{"id":14002,"date":"2024-01-18T16:02:01","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T16:02:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=13586"},"modified":"2024-01-28T21:55:42","modified_gmt":"2024-01-28T21:55:42","slug":"barrowman_fraud","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2024\/01\/18\/barrowman_fraud\/","title":{"rendered":"Douglas Barrowman made more than \u00a3100m selling disastrous tax avoidance schemes. New evidence shows the schemes defrauded both HMRC and his own clients."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Douglas Barrowman describes himself as an “entrepreneur”. The reality is that his businesses made a fortune mis-selling tax avoidance schemes on an industrial scale to people on modest incomes. The schemes all failed, leaving their clients with huge tax bills – many went bankrupt; at least two killed themselves. The clients were then directed to a new company – Vanquish – with a new scheme that supposedly could make those tax bills disappear. That scheme was legally hopeless and relied upon false documents – we believe those involved should be prosecuted for tax fraud. And, whilst Barrowman has denied any connection to Vanquish, the evidence suggests he is lying.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Times first reported on Vanquish<\/a> in 2019. BBC File on Four carried a further, more detailed report in 2020<\/a>. We’ve used these reports as a starting point, and obtained significant amounts of additional documentation and correspondence from AML’s former clients. That new evidence, plus the expertise of the tax specialists we work with, enables us to reach new conclusions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We believe that the evidence shows that the AML and Vanquish schemes were fraudulent, that the Vanquish schemes relied upon a false document signed by key Barrowman personnel, and that Barrowman’s denial of any connection to Vanquish was a lie. Whether the criminal offences of fraud or tax evasion were actually committed are questions of fact, which ultimately a jury would have to decide, but we believe there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand the nature of that evidence, we have to go back through some of the history. This report is therefore inevitably somewhat lengthy.1<\/a><\/sup>We nevertheless cover only a very small part of the history – a big omission is IR35. Anyone interested in the full background should start with the Morse Review<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n

Contents<\/h2>\n