Why hasn't Mick Wallace been arrested for tax evasion?

delad

He openly admitted to fraud on a massive scale, so how come no one is doing anything about it? Can anyone shed any light on this?

MagicSean

Because arresting someone before you have evidence gathered is an exercise in futility. The correct procedure is to gather evodence then arrest and interview them about the evidence.

Unfortunately most people in Ireland are completely ignorant of how a criminal investigation works in the real world.

In any case he has already come to an arrangement with the revenue so he will be given the chance to pay that back.

delad

He says he will probably never pay it back. Meanwhile he was at the champions league final recently, and now flying off to the euros. Its alright for some. The fact that revenue already uncovered the fraud and he admitted it is all the evidence thats needed for an arrest. Even if he did pay back what is owed, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law and should face the consequences like any normal person would.

eager tortoise

MagicSean wrote: »

In any case he has already come to an arrangement with the revenue so he will be given the chance to pay that back.

What about the guy a couple of months back who was given a prison sentence for tax evasion on garlic he was importing from China? He had come to an arrangement also, owing 1.6 million

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0312/1224313154616.html

NIMAN

Cos its another perfect example of us and them.

Different rules for different people.

Sure wasn't he a developer? They are outside the rules and don't have to pay debts, whereas me and you would do time for not paying a TV licence.

BattleCorp

Can't see the difference myself between what Wallace did and what the garlic/apples guy did.

Both told lies to save paying money to the revenue.

beeftotheheels

MagicSean wrote: »

Because arresting someone before you have evidence gathered is an exercise in futility. The correct procedure is to gather evodence then arrest and interview them about the evidence.

Unfortunately most people in Ireland are completely ignorant of how a criminal investigation works in the real world.

In any case he has already come to an arrangement with the revenue so he will be given the chance to pay that back.

Not true (based on what is in the public domain).

He's admitted to knowingly filing an incorrect VAT return which is the offence under TCA 1997 s1078. The VAT return is that of his company which is already insolvent and Revenue aren't a preferred creditor in relation to VAT so we won't get the money back.

Absent going for wrongful trading (which seems feasible if Revenue talk to the DOCE), s1078 doesn't give Revenue the right to seek the back tax and penalties and interest off him (as the director who signed the return), it only provides for criminal sanctions (including imprisonment or fines).

Now, it seems from the numbers that he made an unprompted qualifying disclosure which mitigated the Revenue penalties under the TCA.

But Revenue could still seek action under s1078 which provides for imprisonment up to 12 months (remember 6mth is the magic number for him being eligible to keep his seat if not declared bankrupt which is the alternative option for Revenue (or indeed his banks)).

He's admitted to knowingly filing the wrongful return which is the offence. We don't need to pretend that we need to give any investigation time here. The offence is simple and he's admitted it to the press.

The only problem is with prosecuting people who make unprompted qualifying disclosures. It might dissuade any future such disclosures by other taxpayers (including those who might be capable of paying back the taxes, penalties and interest).

This is principle vs pragmatism. On this one alone I'd err towards pragmatism and not go for the criminal prosecution (much more so than Lowrey, at least it is feasible that Wallace thought he might have been protecting jobs) but at some stage Ireland has to come out in favor of protecting principles, in favor of actually having principles. I wouldn't shed a tear if this was that instance.

The law has to mean something, and for that, the law has to be applied.