Jump to content

Hill Street Police Raid


When Skies Are Grey
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

Yeah, keep making random shit up people.

That's not what was meant: but this is a Premier League shit-storm and for lots of reasons people should use common sense about what they post on here.
has anyone posted any names,initials,or nom de plumes that points the dreaded lurgy at the so called perps?
The Advisory Notice process is pretty useful in circulating info fast to the sector, but given sensitivities I'm not sure why this particular notice wasn't restricted to senior management or compliance. As it is, it's been pretty widely circulated, and I'm sure the names will be made public shortly- but not by me! There's nothing in the notice to say its restricted or confidential, so I don't understand why the newspapers won't publish it, but that's their call. However, if you enjoy cryptic crosswords, go back through the postings.

Although there might have been four individuals mentioned in this notice, the Police's facebook page earlier said that:

"Four of the warrants being undertaken under section 22 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, are assisting requests from HMRC to search premises on the Island central to their investigation into a suspected £21 million VAT and money laundering fraud. Two further searches are being conducted under section 12 of the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 (PPP) in respect of linked matters involving Conspiracy to Launder Money and An Act Against Public Justice on the Isle Of Man."

So if we suppose that these four named persons in the email related to the CJA investigations, surely the question now is - who or what are the other two parties?

There was a confidentiality notice at the bottom of the email.

you're right - I stand corrected. One could argue that given it's been BCC'd , the 'if you are not the intended addressee...' bit is going to be difficult to uphold, and that the 'you must not copy...' bit defeats the entire purpose of the communication. However, I modify my view on the IOMToday stance and accept I was wrong about that. I also think other notices have been more explicit on circulation, rather than relying on the 'small print'.

 

My point about the 'other two' warrants stands, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, keep making random shit up people.

That's not what was meant: but this is a Premier League shit-storm and for lots of reasons people should use common sense about what they post on here.
has anyone posted any names,initials,or nom de plumes that points the dreaded lurgy at the so called perps?
The Advisory Notice process is pretty useful in circulating info fast to the sector, but given sensitivities I'm not sure why this particular notice wasn't restricted to senior management or compliance. As it is, it's been pretty widely circulated, and I'm sure the names will be made public shortly- but not by me! There's nothing in the notice to say its restricted or confidential, so I don't understand why the newspapers won't publish it, but that's their call. However, if you enjoy cryptic crosswords, go back through the postings.

Although there might have been four individuals mentioned in this notice, the Police's facebook page earlier said that:

"Four of the warrants being undertaken under section 22 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, are assisting requests from HMRC to search premises on the Island central to their investigation into a suspected £21 million VAT and money laundering fraud. Two further searches are being conducted under section 12 of the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 (PPP) in respect of linked matters involving Conspiracy to Launder Money and An Act Against Public Justice on the Isle Of Man."

So if we suppose that these four named persons in the email related to the CJA investigations, surely the question now is - who or what are the other two parties?

There was a confidentiality notice at the bottom of the email.
you're right - I stand corrected. One could argue that given it's been BCC'd , the 'if you are not the intended addressee...' bit is going to be difficult to uphold, and that the 'you must not copy...' bit defeats the entire purpose of the communication. However, I modify my view on the IOMToday stance and accept I was wrong about that. I also think other notices have been more explicit on circulation, rather than relying on the 'small print'.

 

My point about the 'other two' warrants stands, though.

Is a warrant in any way related to an arrest or an individual?

 

Could you not have 100 warrants and one are at, in exactly the same way you could have 1 warrant and 100 arrests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the other two warrants are either re business premises, or additional search powers for two of the individuals listed. So much of this is procedural so, unless you understand the reasoning behind it, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the other two warrants are either re business premises, or additional search powers for two of the individuals listed. So much of this is procedural so, unless you understand the reasoning behind it, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusions.

That's kind of what I was trying to say, but obviously not very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well don't know any more than the man in the moon. But if the source over there who told me one major name is correct then there is an existing link to a financial publication on line featuring this person. But if I tell you what to Google I may be implicating an innocent party who is nevertheless an established IOM "tax exile"... 'cos I don't really know. It is what someone there has has emailed me.

 

Or, can I tell you what line to input in the search engine and not break the rules? get sued etc?

 

After all it is in the public domain what it would lead to but I have my doubts as to whether this is wise to give a lead based on what someone has told me???? Gossip and hearsay is not evidence....Anyone??? (Mods I mean) ...Then why should I bother anyway?...

 

If the Mods say is OK to feed a line then I will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This matter I heard reported as a bulletin on BBC Radio 4 tonight at 8 pm in a short slot between programmes...Someone over there has emailed me a name and a load of associated companies but I can't say the name rings a bell....

 

I see what you did there B arri E L o L

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...