Money Laundering l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
lunes, 18 de junio de 2012
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Money Laundering l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
Bark & Co: Money Laundering l Newsvine
As one of the leading serious fraud firms in UK, Bark & Co regularly have to advise their clients on the implications of money laundering charges which often accompany investigations and prosecutions of fraud. UK legislation is wide ranging and recent changes to the law have increased the likelihood of money laundering charges being pursued vigorously by the authorities. The team at Bark & Co are experts in the interpretation of the law and in particular the parameters open to the prosecuting authorities in respect of money laundering charges.
In the UK, primary legislation on money laundering includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act 2001, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 and the Serious Crime and Police Act 2005. Secondary legislation comprises Money laundering Regulations 2003 and 2007. These increasingly stringent regulations put the onus on businesses to ensure that certain controls are in place to prevent them being used for money laundering purposes including customer due diligence measures and internal controls and monitoring systems.
Under UK law, it is a money laundering offence when a person enters into, or becomes concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates by whatever means the requisition, retention, use or control of criminal property (assets or money) by another person. In many cases, the authorities seek to block suspected money laundering activities at an early stage by applying severe constraints even where there is scant evidence of wrong doing. Actions include forfeiture of assets etc.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine : A Jetpak created by eyocopeland : Jeteye
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution Agreements l Newsvine - The-looser-it-s-me
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously scrutinized in open court”.
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London: Deferred Prosecution ...
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC, have recently made no secret of the fact that they consider the criminal justice system to be incapable of dealing with corporate prosecutions in a way that refects commercial realities. The blunt impact of a prosecution of a company has the impact of damaging innocent parties including employees, shareholders and creditors. Garnier cited the cautionary example of the ill-effects of prosecution caused to Arthur Andersen, eventually acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice by the US Supreme Court, many years after the allegations had destroyed the company. US prosecutors have a tool at their disposal, the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is being touted as a viable alternative to the present options of either prosecution or civil recovery. Much of the impetus for the reform has been caused by the difficulties faced by the SFO when they sought to prosecute Innospec. The SFO effectively had already agreed with the company, pre-sentencing, the nature of the sentence in return for a guilty plea. This was criticized by Thomas LJ who reminded the SFO that it is for the Judge to determine sentence at his discretion and especially that any plea must be “rigorously
scrutinized in open court”.
martes, 5 de junio de 2012
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown o...
Bark & Co: Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown o...: http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/hmrc-crackdown-on-offshore-accounts/ It has recently come to our attention that two Britons have been a...
Bark & Co Solicitors London News: HMRC Crackdown on Offshore Accounts
http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/hmrc-crackdown-on-offshore-accounts/
It has recently come to our attention that two Britons have been arrested on suspicion of using Swiss Bank accounts held with HSBC to evade UK taxes. This could lead to the first criminal prosecutions in a three year clampdown on offshore tax evasion by HMRC.
According to our source, HMRC made the arrests late last year and both individuals have been released on bail pending charges. These arrests are thought to have resulted from the review of the information stolen from HSBC’s private bank in Zurich by Herve Falciani, a French software engineer, which contained account information pertaining to 6,600 accounts held by UK residents.
This significant development once again underlines HMRC’s desire to stamp out tax evasion linked to funds retained in offshore accounts and signals a hardening of HMRC’s attitude. News of these arrests may counter the concerted criticism of HMRC’s crackdown on tax evasion. Some commentators have accused the taxman of shying away from mounting criminal prosecutions and the deterrent message that they convey to the tax-paying population. We will of course keep you updated on this development.
In a similar vein, news reached us yesterday that the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has been provided with a raft of information concerning 2,000 wealthy individuals and corporations that held accounts with Bank Julius Baer in the British Virgin Islands tax haven. Rudolf Elmer, who was previously employed by Julius Baer to oversee the Caribbean operations of the Swiss Bank for eight years until he was dismissed in 2002, handed over the discs to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during a press conference. Mr Assange has promised to publish the details once the information has been verified. WLH understands that WikiLeaks is taking legal advice on what information they can release, but it is likely that the website will not hold back as evidenced during previous high profile “leaks.”
Rudolf Elmer is currently standing trial accused of coercion and breaching banking secrecy laws in Switzerland and his motive in supplying this information is to expose mass potential tax evasion. He told the Observer newspaper last weekend that those named in the documents come from “the US, Britain, Germany, Austria and Asia, and include business people, politicians, people who make their living in the arts and multinational companies-from both sides of the Atlantic.” It is unclear whether HMRC has been passed this information, however it is clear that the taxman will be monitoring developments very closely. It is also likely that those individuals who might be affected and have tax issues stemming from the ownership of such accounts may be seeking urgent professional advice.
This development reinforces the message that if you have an undeclared offshore account, then you should come forward voluntarily and resolve the issue before HMRC comes calling. It is no longer an option to bury your head in the sand and hope it will all go away.
We will update this story as it develops, however should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Bark & Co: Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark &...
Bark & Co: Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark &...: http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/abbey-forwarding-v-richard-hone-and-others-bark-co-solicitors-reports/ In a two week trial in the High ...
Abbey Forwarding v Richard Hone and Others, Bark & Co Solicitors reports
http://barkcosolicitorslondon.com/abbey-forwarding-v-richard-hone-and-others-bark-co-solicitors-reports/
In a two week trial in the High Court, Bark & Co successfully defended the former directors of Abbey Forwarding Limited in the High Court in an action brought by the liquidator of the company against them for breach of fiduciary duty.
Abbey Forwarding Limited was a reputable and established bonded warehouse which operated from premises in east London from 1971 until the beginning of 2009. In February of 2009 Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) raised assessments against the company for approximately £6 million and at an ex parte hearing successfully applied to have the company placed into provisional liquidation on the basis that the company had actively participated in diversion fraud.
The HMRC appointed liquidator immediately brought proceedings against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty alleging fraud against 3 of the directors. The basis for the claim and provisional liquidation by HMRC was that the directors fraudulently, or in the alternative negligently, allowed loads of duty suspended alcohol to be illegally diverted and sold onto the UK market.
The claim was dismissed in its entirety. In his judgement Mr Justice Lewison determined that not only was there insufficient evidence of any fraudulent behaviour on the part of the directors, but that the loads of alcohol had in fact reached their destinations and there was insufficient evidence to show any fraudulent diversion at all. The directors were fully exonerated and the liquidator was ordered to pay damages to the directors as well as their costs.
In a two week trial in the High Court, Bark & Co successfully defended the former directors of Abbey Forwarding Limited in the High Court in an action brought by the liquidator of the company against them for breach of fiduciary duty.
Abbey Forwarding Limited was a reputable and established bonded warehouse which operated from premises in east London from 1971 until the beginning of 2009. In February of 2009 Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) raised assessments against the company for approximately £6 million and at an ex parte hearing successfully applied to have the company placed into provisional liquidation on the basis that the company had actively participated in diversion fraud.
The HMRC appointed liquidator immediately brought proceedings against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty alleging fraud against 3 of the directors. The basis for the claim and provisional liquidation by HMRC was that the directors fraudulently, or in the alternative negligently, allowed loads of duty suspended alcohol to be illegally diverted and sold onto the UK market.
The claim was dismissed in its entirety. In his judgement Mr Justice Lewison determined that not only was there insufficient evidence of any fraudulent behaviour on the part of the directors, but that the loads of alcohol had in fact reached their destinations and there was insufficient evidence to show any fraudulent diversion at all. The directors were fully exonerated and the liquidator was ordered to pay damages to the directors as well as their costs.
martes, 22 de mayo de 2012
Bark & Co: Breaking News: R v Vian & Others - Case Dropped
Bark & Co: Breaking News: R v Vian & Others - Case Dropped: http://www.barkco.co.uk/News/Breaking+News:+R+v+Vian+&+Others+-+Case+Dropped Bark & Co has been instructed by Glenn Vian since the mid-20...
Breaking News: R v Vian & Others - Case Dropped
http://www.barkco.co.uk/News/Breaking+News:+R+v+Vian+&+Others+-+Case+Dropped
Bark & Co has been instructed by Glenn Vian since the mid-2008. Not guilty verdicts were entered against Mr Vian and the other defendants, following complex and fiercely fought challenges to the Crown’s case during protracted pre-trial legal argument. The initial investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987 was deeply flawed, and many compelling leads were not pursued properly or, in some cases, at all. The level of public resources expended in this most recent investigation is simply breathtaking. The Police bought the house next door to Mr Vian, in order to conduct thousands of hours of intrusive covert surveillance upon him and his family. They released false stories to the press in an effort to trigger incriminating conversations. When these efforts failed to produce any cogent evidence, a case was built against these defendants using “supergrass” witnesses, and considerably flawed Serious Organised Crime & Police Act (SOCPA) agreements. It will come as no surprise to right thinking people to learn that those of the worst character, facing many years in custody for crimes including drug trafficking and attempted murder, will say anything in order to secure a massive reduction in their sentence and/or substantial financial benefits. The position is very much worse where, as in this case, a SOCPA witness is told in advance what the case theory is, and simply has to repeat it to gain his reward. The defence has, in the course of pre-trial legal arguments, been able to discredit the Crown’s case so that, one by one, the evidence of these witnesses has been excluded by the trial Judge or abandoned by the Crown. The recent legal arguments which preceded the collapse of the case were led by our defence team, based on a document found in the unused material by a solicitor of this firm.
When entering not guilty verdicts, the trial Judge said:-
“the legal representatives for all of the defendants, faced with a mammoth and most difficult task, have responded magnificently to it. And the quality of the written and oral submissions that I have received has, taken overall, been of the highest quality. The industry and the tenacity which has been shown by the defence teams is to be commended and the defendants will leave court knowing, if they did not know before, though I think they must have known before, that they have been very well served”.
Bark & Co has been instructed by Glenn Vian since the mid-2008. Not guilty verdicts were entered against Mr Vian and the other defendants, following complex and fiercely fought challenges to the Crown’s case during protracted pre-trial legal argument. The initial investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987 was deeply flawed, and many compelling leads were not pursued properly or, in some cases, at all. The level of public resources expended in this most recent investigation is simply breathtaking. The Police bought the house next door to Mr Vian, in order to conduct thousands of hours of intrusive covert surveillance upon him and his family. They released false stories to the press in an effort to trigger incriminating conversations. When these efforts failed to produce any cogent evidence, a case was built against these defendants using “supergrass” witnesses, and considerably flawed Serious Organised Crime & Police Act (SOCPA) agreements. It will come as no surprise to right thinking people to learn that those of the worst character, facing many years in custody for crimes including drug trafficking and attempted murder, will say anything in order to secure a massive reduction in their sentence and/or substantial financial benefits. The position is very much worse where, as in this case, a SOCPA witness is told in advance what the case theory is, and simply has to repeat it to gain his reward. The defence has, in the course of pre-trial legal arguments, been able to discredit the Crown’s case so that, one by one, the evidence of these witnesses has been excluded by the trial Judge or abandoned by the Crown. The recent legal arguments which preceded the collapse of the case were led by our defence team, based on a document found in the unused material by a solicitor of this firm.
When entering not guilty verdicts, the trial Judge said:-
“the legal representatives for all of the defendants, faced with a mammoth and most difficult task, have responded magnificently to it. And the quality of the written and oral submissions that I have received has, taken overall, been of the highest quality. The industry and the tenacity which has been shown by the defence teams is to be commended and the defendants will leave court knowing, if they did not know before, though I think they must have known before, that they have been very well served”.
Bark & Co: Firms - Chambers and Partners - Bark & Co
Bark & Co: Firms - Chambers and Partners - Bark & Co: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Firms/67001-45155 THE FIRM Bark & Co is one of the UK’s leading fraud and business crime firms. Th...
Firms - Chambers and Partners - Bark & Co
http://www.chambersandpartners.com/uk/Firms/67001-45155
THE FIRM Bark & Co is one of the UK’s leading fraud and business crime firms. The firm’s highly-skilled lawyers are committed to providing expert advice at every stage of proceedings. The firm’s principal aims are to avoid expensive litigation whenever possible and to fight tenaciously to protect its clients’ interests.
Established in 1996 by Giles Bark-Jones, Bark & Co has developed into one of the Country’s most progressive and successful fraud firms. A founder member of the Specialist Fraud Panel, the firm specialises in commercial and criminal fraud as well as serious crime, business and tax regulation, tax investigations and corporate obligations associated with health and safety enforcement. The firm acts for private individuals as well as national and international companies. It has also established itself as a leader in the field of cash and asset recovery in both criminal and civil courts.
Bark & Co prides itself on the individual expertise of its lawyers, the collective strength of its specialist teams and their skill in tailoring advice to match each client’s individual circumstances. Bark & Co’s rigorous commitment to quality of advice and personalised service has lead to significant work through referrals by both clients and other leading law firms.
Established in 1996 by Giles Bark-Jones, Bark & Co has developed into one of the Country’s most progressive and successful fraud firms. A founder member of the Specialist Fraud Panel, the firm specialises in commercial and criminal fraud as well as serious crime, business and tax regulation, tax investigations and corporate obligations associated with health and safety enforcement. The firm acts for private individuals as well as national and international companies. It has also established itself as a leader in the field of cash and asset recovery in both criminal and civil courts.
Bark & Co prides itself on the individual expertise of its lawyers, the collective strength of its specialist teams and their skill in tailoring advice to match each client’s individual circumstances. Bark & Co’s rigorous commitment to quality of advice and personalised service has lead to significant work through referrals by both clients and other leading law firms.
PRINCIPAL AREAS OF WORK Bark & Co handles a wide range of high-profile white-collar crime and fraud cases, including prosecutions and investigations brought by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), HM Revenue & Customs, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Special Compliance Office of the Inland Revenue, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Trading Standards and other prosecuting bodies.
Corporate & Commercial Fraud: Bark & Co became a member of the Serious Fraud Panel at its inception and is a member of the Very High Costs Cases panel (VHCC) qualified to deal with the most complex of criminal matters.Acknowledged as one of the leaders in the field of corporate and commercial fraud, the firm has defended against many of the major prosecutions brought by the SFO and other government agencies. It has acknowledged experts in VAT and duties tribunal work, tax regulation, defence of duty evasion, moneylaundering and carousel fraud, as well as mortgage fraud, investment fraud, corruption, pension fund fraud, telecoms fraud, theft, fraudulent trading by company directors and Internet fraud. Dedicated teams also deal with confiscation and post- and pre-charge restraint proceedings.
Recent important cases include instructions in a high profile and politically sensitive FSA prosecution of directors (iSoft) in relation to the new NHS IT system and the defence of the Directors of a Carbon Trading company in an £85m fraud. Other cases include the defence of two Directors of a specialist division of Vantis PLC in a highly publicised case of alleged tax relief fraud. Bark & Co also represents a Managing Director of a prominent international bank involved in alleged insider trading; this is part of an unprecedented and high profile crackdown on fraud by the FSA and SOCA; Bark & Co are defending in another FSA prosecution of an alleged 11-handed insider dealing fraud involving two prominent investment banks and also defended in R v Law, Roberts & Harvey, another high profile SFO prosecution concerning fraudulent trading at a subsidiary of Alfred McAlpine PLC.
Criminal: Bark & Co continues to act in high-profile criminal trials, including cases of murder, money laundering, drugs importations, armed robbery and people-smuggling. The firm focuses on high-end work, often involving crime across international boundaries and jurisdictions.
The firm's wide ranging portfolio of cases includes the ongoing high-profile case of a private investigator murdered over 22 years ago in a London pub car park. A total of five separate investigations have been launched, involving tens of thousands of hours of police work and utilising long-term intrusive undercover surveillance.
Bark & Co also advise private individuals and national and international companies facing investigation or criminal proceedings as a result of beaches of the Health and Safety Act, taking cases from pre-charge interviews through to trial.
Recent important cases include instructions in a high profile and politically sensitive FSA prosecution of directors (iSoft) in relation to the new NHS IT system and the defence of the Directors of a Carbon Trading company in an £85m fraud. Other cases include the defence of two Directors of a specialist division of Vantis PLC in a highly publicised case of alleged tax relief fraud. Bark & Co also represents a Managing Director of a prominent international bank involved in alleged insider trading; this is part of an unprecedented and high profile crackdown on fraud by the FSA and SOCA; Bark & Co are defending in another FSA prosecution of an alleged 11-handed insider dealing fraud involving two prominent investment banks and also defended in R v Law, Roberts & Harvey, another high profile SFO prosecution concerning fraudulent trading at a subsidiary of Alfred McAlpine PLC.
Criminal: Bark & Co continues to act in high-profile criminal trials, including cases of murder, money laundering, drugs importations, armed robbery and people-smuggling. The firm focuses on high-end work, often involving crime across international boundaries and jurisdictions.
The firm's wide ranging portfolio of cases includes the ongoing high-profile case of a private investigator murdered over 22 years ago in a London pub car park. A total of five separate investigations have been launched, involving tens of thousands of hours of police work and utilising long-term intrusive undercover surveillance.
Bark & Co also advise private individuals and national and international companies facing investigation or criminal proceedings as a result of beaches of the Health and Safety Act, taking cases from pre-charge interviews through to trial.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)