Harry Rednapp

[Hopkirk]

I know he was innocent of tax avoidence, but ....

what was he doing with a six figure sum in a bank account in his dog's name, in Monaco?

[VHG]

I though his name was Redknapp, but maybe he cant spell that either.

What got me was that he had an accountant, and even HE did not know of the account in Monaco.

I guess there is "innocent", and "not proven" and in this case "not proven" seems more likely.

[FredPuli43]

Because offshore kennels are the latest legal tax avoidance scheme. Or because the monies turned out to be a gift, after some investment scheme of his and his co-defendant fell through. Or because, as a journalist taped him as saying, it was a bonus [and therefore taxable] for his selling a player, and legitimate under the football authority's rules against improper payments ('bungs'). At his trial, he said he lied to the journalist but, given his proclaimed ignorance of finance, could it be that he didn't know then that he was admitting that he'd been depositing taxable income? The Revenue thought so.

Why Monaco ? Now there's the question. There was no reason for the payments to be put in an account abroad, if any of Redknapp's versions were true. Why the dog's name? To open the account he must have used his own name, passport etc, to comply with the law there, but he could call it whatever he liked. He liked his dog .

[Gromit]

The Jury unamimously cleared him.

The money was a gift, not earnings. No one pays tax on the postal orders their granny gives them at christmas. The Pirtsmouth owner gave Rednapp a sweetener to keep him happy, but it wasn't payment or taxable.

I have 5 bank accounts. I would not be surprised if Rednapp has ten. Or even twenty. When you have multiple bank accounts, you need easy names to remember, which is why Rednapp used the name of his dog.

The Portsmouth owner had his bank account in Monacco. He had done for many years. He is not a British national, so having a foreign bank account is understandable. Which is why Rednapp opened an account at the same bank for the money to be transferred to.

This certainly isn't a case of not proven. It was unamimously innocent. The inland Revenue waste £8million on a very weak case in persuit of a few thousand pounds which they wrongly believe had be avoided. But this is £8million of tax payers money, not real money, so the fools who flushed that money down the toilet keep their highly paid jobs and pensions. And us public have to lump it.