Bronno
Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 541
- 7
I haven't really been paying much attention to this case, but surely everything hinges on whether the prosecution can convince the jury that Harry intended to deceive HMRC.
They'll throw a lot of mud, most of it irrelevant, simply to foster doubt as to Harry's character in the minds of the jury. They'll use the word 'bung' when they mean 'bonus' or 'commission', they'll kick up a fuss about the name of the account in Monaco, which really doesn't prove anything at all and in doing all this will try to discredit any testimony he might offer. But will it be sufficient to convince a jury as to his malicious intent?
Harry's defence will continue to be along the lines of him pleading ignorance, the prosecution already having preempted this by stating Harry to be a "hard-headed businessman with financial acumen", and in the end it will be down to whether the jury are convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to his intent. Personally, I would question why a man who has legitimately paid tax on millions and millions of pounds of income would knowingly risk his reputation, his liberty, and the millions and millions of pounds he would in all probability earn in the future on what amounts - at least to him - as a drop in the ocean. It makes no sense, and that's my reasonable doubt right there.
They'll throw a lot of mud, most of it irrelevant, simply to foster doubt as to Harry's character in the minds of the jury. They'll use the word 'bung' when they mean 'bonus' or 'commission', they'll kick up a fuss about the name of the account in Monaco, which really doesn't prove anything at all and in doing all this will try to discredit any testimony he might offer. But will it be sufficient to convince a jury as to his malicious intent?
Harry's defence will continue to be along the lines of him pleading ignorance, the prosecution already having preempted this by stating Harry to be a "hard-headed businessman with financial acumen", and in the end it will be down to whether the jury are convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to his intent. Personally, I would question why a man who has legitimately paid tax on millions and millions of pounds of income would knowingly risk his reputation, his liberty, and the millions and millions of pounds he would in all probability earn in the future on what amounts - at least to him - as a drop in the ocean. It makes no sense, and that's my reasonable doubt right there.
