So, Bernie Ecclestone pleads guilty to fraud and has agreed with HMRC he will pay a fine of £650m !
He is due to be sentenced for his fraud today.
He is 92. But surely that is one of the biggest frauds ever? Astonishing amount of money. I dont know what the sentencing guidelines are for a fraud that large and with his age but surely if there is anything fair in this world he should go to jail?
Suspended sentence - I guess at his age but nonetheless.
All crown court and magistrate judges have been given orders as of this week not to jail those found guilty because the prisons are too full
it was reported in The Times today, and repeated in The Guardian
A senior crown court judge was quoted by the Times as saying that, from Monday, judges have been ordered/strongly encouraged not to jail someone who appears before them.
Suspended sentence - I guess at his age but nonetheless.
All crown court and magistrate judges have been given orders as of this week not to jail those found guilty because the prisons are too full
it was reported in The Times today, and repeated in The Guardian
A senior crown court judge was quoted by the Times as saying that, from Monday, judges have been ordered/strongly encouraged not to jail someone who appears before them.
Why does someone that has billions of pounds feel that they have to avoid tax?
I will never understand the wealthy.
According to Forbes real time billionaire list, he is the 1038th most wealthy person on the planet with $2.9bn net worth. I guess £650m tax payment will be quite a big hit even for him. But yes, why do it in the first place?
FWIW - at 1203 is a certain Mr Trump with $2.6bn net worth, soon to probably fall a fair bit also. The $2.5-3bn range of worth must be the danger zone to look out for dodgy characters!! Luckily I am not likely to bother that little list in my lifetime!!
I don't get the maths. It is impossible for him to spend a billion: he wouldn't miss - can't possibly miss - a billion. If twelve of his yachts went missing he wouldn't notice unless someone told him.
But that isn't what bothers me - it is the apparent fact that someone with ridiculously unusable amounts of money still lies cheats and steals to get more. And then they will lie cheat and steal to avoid inheritance taxes so the cycle continues in their next generation.
... but if a street corner junkie had stolen a couple of thousand from him, we would cheerfully throw the miscreant in jail; regardless of a senior crown court judge's pontifications or the perp's age/ infirmity.
I don't get the maths. It is impossible for him to spend a billion: he wouldn't miss - can't possibly miss - a billion. If twelve of his yachts went missing he wouldn't notice unless someone told him.
But that isn't what bothers me - it is the apparent fact that someone with ridiculously unusable amounts of money still lies cheats and steals to get more. And then they will lie cheat and steal to avoid inheritance taxes so the cycle continues in their next generation.
... but if a street corner junkie had stolen a couple of thousand from him, we would cheerfully throw the miscreant in jail; regardless of a senior crown court judge's pontifications or the perp's age/ infirmity.
Agreed - that last thought was exactly where my head was at when he pled guilty and we awaited the sentence. Im looking for the guardian or one of the decent papers to write about the injustice of it all , I hope at least that they do.
He DID get a suspended sentence. 17 months suspended for two years (Source BBC News website)
Yes, that's what Jon said right up above initially, he only got a suspended sentence - and probably at least partly because of the timing of incarcerations being forbidden 'temporarily' as of this week.
And, yes, scandalous in a way.
But, to be honest, the country probably needs the money and £653million is a BIG sum, and about half of that is fine.
So, I'm acutally OK with that.....
Personally, I think far more fraud/corporate malfeasance etc should be dealt with by very large fines. Hit them where it hurts. Where it really hurts. Which is the wallet. A couple of friends of mine whom I've known since age 18 or so have gone on to be rich as Croesus - and they would FAR rather have a shortish prison sentence (cut in half with probation) than have a serious dent in their money - no question. (And christ, no, they hate to pay tax,/don't pay tax and it's not because they need the money but because they honestly think they're 'above' it and it's part of the game - i.e. their whole lives is based around financial games so it's become their modus operandus, they'd rather spend £100k on accountants to avoid £50k of tax, because that's the game, and because they think that their money helps stimulate the corporate world, or whatever, whereas tac going into the public sector is just a drain, a swamp).
(And christ, no, they hate to pay tax,/don't pay tax and it's not because they need the money but because they honestly think they're 'above' it and it's part of the game - i.e. their whole lives is based around financial games so it's become their modus operandus, they'd rather spend £100k on accountants to avoid £50k of tax, because that's the game, and because they think that their money helps stimulate the corporate world, or whatever, whereas tac going into the public sector is just a drain, a swamp).
I sort of understand this, but this arrogance has no place in what we call a "representative democracy". We elect representatives to determine how much tax is required to provide how much public service: this is not for the ultra-rich to determine that they know better. I absolutely get that the swamp is considered by some to be a drain, but the tax also pays for the NHS, defence, and other things that "society" relies on: the services that a society provide from taxation are what define the society.
I get that a fine is of more help to society than a prison sentence, but there is no deterrent in a punishment that isn't a punishment: taking (a negligible to him amount of) money from a grasping rich man just encourages him to lie cheat and steal to replace the "missing" money (even though, as you say, it isn't money to them, but a measure of how to "keep score"). By all means take the money, but also impose a realistic punishment - if Forbes reckons he owns £2.9 billion, make the fine £3 billion. Or 30 billion. And no "you can keep your necessary (50 million pound) single house, and strictly required (fourteen Rolls Royce) cars, and limit yourself to one international holiday a week" nonsense. If the family get caught up in the punishment blame the miscreant, not the punishment: the family were also "caught up" in benefiting from the fraud.
You can't have people unilaterally deciding they are 'above' paying tax - although unfortunately it is often the very politicians who vote for and decide the rates and then themselves decide it's not really 'their thing'
Tax is a civic duty, end of. Avoiding tax legally (and not ultra aggressively) is fine - the system is set up to do so and often has encouragements because those reps have decided there are advantages. But simply playing the game to avoid it is despicable.
But the deterrent argument is more nuanced.
Firstly, the deterrence argument of prison doesn't work - that's why the prisons are now full to overflowing and we can't incarcerate any more. You could imprison rapists for 10 years or 20 years, and it won't make any difference to the number of rapes. Same for rich fraudsters (who, by definition, believe they won't be caught, or could move to the Bahamas in time, or whatever)
Paying a significant fine is far more of a deterrent to the people I know. And losing 20% of your wealth is significant, It will really hurt. Not just him but his family (who will be livid). And I know you'll say, he's still got 80% which is a fr*ggin lot. But, from my small experience, it's not the way he'll see it (or his family). Money isn't always about purchase power (although it will also affect this, I can't believe sometimes just HOW much my friends spend) so much as about status, and the goal of a lifetime's work, etc.
In the same way that I wouldn't imprison a rich guy who lied about his tax for life, I wouldn't take away all his assets. It's not as bad as lying about tax AND defundng pension pots AND inflating corporate accounts AND ...AND ... AND i.e. you've got to have a scale.
NB Some Scandinavian countries have a percentage of income approach for crimes which does make sense.
"A Finnish millionaire was slapped with a $130,000 fineapparently the worlds highest everfor driving 30 km/h (18.6mph) over the speed limit in the country, where fines are issued in proportion to income."
Eccelstone will also get a big benefit from pleading guilty. This will have reduced the amount.
And, again, I have no problem with this. It's not really about contrition but more practically - it reduces court time and costs, freeing up the courts for others (and the backlog at the moment is just awful).
It also completely does away with the possibility that, after all the time and expense, he'll be found innocent - which, unfortunately, happens all too often in complicated fraud cases (less likely in straightforward tax cases but still well possible). Juries are swayed and overly influenced by successful, erudite defendants and some people view it as a victimless crime (one jury member after a similar sort of trial even said 'well, it's just money, I'd do it myself if I could' which isn't a good start.....). So he gets credit in his sentence for avoiding all that.
