Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
14 Jan 26
13:01
Joined:
Date Joined:
22 Oct 02
According to the RP gets discharged from bankruptcy Saint Patricks day. How is it possible he doesn't have to repay HMRC debt so soon; it's not as if he is not earning?
Show More
At least he never gave them a cheque from an account he hid from them!!
They may be well established but it doesn’t make it any easier to swallow.
It’s ridiculous that a director of a firm can rack up massive debts, probably sending other firms into the mire at the same time, yet their personal fortune remains untouched.
It’s like a get out of jail card. If you do well you’ll prosper. If you fail then it doesn’t matter. Your creditors will take the hit. Shame on Frankie.
It’s ridiculous that a director of a firm can rack up massive debts, probably sending other firms into the mire at the same time, yet their personal fortune remains untouched.
It’s like a get out of jail card. If you do well you’ll prosper. If you fail then it doesn’t matter. Your creditors will take the hit. Shame on Frankie.
Lots of flip side to that kenbo, not many people would want to own a business where their own house is on the table for creditors. Some things are completely out of our control that can finish a business, eg bad debts!
It's far easier to recover debts from a ltd, as long as they are liquid. eg unpaid wages.
Obviously it cuts both ways. And limited you are expected to publish your accounts.
It's far easier to recover debts from a ltd, as long as they are liquid. eg unpaid wages.
Obviously it cuts both ways. And limited you are expected to publish your accounts.
Definitely not comparing to the great Lester......but similar to a point
Lester was a mean person who hated parting with any money at all but was undoubtedly the greatest Jockey ever,Horatio
...would not disagree with a single word there UTI...My Dad adored him to the point of having pictures of his rides on his front room wall. Also said he was tighter than a fat blokes zipper.
I can appreciate that, Cider.
Still pretty irksome though. Morally bankrupt!!!
Still pretty irksome though. Morally bankrupt!!!
think of the kids in private schools, bankruptcies considered a right of passage as compared to stigma of free school meals/breakfast clubs etc,
Stand by all.....Glen will be here with all of the legal loopholes that nobody else knows....Only Glen.
Although hard to stomach, free enterprise would not work unless limited companies existed.
But what annoys me is when dogy ideas are put under the banner of a limited company so the owner can escape debt retrieval if it all goes belly up. Frankie has probably allowed the latter to happen through trusting cowboy advisors.
He would do his image a great deal of good if he laid bare his personal financial situation and, if he still has big money and assets to his name, made a reasonable sized payment to the HMRC out of it.
But what annoys me is when dogy ideas are put under the banner of a limited company so the owner can escape debt retrieval if it all goes belly up. Frankie has probably allowed the latter to happen through trusting cowboy advisors.
He would do his image a great deal of good if he laid bare his personal financial situation and, if he still has big money and assets to his name, made a reasonable sized payment to the HMRC out of it.
There is more chance of Aceform winning on the year,The Knight
No, two hopes. No hope and Bob Hope!!!
Imagine if, down the line, Frankie gets a job as an ITV Racing pundit. #
HMRC spend big money with ITV advertising their latest wheezes - so how ironic ITV taking HMRC money while then paying a bloke out of it who has stuffed the HMRC for 3/4 million!
You could not make this country up now, such is its pure stupidity.
Imagine if, down the line, Frankie gets a job as an ITV Racing pundit. #
HMRC spend big money with ITV advertising their latest wheezes - so how ironic ITV taking HMRC money while then paying a bloke out of it who has stuffed the HMRC for 3/4 million!
You could not make this country up now, such is its pure stupidity.
Both of the Dettori companies effectively operated as tax avoidance schemes - several million were paid in originating from various forms on income received by Dettori - then payment paid out to a 'trust' that on turn paid out money to a third party - when the HMRC ruled that the schemes were illegal after several years of dispute - tax was levied on the original revenues - however the companies had no assets because they had already vanished off to the trust. You may well ask where the money is now. I could not personally comment.
Possibly comment ;)
Similar to the bbc ruse.
Shell companies aren't illegal per se. It still stands that there is no personal liability related to a company. The activities of a company could be illegal.
Similar to the bbc ruse.
Shell companies aren't illegal per se. It still stands that there is no personal liability related to a company. The activities of a company could be illegal.
It's unacceptable for Dettori to swindle HMRC off £750k given the colossal financial benefit he derives from horseracing, then cosily hiding behind a bankruptcy engineered solely to facilitate his nest egg.
Shame on Mr Dettori. He ought to be persona non grata in the horseracing circle and racecourses.
Shame on Mr Dettori. He ought to be persona non grata in the horseracing circle and racecourses.
a horrible little person, will be lauded etc by itv during royal ascot again this june
Like him or not sad to see such a figure in a position like this, where did all his money go
bellico, I know it's awful, to think that once he's paid his debts he'll be living in Cardboard City.
The BBC has set aside up to £12m to pay off the past tax liabilities of BBC presenters being pursued by HMRC for tax avoidance using personal service companies, the latest BBC annual report has revealed.
However, the National Audit Office (NAO) has questioned whether the payments are a legitimate use of BBC funds, and has issued a qualified opinion of the BBC accounts as a result.
The NAO highlights the difficulties that the BBC and other organisations have got into when seeking to avoid tax, and the thorny issue of who pays when tax avoidance schemes go wrong.
The BBC started to employ presenters via personal service companies from the late 1990s. A personal service company is a company that is set up to manage the affairs of an employee. Instead of contracting with the employee directly, the BBC contracted with their company.
This benefited the BBC because it would mean that the employee would be responsible for their tax affairs, and the corporation would no longer need to operate PAYE or pay employers national insurance. The presenter could minimise their tax payments by paying themselves a small wage through their company and receiving the rest of their income in dividends. This had a substantial tax benefit.
The BBC got into these kinds of arrangements in a big way. Previously the BBC has said that 800 of their presenters were at risk of tax investigations by HMRC, 300 of them for their use of personal service companies.
The other 500 were employed as freelancers through other schemes not involving personal services companies which the BBC is now also facing a large bill for. It is not made clear in the BBC annual accounts the nature of these schemes, however, it is possible that these are the kind of loan based tax avoidance schemes now being caught by the HMRC Loan Charge. It is also not clear what the liability is on these schemes. The total tax and litigation provision in the BBC accounts is £40m, this includes other money set aside for other issues and the £12m for liabilities arising from the personal service company schemes.
In the case of presenters that did not use a personal service company, the issue is quite straight forward. The presenters should have been considered as BBC employees and the Corporation should have operated a PAYE system. In these cases the BBC has agreed to pay the bill.
Doesn't excuse FD, but he is not uniquely culpable.
However, the National Audit Office (NAO) has questioned whether the payments are a legitimate use of BBC funds, and has issued a qualified opinion of the BBC accounts as a result.
The NAO highlights the difficulties that the BBC and other organisations have got into when seeking to avoid tax, and the thorny issue of who pays when tax avoidance schemes go wrong.
The BBC started to employ presenters via personal service companies from the late 1990s. A personal service company is a company that is set up to manage the affairs of an employee. Instead of contracting with the employee directly, the BBC contracted with their company.
This benefited the BBC because it would mean that the employee would be responsible for their tax affairs, and the corporation would no longer need to operate PAYE or pay employers national insurance. The presenter could minimise their tax payments by paying themselves a small wage through their company and receiving the rest of their income in dividends. This had a substantial tax benefit.
The BBC got into these kinds of arrangements in a big way. Previously the BBC has said that 800 of their presenters were at risk of tax investigations by HMRC, 300 of them for their use of personal service companies.
The other 500 were employed as freelancers through other schemes not involving personal services companies which the BBC is now also facing a large bill for. It is not made clear in the BBC annual accounts the nature of these schemes, however, it is possible that these are the kind of loan based tax avoidance schemes now being caught by the HMRC Loan Charge. It is also not clear what the liability is on these schemes. The total tax and litigation provision in the BBC accounts is £40m, this includes other money set aside for other issues and the £12m for liabilities arising from the personal service company schemes.
In the case of presenters that did not use a personal service company, the issue is quite straight forward. The presenters should have been considered as BBC employees and the Corporation should have operated a PAYE system. In these cases the BBC has agreed to pay the bill.
Doesn't excuse FD, but he is not uniquely culpable.
Sports presenter Gary Lineker has won his appeal against HMRC over a £4.9m tax bill.
The UK tax authority pursued the star over taxes on income from both the BBC and BT Sport from 2013 to 2014 and 2017 to 2018.
Lineker presents BBC's Match of the Day and used to also work for BT Sport.
HMRC said he was an employee of both broadcasters but a judge has now ruled he was a freelancer and had contracts with both broadcasters.
"The effect of my conclusions is that because there were direct contracts, between the BBC and Mr Lineker and BT Sport and Mr Lineker, the intermediaries legislation (IR35) does not, and cannot as a matter of law, apply," Tribunal Judge Brooks said in a statement.
"Accordingly, and notwithstanding GLM (Gary Lineker Media) being a partnership, that is the end of the matter and the appeal succeeds."
Mr Lineker wrote on social media, external: "I had already paid all tax due at the top rate and happily so. I'm totally flabbergasted as to why I was expected to pay double. Thankfully justice was done."
IR35 is designed to clampdown on tax avoidance by so-called disguised employees, who charge for their services via limited companies.
Gary Lineker cried over Wright and Shearer support
Gary Lineker to return as BBC denies climbdown
Lineker revolt becomes a test of BBC's values
Throughout proceedings, the presenter, 62, insisted all taxes were paid on the income via a partnership (GLM) set up in 2012 with his ex-wife Danielle Bux.
The case follows similar attempts by HMRC to target other broadcasters including Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams.
Earlier tribunal documents said Mr Lineker was disputing the bill and it had been agreed he paid the income tax in full.
Last month Mr Lineker's lawyer James Rivett KC told a preliminary hearing in London that the star had been "dragged through the papers accused of not paying income tax which has been paid", and claimed there was a political element to the investigations.
Following the ruling an HMRC spokesperson said: "The tribunal has confirmed the off-payroll rules apply to partnerships, as we have always said.
"However, we do not agree with its decision that the rules cannot apply in this case and we're considering an appeal.
"It is our duty to ensure everyone pays the right tax under the law, regardless of wealth or status."
HMRC has 56 days to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
hmmm
The UK tax authority pursued the star over taxes on income from both the BBC and BT Sport from 2013 to 2014 and 2017 to 2018.
Lineker presents BBC's Match of the Day and used to also work for BT Sport.
HMRC said he was an employee of both broadcasters but a judge has now ruled he was a freelancer and had contracts with both broadcasters.
"The effect of my conclusions is that because there were direct contracts, between the BBC and Mr Lineker and BT Sport and Mr Lineker, the intermediaries legislation (IR35) does not, and cannot as a matter of law, apply," Tribunal Judge Brooks said in a statement.
"Accordingly, and notwithstanding GLM (Gary Lineker Media) being a partnership, that is the end of the matter and the appeal succeeds."
Mr Lineker wrote on social media, external: "I had already paid all tax due at the top rate and happily so. I'm totally flabbergasted as to why I was expected to pay double. Thankfully justice was done."
IR35 is designed to clampdown on tax avoidance by so-called disguised employees, who charge for their services via limited companies.
Gary Lineker cried over Wright and Shearer support
Gary Lineker to return as BBC denies climbdown
Lineker revolt becomes a test of BBC's values
Throughout proceedings, the presenter, 62, insisted all taxes were paid on the income via a partnership (GLM) set up in 2012 with his ex-wife Danielle Bux.
The case follows similar attempts by HMRC to target other broadcasters including Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams.
Earlier tribunal documents said Mr Lineker was disputing the bill and it had been agreed he paid the income tax in full.
Last month Mr Lineker's lawyer James Rivett KC told a preliminary hearing in London that the star had been "dragged through the papers accused of not paying income tax which has been paid", and claimed there was a political element to the investigations.
Following the ruling an HMRC spokesperson said: "The tribunal has confirmed the off-payroll rules apply to partnerships, as we have always said.
"However, we do not agree with its decision that the rules cannot apply in this case and we're considering an appeal.
"It is our duty to ensure everyone pays the right tax under the law, regardless of wealth or status."
HMRC has 56 days to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
hmmm
frankies political hero is mussolini i heard
surely it's Gary, he got away with it.
surely it's Gary, he got away with it.
Superb Jockey , selfish human being .Pity the TV media give him such an easy time !
Chapman early favourite for the 'I did nothing wrong and I'm really a great person' interview.
Pretendee likeable chap. I find him fake and he without doubt he has an agenda.
He will be on the "Dave Chiznall" before we know it....
He will be on the "Dave Chiznall" before we know it....
Mjk spot on ,everbody pays there fair share says rachel from accounts so why not flankie
Clearly, some of you not understand the concept of limited liabilities
He's earned many multiples of his tax bill. As such, I think he should have paid HMRC what he owes legally. And, to use the bankruptcy route - a convenient but legal - to avoid payment shows he's chosen self-interest before the correct moral and responsibility to UK Plc as a resident.
And,top of the list is implausible who consistently remains as thick as an elephants trunk
7 % of lifetime earnings in racing…..probably around 10 million…..creepy hog….
And that’s only prize money…..earnings for rides another lorry load….
Dreadful thing greed…..
Dreadful thing greed…..
Why is there not a Guantanamo for high-worth tax dodgers? I cannot think of a better deterrent.
Really sad that the 2 best jockeys in my adult life have ended up either broke (Dettori) or in jail (Piggott) It does not detract from their riding ability for me though. Just makes me sad that they end up in disgrace.
Countless sports people earned funny money and ended up without a bolt…..
Is there any particular point that you are trying to make,Aceform or is this one of your usual meaningless rants?
formoftheace • January 15, 2026 7:43 PM GMT
Fk off ……idiot.
The response of a moron with no argument to make.
Under Company Law he owes F/A you utter cretin
Fk off ……idiot.
The response of a moron with no argument to make.
Under Company Law he owes F/A you utter cretin
A certainty no UK honour will be awarded for his contribution to horseracing in the near or middle term. However, he does have one already eg a ban for taking cocaine.
But, not paying income tax on money earned easily eg through mega prize money, no hard or manual labour, not paid minimum wage, etc, is unforgivable and affront to society and every paye taxpayers.
But, not paying income tax on money earned easily eg through mega prize money, no hard or manual labour, not paid minimum wage, etc, is unforgivable and affront to society and every paye taxpayers.
Cider misunderstands the history of limited liability.
It was never meant to be a tax dodge for the earnings of individuals.
It was never meant to be a tax dodge for the earnings of individuals.
Since I'm qualified, that's unlikely 
It's a fact that there is no standard personal liability with limited companies.
Advisers have sought to take advantage of the opportunities that the taxation system provides, for time immemorial. In the UK, sometimes HMRC permits activity and retrospectively determines that it's wrong. Is that fair or not, praps not.
There are not many adults in Britain who do not seek to limit their own tax liabilities, using every option available to them. Certainly I do not. Certainly not our current virtue signalling leader.
Anyhow, I don't have enough insight into FD's affairs to make any conclusions outside of what's already in the public domain. It would be pretty interesting to see how much tax he actually has contributed as an individual, and indirectly via business operations. Rather than what he hasn't.
It's a fact that there is no standard personal liability with limited companies.
Advisers have sought to take advantage of the opportunities that the taxation system provides, for time immemorial. In the UK, sometimes HMRC permits activity and retrospectively determines that it's wrong. Is that fair or not, praps not.
There are not many adults in Britain who do not seek to limit their own tax liabilities, using every option available to them. Certainly I do not. Certainly not our current virtue signalling leader.
Anyhow, I don't have enough insight into FD's affairs to make any conclusions outside of what's already in the public domain. It would be pretty interesting to see how much tax he actually has contributed as an individual, and indirectly via business operations. Rather than what he hasn't.
It was originally introduced to allow companies to grow without individuals facing losing everything if they went bust. For instance centuries ago if I had 1% of the shares in a company if it went bust then I stood to lose everything. Clearly I wouldn't buy such shares as it would be too risky. The economy would therefore have stagnated.
You may be a qualified accountant but I suspect you haven't a dgree in Economic History.
You're living in a sparkling cider bubble.
You may be a qualified accountant but I suspect you haven't a dgree in Economic History.
You're living in a sparkling cider bubble.
I wrote a reply and the f u k k i n g AI deleted it again. So I am not typing it out again 
Your understanding isn't any different to mine.
When dividend tax is lower than income tax, of course advisers will seek to channel income though a company, where possible. It can be achieved in more than one way.
I don't suppose banks offer switching bonuses so that customers can switch away again after a month, and get another bonus from a different institution. But I have done that over 10 times and done absolutely nothing wrong.
Seems to me you are confusing morality with compliance. Do limited companies exist so that individuals can mitigate their personal tax liabilities occurring within their own affairs. Absolutely not. Can individuals legitimately use limited companies to mitigate their personal tax liabilities. Absolutely.
Your understanding isn't any different to mine.
When dividend tax is lower than income tax, of course advisers will seek to channel income though a company, where possible. It can be achieved in more than one way.
I don't suppose banks offer switching bonuses so that customers can switch away again after a month, and get another bonus from a different institution. But I have done that over 10 times and done absolutely nothing wrong.
Seems to me you are confusing morality with compliance. Do limited companies exist so that individuals can mitigate their personal tax liabilities occurring within their own affairs. Absolutely not. Can individuals legitimately use limited companies to mitigate their personal tax liabilities. Absolutely.
How'd the company setup by Dettori to manage his professional affairs end up owing money to a car leasing company and HMRC? There were no unforeseen economic factors involved eg Covid, adverse weather, Foot and Mouth, etc. He was in constant employment throughout eg no suspension, no injury or sacking.
I think someone could have been channelling or funnelling money earned to spend on private indulgences not relating to his profession eg investment, buying expensive designer gear and motors, etc.
I think someone could have been channelling or funnelling money earned to spend on private indulgences not relating to his profession eg investment, buying expensive designer gear and motors, etc.
How do you think? The inflows ceased. The businesses still have outstanding liabilities.
He went on "I am a Celebrity get me out of here" to nick a few quid and boost his ratings.
Got voted out first.
Even the Glad Wags and Chav Dads could see through the veneer.
Got voted out first.
Even the Glad Wags and Chav Dads could see through the veneer.
A lot of the halo polishing is off the scale, but in their own lives there aren't too many people that wilfully pay more tax than they absolutely have to. Of course, there are millions of people who lack the acumen to take advantage of all of the opportunities proffered. And can't afford advisers. I try to do something about that, in my own little modest way :)
But he was still getting a regular mega flow of income from horseracing. The business of Detorri is unlike a retail company with variable overheads and costs. The incomes of Dettori were pretty much fixed eg riding fees, public appearances, share of prize money, etc. If there was a significant negative change in income the company should have been dissolved asap.
I'm astounded Dettori would choose bankruptcy over reputation and standing in the horseracing arena and community despite earning many, many more times than what's owed to HMRC.
I'm astounded Dettori would choose bankruptcy over reputation and standing in the horseracing arena and community despite earning many, many more times than what's owed to HMRC.
Bankruptsy seems a useful tool. A restaurant part owned by
Phil Neville has gone bust owing 500k tax. I don't think it
will affect him or his other businesses.
Phil Neville has gone bust owing 500k tax. I don't think it
will affect him or his other businesses.
Let's hope Phil Neville has lost more than £500k of his own money unless his creditors were blind and foolish enough to give credit willingly because it was Phil Neville.
Neville owns half of Manchester apparently, so I'm sure the huge Labour supporter and chief virtue signaller will cover the debts with HMRC his business racked up with his pocket change.
I'm more concerned about the smaller creditors eg suppliers of ingredients and drinks, staff, etc. The losses incurred by Gary and/or Phil Neville are tax deductible which will no doubt be used efficiently by their accountants.
At least these seem to be legitimate businesses,unlike Dettori's
whist that's true Salmon there will be far more people affected who can't afford to lose the money owed to them by Neville's operation
plus they have the double whammy of paying for goods themselves prior to supplying the Psycho Sandbar
HMRC will carry on as normal and the car leasing firm will get their vehicle back (I would imagine)
plus they have the double whammy of paying for goods themselves prior to supplying the Psycho Sandbar
HMRC will carry on as normal and the car leasing firm will get their vehicle back (I would imagine)
The front was a legitimate business. But so were FD's. Most 'stars' operate their affairs via limited entities.
You're already into interesting territory when a business (such as 'Relentless Leisure Limited' 'owes' another business £100's. When the owner of one of them was a director of another.
You're already into interesting territory when a business (such as 'Relentless Leisure Limited' 'owes' another business £100's. When the owner of one of them was a director of another.
How much has gone the other way. What for. What price. Was it real activity.
I think HMRC ought to wise up and consider charging an agreed tax upfront on any venture fronted by a known face (or name) without an established trading history in the field. Otherwise, this will be opened to abuse on a regular basis esp if the known face is being paid or has benefits eg usage and hospitality of the venture, etc.
The taxpayers and small creditors must not be repeatedly left holding the rotten / rotting apple.
The taxpayers and small creditors must not be repeatedly left holding the rotten / rotting apple.
happened to me over 30 years ago so absolutely nothing has changed - the company that went under owing us (a partnership with employees)
approx £15k (roughly equivalent to £40k today)
they started up again the following week under new name slight change in directors and walked away virtually scot-free Im led to believe
meanwhile we never recovered and went under 2 years later - HMRC showed us absolutely no mercy...
approx £15k (roughly equivalent to £40k today)
they started up again the following week under new name slight change in directors and walked away virtually scot-free Im led to believe
meanwhile we never recovered and went under 2 years later - HMRC showed us absolutely no mercy...
Their savagery knows no bounds. You have my sympathy.
It is one of the things which I despise about the POTUS. I believe he has been bankrupt five times - by plan/design I assume. How many livelihoods and lives has that bsstrd blighted? And will he care? Not a jot!
It is one of the things which I despise about the POTUS. I believe he has been bankrupt five times - by plan/design I assume. How many livelihoods and lives has that bsstrd blighted? And will he care? Not a jot!
I don't know the US system, but here most people vastly overestimate the impact of BR. I think many still believe it's akin to being put in the stocks. In reality it's another scenario of the least worst option. Most people would also be astonished in regard to what is considered as reasonable living expenses.
TORYGRAPH reporting on dettori been investigated by HMRC for another tax avoidance case , could yet be riding in THE SLOP OUT STAKES
Frankie Dettori's bankruptcy has been extended by 12 months with the former rider said on Thursday to have not complied with orders requiring him to give full disclosure of his assets.
Stefan Ramel, for the trustees, told the court Dettori “has not complied and is still not complying” with requests for information about his assets, including whether he owns properties abroad.
Nicholas Briggs, chief insolvency and companies court judge, ruled that the order would remain in place until March 16 next year, adding it was “not an unrealistic period” given the “blatant failure” by Dettori to provide information when asked. He said: “There is much to uncover in this bankruptcy, and it may well be that criminal sanctions will be a useful tool for the trustees.”
Dettori did not appear at the hearing and was not represented.
I used to love Dettori the jockey and can't believe he does not care a jot about his reputation in the UK. In reality just another taker...
Stefan Ramel, for the trustees, told the court Dettori “has not complied and is still not complying” with requests for information about his assets, including whether he owns properties abroad.
Nicholas Briggs, chief insolvency and companies court judge, ruled that the order would remain in place until March 16 next year, adding it was “not an unrealistic period” given the “blatant failure” by Dettori to provide information when asked. He said: “There is much to uncover in this bankruptcy, and it may well be that criminal sanctions will be a useful tool for the trustees.”
Dettori did not appear at the hearing and was not represented.
I used to love Dettori the jockey and can't believe he does not care a jot about his reputation in the UK. In reality just another taker...
Frankie Dettori's bankruptcy has been extended by 12 months with the former rider said on Thursday to have not complied with orders requiring him to give full disclosure of his assets.
Dettori, who retired last month, was made bankrupt in March last year and had been due to be automatically discharged on March 17.
However, at a hearing in the specialist insolvency court in London on Thursday, an application was made by the trustees overseeing the process to extend the bankruptcy for a further year.
Frankie Dettori unable to pay £765,000 tax debt following liquidation of legendary jockey's companies
Frankie Dettori 'saddened and embarrassed' after revealing he is filing for bankruptcy
Stefan Ramel, for the trustees, told the court Dettori “has not complied and is still not complying” with requests for information about his assets, including whether he owns properties abroad.
Dettori did not appear at the hearing and was not represented.
Nicholas Briggs, chief insolvency and companies court judge, ruled that the order would remain in place until March 16 next year, adding it was “not an unrealistic period” given the “blatant failure” by Dettori to provide information when asked.
He said: “There is much to uncover in this bankruptcy, and it may well be that criminal sanctions will be a useful tool for the trustees.”
Frankie Dettori:
Frankie Dettori: filed for bankruptcy last March
Credit: Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
Dettori had told the bankruptcy trustees in December that he “did not” own properties abroad, but was later discovered to have “a number of properties that had not been disclosed to the trustees, in particular in France and Italy”.
Judge Briggs also raised “other concerns” about disclosure of assets, including a Piaget watch, a wine collection worth around £70,000 and investments worth around £365,000.
Dettori entered bankruptcy last year having been involved in a “tax avoidance scheme”. In a statement at the time, he said he was “saddened and embarrassed” having been put in the position by a previous financial adviser, who had since left him.
In January, an update on the liquidation of his companies, Frankie Dettori Limited and Newmarket Activities Limited, showed the companies had an outstanding debt of £765,000 to HM Revenue and Customs that would not be repaid unless there were changes during the investigations.
Dettori, who retired last month, was made bankrupt in March last year and had been due to be automatically discharged on March 17.
However, at a hearing in the specialist insolvency court in London on Thursday, an application was made by the trustees overseeing the process to extend the bankruptcy for a further year.
Frankie Dettori unable to pay £765,000 tax debt following liquidation of legendary jockey's companies
Frankie Dettori 'saddened and embarrassed' after revealing he is filing for bankruptcy
Stefan Ramel, for the trustees, told the court Dettori “has not complied and is still not complying” with requests for information about his assets, including whether he owns properties abroad.
Dettori did not appear at the hearing and was not represented.
Nicholas Briggs, chief insolvency and companies court judge, ruled that the order would remain in place until March 16 next year, adding it was “not an unrealistic period” given the “blatant failure” by Dettori to provide information when asked.
He said: “There is much to uncover in this bankruptcy, and it may well be that criminal sanctions will be a useful tool for the trustees.”
Frankie Dettori:
Frankie Dettori: filed for bankruptcy last March
Credit: Edward Whitaker (racingpost.com/photos)
Dettori had told the bankruptcy trustees in December that he “did not” own properties abroad, but was later discovered to have “a number of properties that had not been disclosed to the trustees, in particular in France and Italy”.
Judge Briggs also raised “other concerns” about disclosure of assets, including a Piaget watch, a wine collection worth around £70,000 and investments worth around £365,000.
Dettori entered bankruptcy last year having been involved in a “tax avoidance scheme”. In a statement at the time, he said he was “saddened and embarrassed” having been put in the position by a previous financial adviser, who had since left him.
In January, an update on the liquidation of his companies, Frankie Dettori Limited and Newmarket Activities Limited, showed the companies had an outstanding debt of £765,000 to HM Revenue and Customs that would not be repaid unless there were changes during the investigations.
Q Why did Boris Becker go to prison?
AI Overview
Former tennis star Boris Becker was jailed in April 2022 for 2.5 years for hiding £2.5 million in assets and loans to avoid paying debts following his 2017 bankruptcy. He was found guilty of four charges under the Insolvency Act, including transferring, concealing, and failing to disclose assets, before being released in December 2022 after serving eight months.
Key Details of the Conviction:
Asset Hiding: Becker failed to declare a £1 million property in his hometown of Leimen, Germany, a £700,000 bank loan, and shares in a tech firm.
Illegal Transactions: He transferred hundreds of thousands of pounds from his business account to other parties.
Context: The conviction followed a 2017 bankruptcy related to an unpaid loan of over £3 million on a property in Mallorca. .
Sentence & Release: He was sentenced to 30 months but served only eight months in HMP Wandsworth and HMP Huntercombe before being deported to Germany.
AI Overview
Former tennis star Boris Becker was jailed in April 2022 for 2.5 years for hiding £2.5 million in assets and loans to avoid paying debts following his 2017 bankruptcy. He was found guilty of four charges under the Insolvency Act, including transferring, concealing, and failing to disclose assets, before being released in December 2022 after serving eight months.
Key Details of the Conviction:
Asset Hiding: Becker failed to declare a £1 million property in his hometown of Leimen, Germany, a £700,000 bank loan, and shares in a tech firm.
Illegal Transactions: He transferred hundreds of thousands of pounds from his business account to other parties.
Context: The conviction followed a 2017 bankruptcy related to an unpaid loan of over £3 million on a property in Mallorca. .
Sentence & Release: He was sentenced to 30 months but served only eight months in HMP Wandsworth and HMP Huntercombe before being deported to Germany.
Im sure there will be inmates round the country rubbing there hands @ the possibility of riding a Deby Winner
Yes they will find the hidden funds allegedly lol, he thinks he is clever but they have hidden means to explore and they will find it, stupid to think otherwise unless he has put properties in someone else’s name more than 7 years ago, he could have paid it, it’s not like he hasn’t earned multi multi millions and people can estimate how much he earns from prize money won, they can extend it for years to come so he ain’t clever at all imo
Dettori was a topic on talking points on Luck on Sunday and Luck bottled it, topic finished after Malone said it was very sad
RTV is not the BF Forum where people feel free to make slanderous allegations nearly every day,MrC
Not declaring or hiding is worse than being found out and a penalty imposed. The penalty for the former is usually much severe than the latter.
Mr Dettori is unwise, and greedy man.
Mr Dettori is unwise, and greedy man.
RTV is not the BF Forum where people feel free to make slanderous allegations nearly every day,MrC
Any broadcaster should be able to cope with that.
It's funny how those 'rules' are applied for some people and not others. They could, for example, easily have read out the key elements of what was published.
Any broadcaster should be able to cope with that.
It's funny how those 'rules' are applied for some people and not others. They could, for example, easily have read out the key elements of what was published.
The chief gob shyte champagne socialist [Channing] would ordinarily be very vocal on such matters.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539