Piermario Porcheddu (Baker & McKenzie) reflects on practical considerations for corporates following Ivey.
Following Charles Yorke’s analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 (Tax Journal 17 November 2017) this article sets out some of the practical implications for businesses grappling with the new corporate criminal offence (CCO). The impact of the court’s criticism (and abandonment) of the second limb of the test for dishonesty (did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?) could be particularly significant; namely it could allow defendants with warped standards of honesty (e.g. Robin Hood) to be acquitted.
A useful starting point is to remind ourselves of the three main elements of the CCO which are:
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Piermario Porcheddu (Baker & McKenzie) reflects on practical considerations for corporates following Ivey.
Following Charles Yorke’s analysis of the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 (Tax Journal 17 November 2017) this article sets out some of the practical implications for businesses grappling with the new corporate criminal offence (CCO). The impact of the court’s criticism (and abandonment) of the second limb of the test for dishonesty (did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard the conduct as dishonest?) could be particularly significant; namely it could allow defendants with warped standards of honesty (e.g. Robin Hood) to be acquitted.
A useful starting point is to remind ourselves of the three main elements of the CCO which are:
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes: