Opus Cases

R v R

Operation Inertia. £365 million VAT fraud, hailed by HMRC as the largest VAT fraud prosecution brought by them, linked to R v C.

A large scale MTIC fraud involving predominately mobile phones in which Opus Law represented R, a company employee. He was employed by a multi-faceted company whose turn-over was just shy of £2 billion pounds. Opus Law continue to act in the Confiscation Proceedings where the prosecution seek a benefit figure in that sum. This is being heavily contested with the assistance of Mr. Bob Marshall Andrews QC and Mr John Burton QC.

R v C

Operation Fastback. £365 million VAT fraud, hailed by HMRC as the largest VAT fraud prosecution brought by them, linked to R v R.

A large scale MTIC fraud involving mobile phones and computer software, Opus Law represented C, a Company Official of the company set up to perpetrate the fraud. Over a period of 8 months the company purported to buy and sell goods, primarily mobile phones, turning over £2.4 billion pounds. All of the goods were purchased from fictitious missing traders who did not account for the VAT. The fraud caused a loss to the Revenue of about £360 million and has been widely reported as the biggest fraud of its type in UK history. No evidence was ultimately offered against our client.

R v A

Opus Law represented A, a defendant charged with 2 counts of money laundering following a lengthy investigation and involving substantial amounts of cash seized from various properties and other large sums transferred through various bank accounts and used to purchase property. Our client was successfully acquitted on both counts.

R v P

Opus Law represented P in Operation Shootout. A CPS/HMRC prosecution which charged P with 4 others in a £56 million MTIC fraud. Operation Shootout involved the reconstruction of bank accounts which raised novel legal issues, over and above those normally prominent in such highly complex cases. Our client received a sentence of 2 years after we successfully negotiated an agreed basis of plea which included a no hidden assets concession by HMRC.

Opus Law successfully defend Chartered Accountant in disciplinary proceedings

Opus Law are delighted to report that they were able to obtain a favourable judgment following a disciplinary hearing before the tribunal of the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants (ACCA).

We represented 'X' a Fellow of the Association, who was admitted as a Member of ACCA in 1993 and had a previously unblemished disciplinary record. X faced a disciplinary charge of misconduct following his conviction for a criminal offence.

ACCA rules prescribe that any member who is convicted of a criminal offence is automatically guilty of misconduct. An investigation into the misconduct was launched in late 2010. Opus Law put together a comprehensive bundle of documents to assist the tribunal, dealt with all enquiries put forward by the Association, ensured that our costs could be met from X's indemnity insurance and arranged for X to appear by video link at the proceedings, leaving him free to carry on important business in Dubai.

Ian Anderson of Opus Law attended personally on behalf of X to advance mitigation at the hearing, assisted by David Young of 9 Bedford Row Chambers.

The defence team successfully mitigated to the extent that X received a formal reprimand from the disciplinary panel. Vitally, X kept his practicing certificate. We understand that the decision of the tribunal not to suspend or exclude the member from practice was the first outcome of its kind since 2007.

In our experience, many professionals do not seek assistance in relation to disciplinary proceedings either through a lack of understanding that they can have a lawyer present, a feeling of shame that they are before their disciplinary body or worry that the fees will be extortionate. Anecdotal evidence from the case presenting officer appointed by ACCA suggested that up to 80% of individuals before the disciplinary tribunal appeared without legal representation.

At Opus Law we can help any person facing proceedings before a regulatory body. We will explore all funding options and deal with the stress and pressure such proceedings can bring, leaving you free to concentrate on what really matters; running your business. To speak to a lawyer about regulatory and disciplinary representation please contact the telephone number on this website. All calls are confidential.

R v R

Opus Law represented R, a defendant who absconded from his trial for the commercial supply of drugs via his chain of nightclubs 12 years ago, amidst allegations of police corruption at the highest level. The case involved extensive challenge to the integrity of UK government agencies involvement in his repatriation, amidst contested PII issues relating to disclosure of the most politically sensitive nature.

R v H

Opus Law represented a Chartered Accountant who had been charged at Birmingham Crown Court by The Dept for Business Innovation and Skills, (BIS formerly the DTI) with an offence of fraud arising out of his statutory duties as a Company Auditor. The allegation was that he had acted fraudulently and deceptively in relation to fulfilling his functions and duties under the Companies Act. A successful Application was made to stay these proceedings for Abuse of Process.

R v B

One of a number of alcohol diversion fraud cases prosecuted by Revenue and Customs in 1997 and is commonly referred to as the  'Hare Wines' case resulting in a loss of excise duty  in the sum of £35 million.

The prosecution was the first of its kind and due to its size and number of defendants the indictment was split to accomodate a number of trials.

A not guilty verdict was achieved for our client.

R v S

This case followed an investigation by Revenue and Customs known as Operation Elemi involving the allegations of a multi national mobile phone VAT MTIC fraud and the alleged laundering of the proceeds of that fraud through gambling at Casinos in the West Midlands.

R v C, K

The court heard that the organised crime group migrated from smuggling tobacco to "missing trader" and fraud, operated through three Birmingham "front" companies, whose turnover exceeded £185m in just seven months. This led to a parallel, but separate, investigation being launched by Customs officers, who identified more than £200m of missing trader money being laundered through a firm of solicitors.

In the first trial, two of the defendants were found guilty of evading excise duty of £750,000 following the seizure of 2.4 tons of hand-rolling tobacco at Dover. In the second trial, a third pleaded guilty to cheating the public revenue of £5.17m in a missing trader fraud. Charges against both our clients were dismissed.

R v A

£30 million National Crime Squad Prosecution  known as Operation Diorite involving Hawala Banking.

Twenty people were arrested in the UK in an operation by the National Crime Squad, Scotland Yard and West Midlands Police.

Officers believed money was paid into banks in the Midlands from across the UK and was then sent electronically to Hong Kong and other overseas destinations. More than 200 officers were involved in the UK operation - code-named Diorite - and targeted addresses in London, Walsall and Coventry.

They seized up to £150,000 in cash, along with documents and computer equipment.

R v H, B

This case involved allegations by Customs and Excise of the laundering of millions of pounds of money through the Hawala Banking system with funds being sent to Dubai and Pakistan.

Although convicted, both Defendants subsequently had their convictions quashed on appeal and re-trials were ordered. This case involved many complex legal issues, one in the Court of Appeal as a preparatory hearing which dealt with the question of duplicitous counts and the second was the Court of Appeal decision quashing the convictions based upon the required verbal element needed to prove a conspiracy.

R v S, R & K

Involved allegations by Revenue and Customs of the laundering of funds via the Hawala Banking System from the UK to the Middle East and Pakistan for onward transmission to Afghanistan.

An application to dismiss the proceedings was successfully made before trial.

R v P

This case involved allegations of fraud and money laundering against the defendants between December 2002 and December 2004. The fraud revolved around the fraudulent trade in mobile phones and other high value electrical components, commonly known as a Missing Trader Inter Community, or MTIC fraud.

Seven defendants applied to have the case against them stayed as an abuse of the process of the court as material which was disclosable was being withheld, even though the defence knew of its existence.

The Court of Appeal described the prosecutions failings as 'systematic' and as a result the case was stayed.

R v K

This case  was prosecuted by Revenue and Customs involved a Defendant working in an Accountancy Firm processing construction industry tax returns in the sum of £500,000.

The Principal of the company had absconded overseas and left those working in the company to face charges that they had been complicit in his unlawful activity.

Following a three month trial at Southwark Crown Court, this Defendant was acquitted.