Peter Pedant, thanks for that. The Tribunal in its judgement makes plain that the way the scheme was set up, no investor would be able to see how any profit from the investment could be made. They could only make a liss, and were deliberately set up to make a loss. No one one invest in them for any other reason than for tax relief on the guaranteed losses these schemes would provide.
// “We are, indeed, quite satisfied that no serious and even moderately sophisticated investor, or one with a competent adviser, genuinely seeking a profit, even one willing to engage in a high-risk venture, but unmindful of any possible tax advantage, would rationally have chosen an Icebreaker Partnership. The prospect that substantial trading profits would be earned was so lacking in evidential foundation that a belief in it could be nothing more than wishful thinking, and the individual referrers, despite their claims to the contrary, could have had no rational expectation that they would see any return on the personal contribution, still less that the money would ever be returned to them, and we find that they did not.” //
If this is the judgement of the tribunal, why is a criminal case harder to prove?