Cases - Bark & Co Solicitors - Specialist Fraud Firm

Cases - Bark & Co Solicitors - Specialist Fraud Firm

These are our some of our cases of note:

R v Nadir

Description: Bark & Co have been instructed by the former CEO of Polly Peck International (PPI) in an alleged multi-million pound fraud. The client faced 66 counts of Fraud & Theft, but failed to appear in the 1993 trial. Mr Nadir has returned to the UK to fight to clear his name.

The trial date is now set for January 2012.

Significance: One of the first high profile SFO prosecutions.

R v Ravjani & Others

Bark & Co represented a client accused significant involvement in a complex contra-trading MTIC fraud. The alleged fraud was of a scale that prompted the Government to proffer the case as an explanation as to why the UK balance of payments were adrift for a particular year. Unfortunately, reporting restrictions prevent us from publishing the full outcome at this time.

R v X

Description: This matter involves an insider trading investigation at a number of banks and hedge funds and other large financial institutions conducted by the FSA and SOCA which Reuters reports has “sent shockwaves through the country's financial industry”.

 Significance: This case involves significant press interest and involves the representation of a director at a very high profile financial institution.

R v CC & PF

Description: This case involves the arrest of nine directors of an ethical investment company investing in the energy sector. The value of the alleged fraud, which related to the company’s tax structure, is in excess of £85 million. It raises questions on the differences between tax evasion and tax avoidance. The company obtained tax benefits for research and development in the energy sector and secured investment from 750 specialist private investors. 

Significance: This case will have far reaching consequences for the whole of the ethical carbon offsetting industry, as well as for all companies with similar tax structures. The company in question was advised by tax specialists and lawyers regarding the legislation involved. HMRC allege that the complex nature of the related companies and tax structures were formed for the specific reason of perpetrating a fraud while the company states that they were not only legitimate but standard industry practice.