cases - bark & co solicitors - specialist fraud firm
Post on 03-Dec-2014
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONBark & Co have been instructed by the former CEO of Polly Peck International (PPI) in an alleged multi-million pound fraud. The client faced 66 counts of Fraud & Theft, but failed to appear in the 1993 trial. Mr Nadir has returned to the UK to fight to clear his name.
- 1. Bark & CoSolicitors Cases of Note
2. These are our someof our cases of note. 3. R v NadirDescription: Bark & Co have been instructed by theformer CEO of Polly Peck International (PPI) in analleged multi-million pound fraud. The client faced 66counts of Fraud & Theft, but failed to appear in the1993 trial. Mr Nadir has returned to the UK to fight toclear his name.The trial date is now set for January 2012.Significance: One of the first high profile SFOprosecutions. 4. R v Ravjani & OthersBark & Co represented a client accused significantinvolvement in a complex contra-trading MTICfraud. The alleged fraud was of a scale thatprompted the Government to proffer the case asan explanation as to why the UK balance ofpayments were adrift for a particular year.Unfortunately, reporting restrictions prevent usfrom publishing the full outcome at this time. 5. RvXDescription: This matter involves an insidertrading investigation at a number of banks andhedge funds and other large financial institutionsconducted by the FSA and SOCA which Reutersreports has sent shockwaves through thecountrys financial industry. Significance: This case involves significant pressinterest and involves the representation of adirector at a very high profile financial institution. 6. R v CC & PFDescription: This case involves the arrest of ninedirectors of an ethical investment companyinvesting in the energy sector. The value of thealleged fraud, which related to the companys taxstructure, is in excess of 85 million. It raisesquestions on the differences between tax evasionand tax avoidance. The company obtained taxbenefits for research and development in theenergy sector and secured investment from 750specialist private investors. 7. Significance: This case will have far reachingconsequences for the whole of the ethical carbonoffsetting industry, as well as for all companieswith similar tax structures. The company inquestion was advised by tax specialists andlawyers regarding the legislation involved. HMRCallege that the complex nature of the relatedcompanies and tax structures were formed for thespecific reason of perpetrating a fraud while thecompany states that they were not only legitimatebut standard industry practice. 8. R v F & P (Vantis Tax)Description: We acted for former senior executives for aspecialist tax division of Vantis Plc defending allegations ofcheating the public revenue. They both vigorously deny theallegations made against them.Significance: This case involves extremely complex tax,share valuation and trust issues, and raises seriousquestions concerning the boundaries of tax avoidanceschemes and their use. It attracted significant mediainterest with coverage in the nationals and trade press. 9. R v S & OthersDescription: Bark & Co is representing a client who is involvedin a wide ranging FSA investigation into an alleged 11-handedinsider dealing fraud. This matter revolves around a spread-betting company that was used to place derivative trades onshare price movements. Trades were made close to, or before,significant and unexpected company announcements whichinfluenced the share price in the direction of the placed trade.It is alleged that a ring of traders, some of whom had noprevious experience in spread betting, were organised toperpetrate the fraud with the insider information originatingfrom two well-known investment banks. 10. Significance: The value of the allegedfraud is over 3 million and involvedinsider information on more than 25companies that the investment banksdealt with. This case is still at theinvestigation stage but charges are beingbrought. 11. R v W, W, W & D (SouthwarkCrown Court)Description: Our client is charged with conspiracy to defraudand money laundering offences. This case follows a joint FSAand City of London Police operation and investigation into aboiler room fraud. It is alleged that several companies thatwere seeking venture capital were used as vehicles togenerate appropriate share capital to sell to victims based inthe UK. The boiler rooms were based overseas andunregulated by the FSA. They generated over 30 million inincome which was then filtered through a complex networkof companies and holding accounts and into UK and offshoreaccounts. 12. Significance: The fraud is so large that theFSA has determined that it is limiting the caseto six primary front companies. Not only isthis case a good example of the scale andincreasing prevalence of this type of fraud, italso demonstrates how internationaloperations are being used to bypass the UKfinancial regulators and authorities. 13. R v S, R, D, S, S & T (SouthwarkCrown Court)Description: This was a six-handed prosecution of the founders andassociates of the Confidential Access website. Our client is alleged tohave used his business to facilitate the sale of false identity documentsthat were used to commit fraud and crime. The identity documents,which included passports, P45s, bank statements and other financial andidentity documents, were marketed and sold as legal novelty items,but their accuracy means they were used by clients who were beinginvestigated by the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism unit. In a jointoperation with the Hong Kong Organised Crime Team, the ConfidentialAccess website was temporarily shut down and the servers and businessrecords seized. The website subsequently reopened in another countyand the authorities entered into an ongoing battle across severaljurisdictions to force the website to close down. 14. Significance: This case provides a uniqueinsight into the type of identity-based fraudsthat will become more commonplace in thefuture. It also shows the difficulties involvedin dealing with international and cross-jurisdictional issues surrounding internet freetrade and international payment systems. Notsurprisingly, the case attracted mediaattention, although the details remainconfidential. 15. R v L (Southwark CrownCourt)Description: Our client in this case is being re-tried after a trialheld in 2008 failed to reach a verdict. The client is charged withcheating the public revenue of 250 million in a large-scale andcomplex MTIC VAT fraud in the mobile phone handset market.Significance: The scale of the operation and subsequentinvestigation was impressive, with 42 arrests in 2003, 96 sets ofpremises searched and 260 computers and 500,000 documentsseized, as well as substantial amounts of electronic data. Thisfraud is serious and involves highly complex forensic accountancyand international funds tracing aspects. Again, it has attractedconsiderable media attention. 16. R v L (Southwark CrownCourt)Description: iSoft was awarded a multi-million pound contract toimplement an All Ireland software system. Bark & Co isrepresenting a former director in connection with allegedaccounting irregularities in relation to this contract. This case is inthe FSAs own words the largest case they have ever investigated.Significance: iSoft were involved in the implementation of the newNHS IT system, a large and politically sensitive project and the casehas received extensive press coverage. It has therefore requiredextremely sensitive handling. The issues involved are alsoparticularly complex and involve forensic legal and accountancyanalysis. 17. iSoft related cases (representingX)Description: iSoft was awarded a multi-million pound contract toimplement an All Ireland software system. Bark & Co is representing aformer director in connection with alleged accounting irregularities inrelation to this contract. This case is in the FSAs own words the largestcase they have ever investigated.Significance: iSoft were involved in the implementation of the new NHSIT system, a large and politically sensitive project and the case hasreceived extensive press coverage. It has therefore required extremelysensitive handling. The issues involved are also particularly complex andinvolve forensic legal and accountancy analysis. 18. RvRDescription: This is said to be among the biggestMTIC carousel frauds ever prosecuted. It involves aparticularly complex form of MTIC fraud calledcontra-trading. Here, the perpetrator mixes aclean chain of transactions and a dirty chain. Thekey is that they act as importer in the clean chainand exporter in the dirty one, therefore offsettinglegal imports against illegal exports, making the VATclaim relatively balanced and the fraud far harder todetect. 19. Significance: This case is said to be one of the biggest MTICfrauds ever prosecuted and involves billions of pounds worthof trade. It will give rise to national publicity and widespreadpublic concern because MTIC fraud has become sowidespread that it is responsible for the UK trade figuresbeing completely miscalculated. In this instance there hasbeen 170 million of fraud identified within the telecomssector involving the international trading of mobile phones.Contra-trading is an increasing growth area of specialistdefence where Bark & Co is among the leaders. This case hasat present over 60,000 pages of exhibited prosecutionmaterials with over 100,000 expected, making the estimatedcost of prosecuting the case substantial (more than1million). 20. R v L, R & HDescription: This was a high-profile SFO prosecutionconcerning fraudulent trading. The prosecutionalleges that there was fraudulent trading over a 3-4year period at Alfred McAlpine Slate Limited. Thistook the form of false invoicing and the concealmentof the false information from the parent company,Alfred McAlpine plc, and their auditors, by way offorged loans, invoices and manipulation ofmanagement packs. 21. Significance: This case was the subject of a three-month internal investigation by PMCE CoopersWaterhouse and the City law firm, Ashurst. Pressinterest is high and the case has appeared on SkyNews, in The Times, and The Guardian, as well as localpapers, financial journals and Reuters. It is