Redknapp Court Case

News of The World reporter Rob Beasley

Members of the jury, I rest my case.

 

Ok so each person is obviously entitled to protection until proven guilty, and let's face it, even if guilty - who cares? It's hardly crime of the century is it? There's plenty of people in the UK who are high earners who 'legitimately' screw the tax man, and fair play to them. I've seen how taxes get spent in this country and I'd do everything in my power to pay the minimum, I owe these pathetic clowns who "run", this country nothing.

At the same time though....Harry has to go to jail, because he hasn't come out and admitted what he was trying to do, he's come up with some fantasy excuses as to what he said to the NOTW reporter and has just stumbled and tripped up from beginning to end. The fact that he is guilty of providing a false testimony in a court of law should provide adequate grounds for punishment. Not only has he avoided paying tax, he's also wasting more of tax-payers money (HMRC) by dragging this court case out longer than necessary. It's not a post-match press interview where he can dodge questions, nor is it interrogations into his transfer targets by The Sun, it is important that he comes clean and tells the truth, which he has chosen not to do, which is blatantly evident by his dummy-spitting, nappy-****ting responses to interrogation.

All in all, I'd have said set him free with a slap on the wrist and a fine, but because he's guilty of perjury, I say he should be taken to the cleaners. Yes, I'm judging him before he's been proven guilty because 'proven innocent' means nothing, I've seen enough muppets walk away scott-free from situations like this.

 

Guess you don't do well thought out balanced comments.

 

Yes. Let's give him a fair trial. Then we'll hang him!

 

There's no law against telling lies to newspaper reporters or any other member of the public.

You praise high earners for screwing the tax man. You do realise that high earners paying less tax means the rest of us serfs have to pay more?

Naughty troll.

 

If the HMRC's whole case is based upon a public figure lying to The News of the World, then they can't have much of a case.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11675/7480796/Redknapp-has-back-to-the-wall-
Having read this , it doesn't look good for Harry, however the testimony of NOW reporter has credibility?
Its a bit confusing.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the case that the revenue is trying to prove that there is tax due. This appears to depend on whether the money is from the sale of Crouch or not. In which case it suggests that Harry or Mandaric have used legal methods to deposit the money offshore. As PNP says if the revenues case depends on the fact that Harry lied to the N.O.W. it is poor indeed. We will hear what the defence has to say but I am beginning to understand why Harry chose to fight the case rather than pay up.

 

Same here Spurf, people have overlooked the simple fact of how the HMRC came to know about the offshore account in the first place....Harry declared it! Why would anyone in their right mind declare an intended tax fiddle!

 

All that I can see is some mudslinging, a bit of character assassination and some money that was paid to Redknapp that's not tied to any contract.
Not impressed.

 

'Originally Posted by bigsmithy9
Harry says he is expecting a cut of the fee after selling Crouch to Stoke.
Is this a new idea by managers I wonder?'


So BS9, by your silence to requests for authentication, I take it your accusation against Redknapp had no basis in fact at all.

You'd confused Portsmouth with Spurs and us adopting tactics that AFAIK we don't approve of, giving managers money as part of player sales. Naturally, if you know different, please enlighten me/us.

 

It isn't all about the NotW, it's about a large sum of money paid into an off-shore bank account, of which the stories from either party as to where it came from, are conflicting. One says it was for an investment, which apparently failed, although no one knows because there is absolutely no evidence what-so-ever that this investment ever existed, other than from the mouths of Mandaric and, much later, Redknapp. The other that it was a payment for the sale of Peter Crouch, which has been retracted as a lie to keep the NotW off his back about bungs while he worried about Beckham. Also against redknapp is the fact he set up the bank personally and kept it quiet for years, even to his accountant and bank manager, and through 2 official FA probes into bungs.

his defence is poor at best, 'I can hardly write, I'm disorganised' that's it? c'mon, neither he nor Mandaric has one tiny shred of evidence to back their defence claims of an investment at all, not a receipt, a share certificate, nothing. They look like they've shovelled money off-shore, tried to hide it, then been forced to admit to it's existence.

I'll be surprised if he isn't found guilty, but whether he is or not I don't know. He sounds a bit dyspraxic, and asking a dyspraxic to organise himself properly in a bureaucratic way is akin to asking Stephen Hawking to get up and run a marathon, but I doubt many others who look at the evidence objectively can come to any other verdict than guilty TBH.

 

How did they force Redknapp to admit to it's existence?
If he hadn't volunteered the information, then they still wouldn't know about it.

 

When is the jury likely to come to a verdict? Anyone know?

 

Interesting post.

Can anyone who has followed the trial closely shed any light on what seems to me to be a key issue? If the money came from Portsmouth via Mandaric then the case that tax was evaded seems strong but if it came direct from Mandaric, then it seems much more like a gift. Was there any evidence on this?

 

It came direct from Mandaric, PS.

 

I believe that Mandaric claimed that it was payment for non-footballing services and that he'd paid tax on it in the US.
He did blabber on a bit though, so I may be mistaken.

 

If tax had been paid on it in the country of origin then it is tax exempt if paid into an offshore account - tax only becomes payable if and when it is brought into the UK - if it is still in Rosie's account no tax is payable or due.

 

That's what I don't understand. If this has happened then there will be a record of it. If there's no record, then surely they'd have made a point of it?