negotiate a major exemption even though that is against the law (numerous examples inc Steffi Graf the tennis player). The number of Germans with bank accounts in Luxembourg, Lichtenstein or Switzerland far exceeds the Brits. Not least as they drive over the border with a car load of cash.

The UK has collected £135m in taxes as a result of the HSBC revelations and tax / info sharing treating with Switzerland. Perhaps there should have been some prosecutions, we don't know the specifics.

@ernie the tough part with the "criminal activity" charge is if the client signs a statement saying the money is legit the bank is on fairly safe ground and rightly so I would say. The client has done something potentially illegal if subsequently they are dodging tax but its not against the law for a bank to open an account or allow a client to take out cash. The way tax is calculated you make a declaration at the end of the year of your income, if you don't declare it then the offense takes place at that point. How is a Swiss bank (we are speaking of HSBC Switzerland) supposed to know money it received in (say) April 2012 should have been on a tax return filed in Jan 2014. If the money is declared then the tax may be paid from other funds. In the event of interest a Swiss bank pays that out less Swiss tax, perhaps it should be on a UK tax return but that's not the Swiss bank's business.

MSP tax evasion in Germany is far worse than in the UK

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh you were serious 😕

tax evasion in Germany is far worse than in the UK

Alpin or one of our other German resident expats can confirm or refute this but I believe the Finanzamt are not to be messed with they are much worse than our Customs or VAT (I do not include the Revenue side in this comparison as they are pleasant people some of the VAT/Customs types I have seen locally are scary individuals).

@ernie the tough part with the "criminal activity" charge is if the client signs a statement saying the money is legit the bank is on fairly safe ground and rightly so I would say. The client has done something potentially illegal if subsequently they are dodging tax but its not against the law for a bank to open an account or allow a client to take out cash. The way tax is calculated you make a declaration at the end of the year of your income, if you don't declare it then the offense takes place at that point. How is a Swiss bank (we are speaking of HSBC Switzerland) supposed to know money it received in (say) April 2012 should have been on a tax return filed in Jan 2014. If the money is declared then the tax may be paid from other funds. In the event of interest a Swiss bank pays that out less Swiss tax, perhaps it should be on a UK tax return but that's not the Swiss bank's business.

The US, France, and Belgium, are carrying out criminal investigations into the HSBC, but not the UK, at least not up to the point of the Panorama programme.

jambalaya your various posts throughout this thread have gone from attempting to trivialize a scandal which involves Britain's largest high street bank engaging in illegal activities on behalf of extremely wealthy clients, dismissing it as a non-story, to now claiming despite all the evidence that the bank operated legally and aboveboard.

Your trivialization on this thread of this tax evasion scandal and the excuses you provide for not punishing those responsible is in complete contrast to your views on tax evasion on another recent thread.

On the thread concerning the newly elected Greek government you castigated Syriza completely falsely claiming that they aren't committed to stamping out tax evasion.

So the Greek government, which happens to be left-wing, gets fiercely criticized by you for allegedly not being tough enough on tax evasion, while the UK government, which happens to be Tory, gets passionately defended by you when accusations of being soft on tax evasion are leveled at them.

Your ability to vary your moral position from thread to thread to suit your own personal political agenda is quite frankly stunning. Most people would feel at least a tad embarrassed, I'm sure, but I suspect that you are totally unaware of it 🙂

1 prosecution, 13 further cases with the serious fraud office. £135m in taxes and fines collected.

Also a lot of British names on that list who don't owe a penny, for example Phil Collins and David Bowie who both actually live in Switzerland.

French government is "considering" action and a Belgian judge is deciding whethr to issue arrest warrants for HSBC Switzerlands directors. So not much actual action then, UK doesnt look so different in its responce ?

For some action means actual heads on spikes at the tower.

If proved people should be prosecuted to the extent of the law not the mob.

Your ability to vary your moral position from thread to thread to suit your own personal political agenda is quite frankly stunning

I think he just has views at the polar opposite to the actual facts relating to the issue being discussed

French government is "considering" action and a Belgian judge is deciding whethr to issue arrest warrants for HSBC Switzerlands directors. So not much actual action then, UK doesnt look so different in its responce ?

or as the Guardian explained it

While France, Belgium, Spain, the US and Argentina have launched legal proceedings against HSBC and its high net worth clients, the UK’s tax authority has in five years used the data to bring only one prosecution.

Meanwhile, neither HM Revenue and Customs, the Serious Fraud Office nor the Financial Conduct Authority have taken action against HSBC

How do you do this ?
How do you fail to get things like this ?

French government is "considering" action ...

No, the French authorities, unless everyone is lying including the FT, have launched a criminal investigation of the bank. The UK authorities have not yet done so. Remember jambalaya, this is a very old story, as you keep reminding us.

And here's no need for heads on spikes at the tower, is that how benefit cheats are dealt with ?

Use the law to deal with tax cheats, even if they do happen to be extremely wealthy.

And not least because the Treasury loses 15 times more from tax cheats as it does from benefit cheats.

To present another side - launching an investigation is just that. They may have no intent of doing anything but have launched it to be seen to be doing something to manage public expectation.

That may also be bobbins but until anything/anyone is prosecuted launching an investigation is just that.

As has been said before and less relevant here - if govts want to stop tax avoidance change the law to make it impossible. They could do it if they chose yet they don't.

So the French government, for example, has launched a criminal investigation into the activities of the HSBC "to manage public expectation". But having discovered evidence of criminal activity they won't necessarily do anything about it because they presumably don't care about public expectation ?

Yes that sounds quite likely.

And I'm assuming the UK government cares even less about what the public thinks which is why they can't even be bothered to launch a criminal investigation ?

BTW they don't need to change the law to make criminal activity illegal, it already is. As is tax evasion.

To present another side - launching an investigation is just that. They may have no intent of doing anything but have launched it to be seen to be doing something to manage public expectation.

MSP, tax evasion is far worse in Germany due to high tax rates and easy access by road to Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. Suitcases full of cash in the boot of the car

Let's see where these investigations in France and Belgium lead to then. They have had the data since 2009/10 (will double check date) so one would imagine if there was going to be a corporate prosecution there would have been one by now. If someone opens an account in Switzerland and doesn't declare the income/interest to their domestic tax authority there is no offence committed by the bank.

I appreciate there are those here who disagree but HMRC took the view in many cases it was better to collect tax and penalties than pursue prosecutions which may not be successful. One fundamental difference between someone suspected of tax evasion and a benefit cheat is the tax evader often pays the past tax due and a penalty whereas the benefit cheat declines to do so or is unable.

Finally and FWIW I would imagine anyone looking to do a serious amount of tax evasion would not put their money into a major bank like HSBC, much more likely to be a small bank and probably not in Switzerland.

One fundamental difference between someone suspected of tax evasion and a benefit cheat is the tax evader often pays the past tax due and a penalty whereas the benefit cheat declines to do so or is unable.

Guess that's ok then. Is it tory policy to be able to buy your way out of the justice system and escape prosecution? Next time I get a speeding/parking ticket I'll try this approach by offering a few quid to the cop/trafic warden involved.

One fundamental difference between someone suspected of tax evasion and a benefit cheat is the tax evader often pays the past tax due and a penalty whereas the benefit cheat declines to do so or is unable.

😆

So a tax cheat is often someone who has plenty of money and who doesn't actually need the money they have cheated, and can therefore pay it back. On the other hand a benefit cheat is often a poor person who can't pay the money back.

Well that explains why poor cheats are sent to prison while rich cheats go unpunished.

ernie_lynch - Member

Your ability to vary your moral position from thread to thread to suit your own personal political agenda is quite frankly stunning.

Posted 17 hours ago #

dazh don't selectively quote, the point is securing a tax evasion conviction is very hard, the end game is collecting tax. If you go to court with a 10% chance of winning then there is only a 10% chance of getting anything back. Take the deal and move on due to the overly complex tax system.

Also see the number of "I don't want to pay the parking fine even though I parked outside the rules" threads on here

Is it tory policy to be able to buy your way out of the justice system and escape prosecution?

No its HMRC policy and has been for years under governments of all colours.

See [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/prosecutions/crim-inv-policy.htm ]here[/url]

dazh don't selectively quote, the point is securing a tax evasion conviction is very hard, the end game is collecting tax. If you go to court with a 10% chance of winning then there is only a 10% chance of getting anything back. Take the deal and move on due to the overly complex tax system.

Tax evasion cases aren't normally that complex, they are not like city fraud cases. Although, being a cheeky chappy does seem to enable one to get off.

the end game is collecting tax

So maybe we should not bother to prosecute murderers - after all, the end game is bringing people back to life, and punishment has no impact on that.

The problem is that we have a corrupt system of government where party donations enable individuals and companies to have HMRC instructed not to investigate.

Until there is transparency in party funding and loans then the corruption will continue, it is in the interests of both the government and the donors

There is transparency in party funding.

To reinforce my point that tax evasion cases are relatively simple, the conviction rate is 86% and the number of cases being pursued was budgeted to go up from 165 in 2010/11 to over 1100 in 2014/15. See [url= http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/prosecuting_tax_evasion/ ]here for two year old figures[/url]

A timely piece by Owen Jones in todays Guardian

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/tories-britain-democracy-auction-party-funds-donors ]The Tories are Putting Democracy up for Auction[/url]

[i]That awful embarrassment of the financial sector plunging the country into economic disaster could have led to all sorts of unseemly demands for tax hikes on the über-rich. A wise investment, then, to back a party that continually reminds us that the nation’s ills are down to benefit claimants, immigrants and public sector workers.[/i]

Oh here we go again - blaming the Tories. No one is forced to vote Tory. And if no one did they wouldn't be able to form a government.

@dazh and @ernie, I am just explaining the thinking that I believe lies behind the approach and the complexities of trying to pursue a prosecution for events which took place in another country and which in themselves where not illegal.

I am all for tax reform and would start by abolishing non-dom status, I would them add compulsory tax audits on individuals like they have in the US, once every 5 years I understand.

In terms of increasing amounts lost to HMRC I imagine something like the following

1) Benefit Fraud
2) Tax evasion by wealthy individuals
3) Tax evasion by tradesmen working cash in hand
4) Tax avoidance by companies abusing EU tax laws with he assistance of friendly countries (eg Ireland, Luxembourg)

Why do you keep banging on that tax fraud is too "complex" for successful prosecution jambalaya, apart from the obvious reason that you are struggling to think of excuses to justify a soft touch towards tax dodgers ?

France is in the process of prosecuting the HSBC for money laundering, how do you explain that, is it because french juries have greater intellectual abilities than UK juries ?

And why do you offer Ireland and Luxembourg as examples of countries friendly to tax dodgers when the UK is an obvious candidate ?

The UK is a paradise for corporate cheats :

[i][b]The UK has one of the most laissez-faire business regimes in the world. Anyone over the age of 16 whether resident in the UK or abroad, with some minor exceptions, can become a company director. Companies can be bought off the shelf for just a few pounds and the identity of their owners can be concealed behind a labyrinth of nominee shareholders and other devices. Nominee directors often act as post-boxes and take their instructions from the real owners, but their identity is concealed. [/i][/b]

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/prem-sikka/corporate-secrecy_b_5184817.html ]Is the UK Ending Corporate Secrecy? More Spin Than Substance[/url]

Only last week the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee condemned the accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers for [i][b]promoting tax avoidance by multinational firms “on an industrial scale”[/b][/i]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pricewaterhousecoopers-condemned-for-giving-misleading-evidence-to-parliament-and-promoting-tax-avoidance-on-an-industrial-scale-10027344.html ]PricewaterhouseCoopers condemned for giving misleading evidence to Parliament and ‘promoting tax avoidance on an industrial scale’[/url]

Someone who has hugely benefited from the UK's status as a tax avoider's paradise is of course Tony Blair. He has channeled millions of pounds through a complicated web of companies so that no one has a clue how much profit the self-serving multimillionaire has made.

And you will note from the link chrismac that we know exactly how much PricewaterhouseCoopers has provided researchers to the offices of Ed Balls, the shadow Chancellor, £64,162, and Chuka Umunna, the shadow Business Secretary £99,550, that's how transparent political funding is.

Will this revelation cost Labour votes ? Well a few but not enough to make a difference - millions will still vote Labour, for old times sake if nothing else.

PricewaterhouseCoopers do of course also give large amounts of money to the Conservative Party, they're not stupid, which helps to explain the UK's friendly attitude towards corporate cheats, crooks and spivs.

Evidence from head of HMRC to Commons Committee

[i]What is written in the newspapers would not pass the test as being evidence
The Fernch and Belgians are considering action
The only countries who have prosecuted anyone is UK and Ireland[/i]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31425084 ]BBC link[/url]

Tony Blair spends most of his time working abroad so like say, Lewis Hamilton, he manages his affairs accordingly. There is just as much tax advice available in other countries around the world, its a legitimate businesses service to offer. Our tax code is far too complex and is inter-twinned with the EU to further complicate matters, so we should not be surprised its a gold mine for advisors.

Have you actually listened to that committee live?
It was nothing but a public kicking from all members of the committee and both sides of the house.

The only person left on the planet who finds their views as credible and worthy of respect is you.

Homer insisted that HMRC staff had been "diligent" in their approach to the files, and said their record of securing one conviction and £135 million in unpaid tax, fines and interest compared well with other countries.

But Hodge countered that the French tax authorities had recouped £200 million from 3,000 names and the Spanish £180 million from 2,900.

She told the HMRC chief: "It's pretty outrageous what was going on. It's the first time in many of these leaks that there are really strong allegations not of egregious tax avoidance, but of tax evasion, and that is incredibly serious.

"For you to sit there and say, as you are doing, that 'We couldn't get the money in in the same way as the French and Spanish did' and 'We didn't litigate because we wanted to get the money in' and yet you did worse on the money - it leaves me believing that you are not serving the British taxpayer."

Responding to Hodge's comments, Homer insisted: "That is absolutely not the case."

Never been a mauling like that before it was brutal tbh still they have you left to defend their "honour" the lucky sods.

PS the quote [ as I know how much you rely on facts for your views] is

"I believe only we and the Irish have convicted anyone."

She is not even certain about that

jambalaya - Member

Evidence from head of HMRC to Commons Committee

What is written in the newspapers would not pass the test as being evidence
The Fernch and Belgians are considering action
The only countries who have prosecuted anyone is UK and Ireland

BBC link

I can't see that quote anywhere in your link. I doesn't appear to exist. And if it really is a quote did they really misspell "French" ?

Although I am not really interested in the schoolboy excuses HMRC offers when faced with a grilling from the Public Accounts Committee.

The FT reports that France is prosecuting HSBC for money laundering, I accept that as they have no reason to lie. Belgium has already charged HSBC with money laundering. And 2 years ago the US fined HSBC for money laundering.

What has the UK done ?

Having worked in this area in the past, I do think the Revenue are being a bit hard done by, they seem to have followed up according to their policy and in line with their powers. There are questions as to whether they should have cross checked some information post the first Panorama programme, but other than that I think they have done the best they could.

As far as prosecuting for money laundering by France and Belgium, I think this may well be down to the way their investigatory system of criminal law works compared to our adversarial system works. They may regard themselves as "prosecuting" when an investigatory judge is appointed, whereas we would only prosecute once the investigation has taken place.

Anyone who blames HMRC is clearly missing the point - the buck stops with the government, it is they who pass the legislation and dictate policy, and what resources are available to HMRC. Senior civil servants are chosen on the basis that they will diligently carry out government policies.

[url= http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-tax-gap-widens-austerity-lack-avoidance-law-1466606 ]UK Tax Evasion Widens on HMRC Cuts and Lack of Avoidance Law[/url]

And for all the talk targeting high earning tax cheats does not appear to be a priority for this government :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/26/tax-clampdown-under-threat-revenue-customs-job-cuts ]Tax clampdown under threat as Revenue & Customs plans 300 job cuts[/url]

[i][b]Mary Aiston, HMRC's director of specialist tax, which targets high-end taxpayers and complex cases, has written that the jobs from the unit will go by 2015 – and adds that those who remain will be asked to deliver more revenue with less resources.[/i][/b]

.

They may regard themselves as "prosecuting" when an investigatory judge is appointed, whereas we would only prosecute once the investigation has taken place.

No criminal investigation into the activities of the HSBC has started in the UK. So France and Belgium are clearly doing more than the UK.

This government (and to be fair the previous one) have put in place one of the most draconian set of laws against tax avoidance in the world. Prosecutions for tax evasion have increased almost tenfold so there has been a huge increase under the existing government. There have been considerable resources allocated and they reckon the tax gap has come down. Murphy's figures are heavily disputed and I personally think he sheds more heat than light on the issue.

The use of the information was restricted under the double tax treaty between France and UK. We can't change this unilaterally. France had no such restriction as they received the info. Not sure how Belgium got it.

Yeah I guess the question is who to believe, who disputes Murphy's figures ?

And while an [i]"almost tenfold"[/i] increase in prosecutions for tax evasion sounds fairly impressive we're talking about very small figures in the first place, ie, in the last tax year 795 were prosecuted. Presumably that's after a tenfold increase ?

It's almost as if there's no tax cheats in the UK, despite the fact that tax fraud costs the Treasury [b]15[/b] times more than benefit fraud.

And in my previous link above the professor of accounting at Essex University is unimpressed with "one of the most draconian set of laws against tax avoidance in the world". Quote :

[i]Then there is the problem of the UK sponsored tax havens. These include Crown Dependencies, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man; and Overseas Territories, such as Bermuda, British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and Turks and Caicos. They are the byword for secrecy and sleaze. One building in the Cayman Islands is the address of some 19,000 companies. BVI, with a population of 31,000, accounts for more foreign direct investment flows than the combined total for India and Brazil, but has warranted no investigation from the UK government. [/i]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/prem-sikka/corporate-secrecy_b_5184817.html

HMRC said about them

An HMRC spokesperson told AccountingWEB: “The PCS tax gap estimate is over-inflated, flawed and muddled. The IMF has endorsed HMRC's estimate of the gap at £35bn, which is in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Since 2011, we have brought in £60bn from tackling tax dodging alone.

“Ninety per cent of all tax liabilities are paid and the vast majority of UK taxpayers, both large and small, pay their dues. HMRC's ability to collect what's due is improving, which even the PCS recognises. We are not complacent and will continue to exert maximum downward pressure on the tax gap.”

Murphy's numbers are based on what he thinks the tax law should say

Murphy said his approach identified significant tax savings that, while legal, represented an outcome that ‘very few people would think appropriate and reasonable’.

If you read their policy they only prosecute in limited circumstances as their research shows civil cases offer best bang for buck but this has been stepped up significantly because of a change in policy.

The former colonies run their own tax affairs we have very limited power over them so UK government can only attack their use not their existence. That article is pretty weak and one sided, but then accounting academics are hardly intellectual leviathans.

So the HMRC disputed criticism of itself, I don't find that hugely surprising, I was hoping for perhaps an opinion from a more neutral source.

The former colonies run their own tax affairs we have very limited power over them so UK government can only attack their use not their existence.

Well you are obviously unimpressed with the professor's intellectual abilities but exactly what bit of this comment do you dispute ?

[i]The UK has a legal and moral responsibility for good governance of its satellites. The UK protects the economic interests of Crown Dependencies through a deal with the European Union (EU), which effectively enables the Crown Dependencies to trade with the EU without any of the obligations accepted by member states. In the name of good governance, the UK deposed the elected government of Turks and Caicos. However, it claims curious impotence when it comes to curbing the tax dodging and money laundering activities facilitated by these island states. Even the minimalist reform proposals outlined above will not apply to any of the Crown Dependencies or Overseas Territories. So the circuits of illicit practices will continue to thrive.[/i]

HMRC criticise them as their figures are in line with the Code of Practice and are endorsed by the IMF. He has no third party endorsements from any worthwhile statistical body and admits they are based on what he think people would think as " appropriate and reasonable".

They are self governing, we intervene only in exceptional circumstances such as corruption in the Turks and Caicos. Offshore finance services are not in themselves corrupt, although they can be used for such purposes, some centres more widely than others. The EU stuff have always been there, the French have the same.

Why do you think that tax dodging and money laundering activities shouldn't be treated as corruption ? You don't find this curious impotence to dishonest and fraudulent behaviour in Crown Dependencies strange ?

And are you referring to French Overseas Departments ? Are you suggesting that they are tax havens which the French government has no jurisdiction over ?

Dear boy we have been at this for years, is the game up I think not! The pantomime shocked response, strong words and posturing, relying on short lived media/public outrage and distractions, whilst restructuring, renaming and carrying on as normal.

Now don't be a bunch spoilsports and acquiesce like good little plebs. You never know if you work hard enough, you may be able to join us in the Caribbean for a lager at one of those sports bars you people like, after you've finished the gardening and polishing the hull of my super yacht 🙂

Have you actually listened to that committee live?
It was nothing but a public kicking from all members of the committee and both sides of the house.

@ernie, yes she did say those things in responce to a question. It's in the video on the BBC story.

The US pursued HSBC (and others) for breaching financial sanctions against Iran and against lapses in money laundering regulations with clients in Latin America. Nothing to do with tax evasion. There is no evidence of such offenses taking place in the UK as far as I am aware.

Money laundering and tax evasion are crimes. No one is disputing that. Not all crimes are prosecuted and that applies at all levels of societies.

I am not so sure French have "offshore tax havens" the Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish have them.

Milliband was shooting his mouth off yesterday, smearing people with totally legal and legitimate accounts. As an aside Mann Group who Fink worked for moved a lot of people to Switzerland when the UK put taxes up to 50%. Many of the high earners went there and the lower/middle income staff stayed in the UK.

So consider the following bank/accountant/advisor actions, which are legitimate and which are "aggressive tax avoidance advice" worth of a prosecution ...

1) Recommend ISA savings account to minimise tax

2) Recommend two ISAs with one in your wife/husband’s name to get double the benefit

3) Recommend a small businessman set up a company and offset domestic bills against home-office expenses, buy your car/computer etc into the business to minimise tax, pay small salary to personal allowance cap and other amounts via dividends and loans including to family members

4) Highlight to Swiss account holders that the introduction of an EU wide withholding tax on individual savers does not apply to foreign companies and offer to assist in setting up such companies in suitable locations around the world.

5) Highlight to Swiss account holders that new rules mean their names and addresses will be disclosed to the country which issues their passport and at the same time highlight which countries, such as Singapore, do not have the same requirements. Offer to transfer their account to their branch there.

My answer, none of them are worthy of a prosecution