Harry Redknapp tax evasion law suit

arry.gif
 
Harry Redknapp threatened to "sue the b******s" off a journalist as he angrily denied taking bungs, a court heard on Tuesday.

The Tottenham manager also said Milan Mandaric "don't know what he is f****** talking about" in a 2009 telephone conversation with a News of the World reporter.

In short extracts read out to a jury at Southwark Crown Court, Redknapp told Rob Beasley he had "the best accountants in England", claiming the Inland Revenue was fully aware of his dealings in Monaco.

Beasley spoke to Redknapp days after a telephone interview with former Portsmouth chairman Mandaric.

When Beasley described how Mandaric said the money sent to Redknapp's offshore accounts were investments outside football, the Tottenham manager replied: "He don't know what he is f****** talking about. What is he talking about? It is a bonus."

Explaining that the payments surrounded profit made on the sale of Peter Crouch from Portsmouth to Aston Villa, Redknapp added: "If it was something dodgy I would have gone over there and brought it back in a briefcase."

When Beasley asked him whether he had paid any tax in the UK on it, Redknapp replied: "Haven't been asked to, Rob."

Redknapp said "there ain't nothing crooked in it" as the telephone conversation went on, the court heard.

"Don't say bung," Redknapp said. "It's nothing to do with a bung. It's paid by the chairman.

"How can it be a bung when the chairman of the football club paid me?"

He added: "What's a bung? It's a f****** sick word."

According to the transcript, he told Mandaric: "I don't want to have a problem with the tax man."

"They was aware of it from day one," he added.

When asked about the bonus clause in his contract, Redknapp said: "My accountant has got my contract ... I'm not going to f****** show you."

He added: "The Inland Revenue know all about it. I've got nothing to defend, Rob.

"I ain't done nothing wrong ... I ain't done nothing wrong, Rob. I got paid a bonus ... everyone is aware of it."

He later added: "Everyone knows about it, there ain't nothing crooked in it."

Redknapp subsequently told police "I don't fiddle", the court heard. John Black QC, prosecuting, read out an interview which took place with a detective four months later in June.

Redknapp was said to have told a detective: "I said to him many, many times 'Milan, I don't want to end up with a tax bill'.

"I was told I wasn't liable for income tax on so many occasions."

Redknapp added: "For the sake of that amount of money or any amount of money, I don't fiddle.

"I pay my tax since I have been in football my entire life.

"I pay every penny."

Redknapp's account differed from what Mandaric told Mr Beasley on February 26 2009, the Crown claim.

Mandaric was said to have told Mr Beasley that the payments to the Monaco account were nothing to do with Portsmouth securing promotion to the Premier League.

The transcript said: "This is the money for my investment... a way to help Harry for the investment... we had become friends."

He added: "Rob, as I told you, it was nothing wrong. It was something I did for my friend... away from football."

Mandaric said he had "paid him a million or whatever it was I paid him" for Portsmouth's success on the pitch.

He added: "There was a contract and what I did for him was nothing to do with this."

As Mr Beasley told Redknapp what Mandaric had said, the manager said: "Well, if that's what he said, then he is wrong."

Redknapp added: "What people don't seem to understand - this money was paid by Milan in his American account... It was a bonus I was due."

Redknapp declared his Monaco account to inspectors less than two weeks before joining Spurs, the prosecution allege.

Earlier, the court heard how the Tottenham manager previously only mentioned the Monaco account as he was quizzed during the Premier League-led investigation.

John Black QC, prosecuting, said Redknapp "was feigning almost complete ignorance of its existence" as the Quest inquiry under former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens took place in 2006.

Black asked jurors to consider whether "is it the case that Mr Redknapp could be unaware of the bank account" when he had flown out to Monaco just a couple of years earlier to set it up in the name of his dog, Rosie.

Despite two separate inquiries into his finances - the first launched in the wake of his receipt of a £300,000 "gift" after Rio Ferdinand signed for Leeds from West Ham - Redknapp only registered the account to tax inspectors after his arrest in 2008.

Black told jurors: "The existence of the bank account was not registered to Revenue and Customs for a period of six years, two months...after Mr Redknapp was first arrested and questioned in the course of this investigation."

Tax inspectors were informed of the bank account "only within the context to declare a small amount of credit interest" in 2008, Black said.

Black showed the jury of eight men and four women newspaper cuttings from 2003, which detailed Redknapp had received a £300,000 gift for the £18million transfer of Ferdinand to Leeds.

Redknapp - who had managed West Ham before joining Portsmouth - was said to have described the cash he received as a "personal present".

Black said the fact Redknapp paid tax on the gift was proof he knew future payments would be tax liable.

The Tottenham manager is accused of banking transfer bonuses worth £189,000 during his time managing Portsmouth.

One of the payments was said to have been sparked by the £3million profit Pompey made on the sale of England star Peter Crouch.

Redknapp was accused on Monday of being a "hard-headed businessman" who, alongside co-defendant Milan Mandaric, obscured the money trail for years.

Redknapp first flew out to Monaco - a tax haven - in April 2002 to set up the account, the Crown claims. He named the HSBC account Rosie 47 - a reference to his dog's name and the year of his birth.

Black said "both parties must have known" they were avoiding taxes.

"These payments were a bung or offshore bonus that the parties had absolutely no intention of paying taxes for," he said.

Redknapp and Mandaric deny two counts of cheating the public revenue when he was manager of Portsmouth.

The first charge of cheating the public revenue alleges that between April 1 2002 and November 28 2007 Mandaric paid 145,000 dollars (£93,100) into the account.

The second charge for the same offence relates to a sum of 150,000 US dollars (£96,300) allegedly paid between May 1 2004 and November 28 2007.

Redknapp, 64, who underwent minor heart surgery last year to unblock his arteries, is the most successful English manager in the modern game, having led Portsmouth to FA Cup success and Spurs to last season's Champions League quarter-finals.

Serbian Mandaric, 73, is now chairman of Sheffield Wednesday, having previously worked at Leicester.

Black urged jurors to consider "had Mr Redknapp really forgotten that he had flown to Monaco to set up the account?"

He showed the panel a string of letters between lawyers in the wake of Redknapp's arrest.

The first mention of the offshore account came when Mandaric was asked by the Quest inquiry to provide details of payments to Redknapp, Mr Black said.

"It's clear that it was only at this time that Mr Redknapp brought to the attention the existence of the Monaco bank account, feigning almost total ignorance of its existence, its operation and its contents," he added.
Click to expand...

Football365
 
Badunk said:
Bang to rights by the looks of things so far.
Click to expand...
That's because they've only really set out the prosecution case so far. But yeah, not looking great.

I bet 'oul Pardew is licking his lips as this trial goes on. A guilty verdict and surely the England job is his ... hmm, a manager of a mid-table north-east team, taking over the national side after one half-decent season at his club. Now where have we heard that before...

If I gave a shit, I'd be worried right now.
 
Ps ... any legal bods out there know what kind of punishment Arry "I am in no way whatsoever a wheeler dealer" Redknapp can expect if found guilty of, erm, wheeler dealering...
 
This is a good lesson for people attempting to evade the tax man, don't attempt to do so if you could have a big promotion or a big fancy new job such as being England Manager.
 
Isnt another potential lesson, dont evade the tax man unless you are rich, in which case, if you do get caught you will only get a fine anyway, so it is purely a financial gamble, not a case of staying out of prison. (Or having to get up early on Saturday morning to pick up litter etc)
 
I'm not sure, a lot of poor people evade the tax man by not declaring every penny earned. However I do feel the situation is completely different when you are trying to keep your house and feed your family, instead of having 4 holidays a year.
 
Not looking good for Harry. Too many unexplainables for the defence to contend with I reckon.
 
He has been repeatedly telling that journo "It's above bawd! It's above bawd!"
You dont do that unless you're guilty.

And you've also killed someone.
 
It all depends on what clever story the defence can concoct to snow the jury. I wouldn't put it past them.
 
Oooh, go on then, why not...



Touchy touchy Arry. Anyone would think you'd got something to "facking" hide.
 
rcoobc said:
I'm not sure, a lot of poor people evade the tax man by not declaring every penny earned. However I do feel the situation is completely different when you are trying to keep your house and feed your family, instead of having 4 holidays a year.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a difference, but I think it lies in the method. Evading tax by just putting money into your pocket is one thing, taking trips abroad to set up offshore accounts is a totally different ball game and should be treated as such.
 
finneh said:
There is definitely a difference, but I think it lies in the method. Evading tax by just putting money into your pocket is one thing, taking trips abroad to set up offshore accounts is a totally different ball game and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

And yet it is the latter that you can actually get away with if you know what you are doing.
 
Simon Adebesi said:
And yet it is the latter that you can actually get away with if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Many, many more billions in tax are evaded every year just by cash in hand jobs between normal people than are evaded by the wealthy in offshore accounts.

So in that respect you get away with both.
 
finneh said:
Many, many more billions in tax are evaded every year just by cash in hand jobs between normal people than are evaded by the wealthy in offshore accounts.

So in that respect you get away with both.
Click to expand...
The numbers don't bear that out. About £2Bn/pa is lost to the exchequer in benefit fraud and over £100Bn/pa in tax evasion (not even counting borderline 'avoidance'). For example, Redknapp's £100K swindle represents a lot of £20 cash-in-hand shifts in the pub.
 
finneh said:
Many, many more billions in tax are evaded every year just by cash in hand jobs between normal people than are evaded by the wealthy in offshore accounts.

So in that respect you get away with both.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Pete. I dont know where you are getting that from (or Pete his numbers) and its not that I know you are wrong. But "tax efficiency" is a billion dollar industry, people investing in Cayman and squirreling money away in Switzerland etc, I would think is an astronomical number.

The problem is a lot of the tax efficiency stuff is not even illegal. Just immoral.
 
Redknapp says Mandaric was in charge of the Monaco account. Mandaric says it was Redknapp. All we need now is a third stooge.
 
In these days of anti-terrorism and anti-drugs money laundering initiatives, how the hell does a major High St bank allow someone to open an account in Monaco under the name of "Rosie 47" ????

I assume HR would have had to show ID upon opening the account, obviously, it is probably a matter for the Monaguesque/French banking laws to allow such an account to be registered in such a name......

Interesting to note the £300k bonus on Rio's transfer from WHU to the sheepsh*ggers, whilst income tax was paid on this, it confirms that management bonuses on transfers do exist - I wonder how many more managers have such agreements with their clubs?

As for his tax liability on the Monaco money, it appears he broke the golden rule -
don't get caught. Still, he kept it quiet longer than George Graham did.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Redknapp says Mandaric was in charge of the Monaco account. Mandaric says it was Redknapp. All we need now is a third stooge.
Click to expand...

Call me a wacky conspiracy theorist, but here's my solution to the mystery: Rosie faked her own death, and is now living in luxury in Barbados with a never-ending supply of Bonio.
 
SteveJ said:
There's a prize for anyone who can guess who these two are:

wbA5oQ
Click to expand...


I have been trying to think who this reminds me of and I have just realised this sketch artist has managed to draw Dr. Elliot from the Sopranos

dr-elliot-kupferberg-1024.jpg
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Redknapp says Mandaric was in charge of the Monaco account. Mandaric says it was Redknapp. All we need now is a third stooge.
Click to expand...
That was Peter Storrie, he gave a third story but mysteriously doesn't seem to be in the dock (he said it was a football payment and tax hadn't been paid by the club).
 
peterstorey said:
The numbers don't bear that out. About £2Bn/pa is lost to the exchequer in benefit fraud and over £100Bn/pa in tax evasion (not even counting borderline 'avoidance'). For example, Redknapp's £100K swindle represents a lot of £20 cash-in-hand shifts in the pub.
Click to expand...

Simon Adebesi said:
I tend to agree with Pete. I dont know where you are getting that from (or Pete his numbers) and its not that I know you are wrong. But "tax efficiency" is a billion dollar industry, people investing in Cayman and squirreling money away in Switzerland etc, I would think is an astronomical number.

The problem is a lot of the tax efficiency stuff is not even illegal. Just immoral.
Click to expand...

I think both of you might be including tax avoidance in your opinions. Tax avoidance is a perfectly legally practice in which people find loopholes with the law. This is the lawmakers fault, not the exploiters.

In terms of tax evasion the very, very rich quite often have enough money to exploit the law legally, so there isn't really any need to risk prison. Also obviously the revenue focus far more resources catching the tiny % who evade hundreds of millions each year, rather than the 99.999% that evade hundreds of pounds.
 
finneh said:
Also obviously the revenue focus far more resources catching the tiny % who evade hundreds of millions each year, rather than the 99.999% that evade hundreds of pounds.
Click to expand...
Well the govt agencies spend far more on trying to catch benefit fraudsters (see TV ads for example) than trying to catch tax evaders.
 
Can we please not have the tax avoidance argument again?

It'll completely derail the thread with hundreds of posts talking absolute bollocks and it's been done to death in plenty of other threads. Can't we just leave this to following the trial and laughing at 'Arry?
 
misterredmist said:
In these days of anti-terrorism and anti-drugs money laundering initiatives, how the hell does a major High St bank allow someone to open an account in Monaco under the name of "Rosie 47" ????

I assume HR would have had to show ID upon opening the account, obviously, it is probably a matter for the Monaguesque/French banking laws to allow such an account to be registered in such a name......

Interesting to note the £300k bonus on Rio's transfer from WHU to the sheepsh*ggers, whilst income tax was paid on this, it confirms that management bonuses on transfers do exist - I wonder how many more managers have such agreements with their clubs?

As for his tax liability on the Monaco money, it appears he broke the golden rule -
don't get caught. Still, he kept it quiet longer than George Graham did.
Click to expand...

I suspect that banks in the principality ask very few questions - and it must be perfectly legal for them to be allowed to do it.

In terms of managers getting a cut of a transfer fee I have no issue with that - its surely ineveryone's interests for the club to be able to identify players which may generate a profit.

There is of course a suggestion of a conflict of interest - i.e. selling a player to reap the rewards but damaging the team but given that most managers get huge bonuses for doing well I suspect its a moot point.
 
finneh said:
I think both of you might be including tax avoidance in your opinions. Tax avoidance is a perfectly legally practice in which people find loopholes with the law. This is the lawmakers fault, not the exploiters.

In terms of tax evasion the very, very rich quite often have enough money to exploit the law legally, so there isn't really any need to risk prison. Also obviously the revenue focus far more resources catching the tiny % who evade hundreds of millions each year, rather than the 99.999% that evade hundreds of pounds.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I am including avoidance, and explicitly so. I dont accept any real distinction tho to be honest. The law of the land is set up to exploit the masses, with the lucky few on the inside - the mega rich, party donors, politicians - using PWC et al to get out of paying what they are chasing everyone else to pay.

So yes, I disapprove of benefit cheats and the like, where they are staying at home with their feet up claiming what they are not entitled to. And without doubt there are many doing that. But there are many more who may take cash in hand work to make ends meet, or lie about what they earn to get a benefit that they need to keep their heads above water. I have no real beef with such people. And I find it outrageous that the media whip up this hysteria among people about benefit cheats, when these same press barons / politicians etc are doing everything they can to get out of paying tax they really should be paying, given they live in this country and use public services here. Its a blatant diversionary tactic.

As you said the law of the land enables them to do it, and it is very hard to change that because of how easy it is to move money around. But I would love to see more effort made to resolve it. I think a massively simplified tax code would help considerably.
 
R_Nick said:
Can we please not have the tax avoidance argument again?

It'll completely derail the thread with hundreds of posts talking absolute bollocks and it's been done to death in plenty of other threads. Can't we just leave this to following the trial and laughing at 'Arry?
Click to expand...

Good point - I wont post on the matter again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.