More Tory Lies about HSBC tax evasion

France says it did not restrict UK from using HSBC files to pursue bank and criminals

Tory minister and tax office boss told parliament failure to prosecute was due to restrictions imposed by French authorities

France has cast doubt on claims by a Conservative minister and tax office boss Lin Homer that the UK was refused permission to use the leaked HSBC files to pursue financial criminals through the courts.

When challenged about the British government’s failure to take action against the bank or criminal clients, Homer told parliament the UK’s hands were tied by treaties with France, which restricted use of the HSBC data to pursuing tax evaders.

She said HMRC had only been given permission by the French on Monday to take on more serious cases such as money laundering. Her claims were repeated by the Tory Treasury minister David Gauke to the Commons on Monday.

But France’s finance minister Michel Sapin has rejected the British version of events.

In an interview with Le Monde, published on Friday, he said: “I have not understood the comments made by the British authorities. The data on HSBC was transmitted to them in 2010, in the framework of the bilateral conventions that bind us. Nothing has been said to them since. These conventions do restrict the use of the information to tax purposes.

“But if the British tax office wants to bring court cases, it is entitled to do so. The rest is a matter of judicial co-operation.”

He denied France had been approached by HMRC this week, and appeared to suggest the decision on whether to bring criminal prosecutions was entirely in the hands of the UK authorities.

The blame was first laid at France’s door on Monday, when Gauke told the Commons: “HMRC received the HSBC data under very strict conditions that limited the department’s use of it to pursuing offshore tax evasion and prevented HMRC from sharing the data with other law enforcement authorities. Under these restrictions, HMRC has not been able to seek prosecution for other potential offences such as money laundering.

“However, the French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to their fullest.”

Challenged to explain her track record, HMRC chief executive Lin Homer on the same day released a statement making the same claims. It stated: “The French authorities have today confirmed that they will provide all assistance necessary to allow HMRC to exploit the data to its fullest.”

She repeated her explanation while giving evidence to parliament’s public accounts committee on Wednesday. HMRC had asked the French for permission to use the data to take on financial criminals when it first received the data, Homer told the committee. She claimed permission had only been given on Monday.

“We have been talking to the French throughout that period but we’ve only just had permission to widen the scope of this,” Homer said. Asked whether the UK had received clearance from the French in the last day or two, she replied: “Yes.” Asked whether the French authorities had been asked earlier to relax their conditions and had refused, she replied that they had.

Committee chair and Labour MP Margaret Hodge challenged the UK’s track record on prosecutions, saying other countries including France, Belgium and Argentina had taken legal action against both the bank and its clients.

“You’re not serving the British taxpayer properly,” she told Homer. “If you have an account in Switzerland it’s a risk worth taking, you won’t be prosecuted, and that’s a terrible message to send out to tax payers.”

HMRC has now begun to involve other agencies, including the Serious Fraud Office.

After receiving HSBC files lifting the lid on the hidden financial affairs of thousands of British citizens, HMRC has said it identified 3,600 individuals, traced 3,200 of them, and found 1,100 of these had cases to answer.

Some 500 were involved in cases of serious fraud, 500 were invited to settle outside court by paying tax owed and fines, and 150 were the subject of criminal investigations. Of the 1,100, around 130 cases are still open and could potentially be subject to prosecution. But so far, HMRC has brought only one case to court.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which has worked with the Guardian and Le Monde to investigate the leaked data, estimates British clients parked assets worth $22bn in Switzerland.

In contrast, the French and Spanish authorities have tackled high profile cases, taking on wealthy and powerful individuals in court. Spain pursued the late Santander chairman Emilio Botín, whose family has already paid €200m to settle tax outstanding on a trust banked with HSBC. Many more individual citizens were taken to court.

The French, meanwhile, have indicted Arlette Ricci, heir to the French perfume and fashion house, and she now faces trial.

French clients held an estimated $12.5bn at HSBC. But the French government has so far secured £188m in back tax and fines, compared with the £135m recovered by HMRC.

France has launched a criminal investigation into HSBC for money laundering, while Belgium has charged the bank on suspicion of facilitating tax evasion.

The only case brought to court in the UK involves property developer Michael Shanly, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion worth £430,000 and was made to pay £469,444 in fines and costs. The prosecution was brought because Shanly had not fully disclosed all tax owing in a previous settlement with HMRC.


Hodge v Homer

This is a verbatim extract of an exchange at the public accounts committee hearing on Wednesday between chair Margaret Hodge and Lin Homer, chief executive of HMRC.

Q67 Chair: I would like that note very quickly and I will publish it.

Secondly, we are not asking about information on individuals on the list; we are asking about the role of the private Swiss arm of the bank. My understanding is that in looking at their role, in which I believe you ought to be seriously considering whether to take action in that they encouraged or colluded with tax evasion and avoidance, the first time you asked the French for permission to do that was yesterday. Is that true?

Lin Homer: No.

Q68 Chair: When did you ask the French for permission?

Lin Homer: We initially asked permission to use it for wider purposes.

Chair: When?

Lin Homer: When we received the data.

Q69 Chair: What did you recently do in your negotiations with the French?

Lin Homer: Because a lot of the data is now being placed in the public domain, and therefore the French restrictions, in a sense, have lost their power, we went back and asked them again—

Q70 Chair: When?

Lin Homer: When we saw the publication—

Q71 Chair: So in the last day or two?

Lin Homer: Yes.

Q72 Chair: Are you telling this committee that in 2010 the French did not give you permission to look at the wider implications of the data that you received from Falciani and what it meant for the probity of and potential action against the bank? Are you telling us to believe that today?

Lin Homer: Yes.

Q73 Chair: The French refused to give you permission to do that?

Lin Homer: The French gave us the information on a restricted basis which meant that we—

Q74 Chair: That is a different question. Did you ask them whether you could use it more widely to consider whether it was appropriate for HMRC to take action against the Swiss arm of the bank for colluding with or actively promoting evasion and avoidance?

Lin Homer: Yes. We discussed our—



http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/13/france-says-it-did-not-restrict-uk-from-using-hsbc-files-to-pursue-bank-and-criminals


Liars, Thieves and 'Vanilla' Tax Evaders.

So how is it all lies based on just another claim, now by the French version?
Where they clearly also want to deflect away responsibility for this?
Also what month were they sent in 2010 as there was two Governments that year?
Not only that nothing has been proven yet on this claim on HSBC.


"I wouldn't comment on the [HSBC] case, because we're not at that stage yet. But this is certainly something that could be of relevance to us [the PRA]."

The BBC understands that it is not within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority, one of the main UK financial regulators, to look into the conduct of foreign subsidiaries over tax.

The regulator that deals with international tax investigations is HMRC.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31450005


Who as seen are also trying damage limitation claiming they never received any emails, man are heads going to roll if the claim on HSBC is true. Again all under Labours watch.

Always thought you were rather stupid, you have just proved me right.

risingsun wrote:Always thought you were rather stupid, you have just proved me right.

Seems it was the other way round.
You claimed lies as if they were facts based off just a claim from the French.
Even worse nobody has the answers yet or if there is a case against HSBC.
More investigating is needed and also no matter what you say this was first informed to the HMRC under Labours watch and they did nothing even though the emails have been presented as evidence, of which they are claiming they have never received. Damage limitation by them. Then the French who also want to direct away any blame to themselves claim documents were sent in 2010, which is odd being this has only really surfaced now. Even if they did, we need to know the month , because it could have been yet again under Labours watch.
So as can be seen, I was not the one looking silly. You did, by where you wrongly have taken a claim from the French as fact, when we have no idea yet.
Never mind am trying help you understand hen you make such glaring errors.

You really don't understand what has happened do you?  Sad really.

Poor old Tories, really desperate now.

Yes thanks for your reply which yet again fails to ever address any points

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:Always thought you were rather stupid, you have just proved me right.

Seems it was the other way round.
You claimed lies as if they were facts based off just a claim from the French.
Even worse nobody has the answers yet or if there is a case against HSBC.
More investigating is needed and also no matter what you say this was first informed to the HMRC under Labours watch and they did nothing even though the emails have been presented as evidence, of which they are claiming they have never received. Damage limitation by them. Then the French who also want to direct away any blame to themselves claim documents were sent in 2010, which is odd being this has only really surfaced now. Even if they did, we need to know the month , because it could have been yet again under Labours watch.
So as can be seen, I was not the one looking silly. You did, by where you wrongly have taken a claim from the French as fact, when we have no idea yet.
Never mind am trying help you understand hen you make such glaring errors.

Didge, The Tories are up to their neck in this and it's funny watching them and their supporters scurrying around to try and find something to deflect it on to Labour..

One thing is certain and that is that Labour never had the data supplied to them in any shape or form. The data was supplied in May 2010 and it was in the Tories hands and they kept mum about it. They even did a dodgy deal to set up an arrangement with the Swiss confirming they would not seek to acquire any data leaked from Swiss banks even when they were sitting on it. Now that is priceless

They even tookon Stephen Green who was Chairman of HSBC, gave him a peerage and made him a government Minister into the bargain.

Are you getting your script for this direct from Tory HQ or is this nonsense you are posting all your own work?

Keep it up - it's almost the only show in town at the moment and the best entertainment going.

So another post that just waffles on about others not adressing a single point I made.
What is it with some of the left when faced with points they cannot answer?

What is it with the Right when they don't realise they haven't made any points to answer and they look total berks.

So more points about me and nothing to take on my points yet again.

I mean at least Irn wrote something different, which is going off as if all are guilty already, which again is why he post fell very falt and did not address the points I raised.
I suggest you read back Stassi because they are very important.
By the way, many Tories including myself are Central (Liberal) Right, so again I have to correct you. All the pair of you have done is try to deflect off my very valid points.
Lets see if tomorrow there will actually be some actual valid counters from you both, instead of all this deflection.


Good luck and have a good evening

Goodnight Dodgy one, a little dodgy here and a little dodgy there, of you go. I'm for bed anyway, long day tomorrow, looking forward to our day out and Theatre in Norwich. Don't drink too much, you know what you get like, rant rant rant.

Still more points about me, is getting even funnier now.
How many more deflective posts and Stassi continuing to prove me right by her actions on this debate.


Thanks for your kind words, which has made my night.