Check out the thirteenth edition of the MLS Journal Court Reports Magazine Published by Legal RSS.

Read it here 

Reports in this edition include:

• High Court aids professional firm targeted in ransomware cyberattack
• Always back up your digital financial records – Tax Tribunal cautionary tale
• Theme Park operator succeeds in roller coaster personal injury appeal
• “Complicity” in smuggling – a guideline ruling for the haulage industry
• Murderer refused transfer to open prison succeeds in High Court challenge
• Media reporting and the fairness of criminal proceedings – guideline ruling
• ET lay member’s LinkedIn posts give rise to allegations of apparent bias
• High Court declares detention of Russian businessman’s superyacht lawful

 

The Economic Crime Levy (ECL) is an annual charge imposed by the Government on entities (including law firms) who are supervised under the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) and whose UK revenue exceeds £10.2million per year.

As a law firm regulated by the SRA/Law Society, the collection authority responsible for collecting the levy is HMRC. You must register with and pay the ECL to HMRC and once registered, you will need to submit an online return and pay the ECL every year that your firm’s UK revenue exceeds the threshold.

The ECL return must be submitted by 30 September each year.

The amount payable is an annual fixed fee determined by the following bands:
 

ECL band size	UK revenue	ECL fee
Small	under £10.2 million	exempt and no need to register
Medium	£10.2 million to £36 million	£10,000
Large	£36 million to £1 billion	£36,000
Very large	more than £1 billion	£250,000

More details of the registration requirements can be found here

 

With no matches last week there's no change to the top three: Matt Taylor from Eversheds is in the top spot, with Tony Morrissey from 9 St John Street in second place.

Brian Koffman from Brian Koffman & Co remains in third place.

Let's see what this weekend's matches bring...
 

LegalRSS example article
Legal News for your website and social media

Investment schemes offering guaranteed high rates of return may be too good to be true and should always be approached with extreme caution. A High Court case on point concerned a scheme in which retail investors ploughed millions into acquiring rooms in care homes with a view to letting them out at a profit.

After the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) took action with a view to achieving restitution of funds lost by investors, the Court noted that the scheme involved the sale of long leases of care home rooms to private investors. Its operator did not conceal the fact that the rooms were being sold at a substantial overvalue. The apparent sales pitch was that surplus funds would be spent on renewing or refurbishing properties concerned, thereby improving their rental yield.

The offerings, which were presented as buy-to-let investments, typically indicated that investors would receive a guaranteed annual return of 10 per cent during the first 25 years. Investors were further attracted by an indication that, at various points during that period, the operator would be prepared to repurchase their rooms from them for at least 115 per cent of their initial investment. That was whether or not their rooms were actually let and regardless of the commercial performance of underlying care home businesses.

Part of the attraction of the scheme’s model to investors was that it appeared to offer enhanced security. Evidence that long leases of specific rooms had been registered in investors’ names at HM Land Registry gave the appearance of securing at least part of their money.

Ruling on certain preliminary issues in the case, the Court noted that a view was taken that the operator was not required to recognise its obligations to investors under the guarantees as liabilities on its balance sheet. That approach seemed to have been adopted on the basis that those obligations were mere contingencies that might not arise.

Despite having no capital resources, the operator was thus able to raise funds from investors at promised high rates of return without recognising on its balance sheet the liabilities to which the promises made to them gave rise. Had such recognition been given, it would have been transparently clear that, far from being based on a viable financial structure, it was hopelessly balance sheet insolvent.

An important feature of the scheme’s structure was that it required no investment at all from its originator. Because the sales were at an overvalue, each of them created an accounting profit that appeared to constitute capital of the company. Although the operator appeared well capitalised and solvent, in reality it was the investors who were taking all the risk involved in the commercial operation of the properties concerned.

Case notes:
The Financial Conduct Authority v Forster. Case Number: BL-2020-001819

The above article is just one of many produced by LegalRSS in our monthly subscription.

LegalRSS can help you keep your website up to date with articles designed to drive in instructions and client acquisition.
 
If you are interested in finding out more about our service, then please get in touch at info@legalrss.co.uk