Jump to Navigation

Jenny Goldring

Year of Call: 1993

Jenny is an experienced criminal practitioner. She has prosecuted and defended in a wide range of criminal cases and now focuses upon complex fraud work.

Over the past 8-10 years, she has been primarily involved in the Prosecution of a number of multi handed MTIC frauds. The average loss to the Revenue in the cases in which she has been involved is in the region of £50 million.

She also has conducted numerous money laundering and confiscation cases.

In addition, Jenny has been instructed in many other fraud cases both as a junior and in her own right including Inland Revenue self assessment fraud, insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, advance fee fraud and complex excise fraud.

More recently she has used the experience gleaned from the Prosecution of MTIC fraud to represent the Commissioners of HMRC in the First-tier Tax Tribunal. This work concerns companies appealing against decisions by HMRC to deny their input tax. Jenny has been instructed in her own right in one case in which the appeal was withdrawn, and in another case, in which judgment is pending.

Education / Qualifications

MA

Jurisprudence
(St Anne's College, Oxford University)

Cases of Note

  • R -v- Clodd Broom T20021357 (Crown Court)
    This was an MTIC (missing trader intra community) fraud. It was a large scale VAT fraud which involved the importation of mobile telephones into this country from the European Community. £39 million of VAT was evaded on the supply or purported supply of these mobile phones. During the course of the Trial, the Prosecution successfully resisted legal argument re the VAT Tribunal Bond House case.
  • R -v- Jones and Woolley T20038237 (Crown Court)
    This was another MTIC fraud which concerned the evasion of £59 million VAT. The confiscation hearing led to total orders in the region of £5 million.
  • R v Meehan McAllister, Singh and Burch (Crown Court) [Operation Maypole and Lychees and Drive Part 1 and Part 2] This was a £58 million MTIC fraud which was split in to 2 Trials, with 9 Defendants, 400 pages witness statements and 40,000 pages of exhibits. The principal, Mr Hening received the largest sentence in an MTIC fraud, namely 15 years.
  • R -v- Nathan & Herbert (Crown Court)
    This was a money laundering case which concerned a Solicitor laundering payments which had originated from a VAT Fraud. The amount concerned was approximately £600,000. The money was either converted into cash or transferred to a Swiss bank account.
  • R -v- Hadley & Harmer T20027127 (Crown Court) This was a money laundering case [over £1 million] Expert evidence was called from forensic accountants.
  • R -v- Jones & Morrissey T20040912 (Crown Court) This was a money laundering case which was an offshoot of an MTIC fraud. The amount of money involved was in the region of £300,000. There were foreign assets involved, namely property in Spain held in trust under company names, to conceal the ownership. There was a confiscation order in the region of £200,000.
  • R -v- Skidmore and Ors T20002534 (Crown Court) The fraud concerned the evasion of £40 million VAT. It involved the importation of computer parts from America and Hong Kong. The goods were undervalued and mis-described when they were imported in to the United Kingdom. The Defendants paid the VAT on the false low value declared to Customs and Excise as opposed to the true high value of the goods. The goods were then sold on at their true value charging VAT on the true value. There was a subsequent money laundering prosecution which arose out of the above case.
  • R v Omar [2005] Crim App R (S) Junior Counsel for the Crown in a case concerning the lifting of the corporate veil in confiscation proceedings and the implications for realisable assets.
  • R -v- Elda Beguinua T20070643 (Crown Court) This case concerned a woman who purported to be the heiress to a multi million pound fortune in order to persuade others to lend her money to release that fortune. The case received substantial publicity. A confiscation order was made in a sum just under £1 million.
  • R-v- Chen This case was a £7 million mortgage fraud in which the Defendant used numerous false identities in order to obtain re - mortgages on properties which he had purported to rent and then transferred the proceeds of the remortgage to his bank accounts.
  • R-v- Kusnetsov and Dostenko This case was a £3.5 million Revenue Self Assessment fraud. There were numerous methods of committing the fraud, involving both the PAYE and Self Assessment scheme. It was the largest case of its type to have gone to Trial. Jenny also dealt with the disclosure issues which arose in the case and reviewed a large quantity of the unused material.
  • Operations Tangelo 1 and 2. Tangelo 1 concerned the Prosecution of UMBS Online Ltd, a financial institution. The bank was prosecuted for various money laundering offences and for fraudulent trading under the Fraud Act 2006. It was one of the first major prosecutions under the Fraud Act. The bank was fined £2 million pounds and ordered to pay an immediate confiscation order of £6 million. Jenny was instructed as disclosure counsel throughout this case dealing with complex and wide ranging disclosure issues and developing a thorough knowledge of the workings of the Electronic VAT Folder used by HMRC. She was also instructed as Disclosure Counsel in Tangelo 2. Tangelo 2 was a multi -handed Prosecution of Defendants accused of cheating the Revenue of millions of pounds of Excise duty and VAT. Jenny assisted in managing team of 10 barristers, both devising strategy and reviewing material. Unfortunately, the case did not come to Trial. The disclosure team were however on track to complete the review of many thousands of items of material.
  • R v Wilson and McKay This case concerned the Prosecution of the directors of an Insurance Company for fraud worth just over £1 million. Over a lengthy period of time, the Directors ran an insurance company which issued a numerous false insurance certificates purporting to be underwritten by Lloyds of London.
  • R-v- Cusdens and Others T20077134 (Crown Court) Murder Trial representing a young defendant (Aged 15 at time of the Offence). The Defendant was charged along with others with kicking a man to his death.
  • R v Lappaleinen [2005] 2 AER (D) 367 The Defendant had pleaded guilty under the plea before venue procedure to an offence of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a controlled drug of Class C, namely 7.68 kg of herbal cannabis. Jenny conducted the appeal against the sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, imposed against the Defendant. It was held that a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The Court held that unless significant discounts were granted to those pleading guilty under the plea before venue procedure, there would be little encouragement to enter pleas at that earlier stage. A sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was imposed.
Search the Site: