Court confiscates £0.5m in fraud case

Order forces forfeiture of Bell probe seized cash

A judge has ruled that almost half a million pounds in cash seized by police at an Island businessman's home, was derived from unlawful activity, and intended for unlawful purposes.

In a summary court judgment, Deputy High Bailiff Alan Gough concluded that was the only credible explanation for the discovery of £484,000 at the Onchan home of Paul Bell, who's suspected of involvement in a large scale VAT fraud in England.

Deputy High Bailiff Gough granted an application from a UK barrister, on behalf of the Attorney General, for the cash to be forfeited under Proceeds of Crime Act powers.

Mr Bell's home was raided by police and customs officials in March 2015, as part of an Isle of Man investigation into alleged money laundering and offences against public justice.

It's alleged Mr Bell presides over an organised crime group suspected of cheating the public revenue through what is described in the judgment as a 'highly organised attack on the UK tax system'. HMRC believe VAT evasion amounts to £21 million.

The court heard he is suspected in the of UK of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime, and in Guernsey of money laundering.

Mr Bell was arrested at Heathrow airport on 18 March 2015, carrying £5,000 cash. Searches at addresses in the UK netted £347,0000, while £16,000 was recovered from Mr Bell's business premises in Douglas.

He has not been charged with any offences, and his counsel argued there was a 'complete absence' of evidence any crime was intended by the use of the cash.

No direct evidence was offered by HMRC, which had 'told its story to Isle of Man officers'.

After a hearing lasting two and a half days, Deputy High Bailiff Gough said no credible explanation as to the provenance of the money had been offered - albeit he accepted Mr Bell may wish to reserve his defence for any future criminal proceedings.

However, in light of the accusations, and that Mr Bell had benefited from the alleged fraud, he concluded he was satisfied the money had been unlawfully obtained and was intended for criminal purposes.  

He ordered all the seized cash be forfeited.