Interesting MTIC fraud judgment
HMRC v sunico A/s and others  EWHC 941 is an interesting judgment which Produman J had heard a claim by HMRC for unlawful means conspiracy arising out of an alleged MTIC fraud. The facts of the case are not remarkable but counsel for the two defendants linked to the main defendant company (sunico) adopted an interesting strategy. They served evidence in witness statement form setting out their defences and producing other evidence in support of it. At the close of the claimants case the Court was informed that neither defendant any longer intended to give evidence. Proudman J was stuck with the thorny issue of dealing with the evidence that had been averred to in witness statement form and had been made the subject of cross-examination. Whilst ultimately unsuccessful the judgment is worth a read simply for the review of previous judgments on MTIC fraud and, in particular the concerns raised by the failure of HMRC to disclose important information which adversely affected its case (to which see paragraph 54 on the question of standard disclosure obligations).
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.