Jenny is a highly experienced barrister and a specialist in financial regulatory work and complex civil and criminal fraud.
Jenny has been ranked in Chambers and Partners since 2014. She is ranked as a leading individual for Financial Crime at the London Bar in Chambers and Partners Directory.
"She is terrific, very bright and someone who gets to the issue quickly."
Chambers and Partners 2018.
Jenny is an expert in Missing Trader Intra-Community (“MTIC”) fraud. She spent over 10 years conducting MTIC cases in the Crown Court and for the last 5 to 6 years has been regularly instructed in related proceedings in the VAT Tribunal (First and Upper Tier). She is currently instructed as Lead Counsel in a number of multi-million pound Appeals.
Prior to developing a financial regulatory practice, Jenny conducted numerous fraud cases including mortgage fraud, insurance fraud, complex excise fraud, PAYE fraud, and advance fee fraud. She has also conducted numerous money laundering and confiscation cases.
Professional Panel Appointments
- Appointed to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) ‘A’ Panel SFO.
- The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Proceeds of Crime Panel.
- CPS specialist Fraud Panel.
- CPS specialist Serious Crime Panel.
Education and awards
- St Anne’s College, University of Oxford (MA Jurisprudence).
- South Eastern Circuit.
- Criminal Bar Association.
- Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association.
- Women’s Fraud Network.
- Fraud Lawyers Association.
Jenny has been involved in numerous confiscation cases arising out of prosecutions for fraud. This work naturally links in with Jenny's financial work and expertise.
Prior to developing a practice in financial regulatory work Jenny specialised solely in complex fraud cases. Her particular expertise is VAT fraud, in particular MTIC fraud.
Jenny has conducted numerous types of criminal case as both a Prosecution and Defence advocate, with an emphasis on fraud.
Jenny receives regular instructions in relation to complex financial regulatory cases.
Jenny has been instructed on a regular basis for the past 5 to 6 years in regulatory proceedings in the VAT tribunal. These involve Appeals against decisions of HMRC to deny input tax. The proceedings are complex and document heavy. She recently secured a successful outcome in a £23 million Appeal leading two Juniors.
Current instructions include Appeals concerning MTIC fraud in CPU’s, carbon credits and Excise goods. She has recently been instructed in a multi-million pound Appeal involving a large multi-national company.
Cases of Note
Rioni Limited v HMRC (First tier Tax Tribunal) 2015 UKFTT 0166 (TC)
Successful outcome in Appeal leading 2 Juniors. Appeal by Rioni against a decision of HMRC to deny input tax of £23 million on the basis that the transactions were connected with VAT fraud and the Appellant knew or should have known that this was the case. Case involved basic MTIC fraud and contra-trading. Document heavy case - over 130 lever arch files of evidence, complex expert evidence regarding grey market, and links to criminal investigations.
Techcomp Limited v HMRC (First tier Tax Tribunal) 2014 UKFTT 0166 (TC)
Successful outcome in Appeal leading 1 Junior. Appeal by Techcomp against a decision of HMRC to deny input tax of approximately £300,000. Denial was on the basis that the transactions were connected with VAT fraud and the Appellant knew or should have known that this was the case. Case involved expert evidence regarding the grey market in CPUs, circularity of box numbers, evidence from Intel as to its manufacturing and distribution network. The type of trading was complex and involved acquisition deals, direct export deals, broker deals, triangulation deals and buffer deals.
Crotek Limited v HMRC (First tier Tax Tribunal) 16.12.2011 TC01672
Junior Counsel in appeal against decision to deny input tax of £5.6 million.
Lifeline Europe Limited (First tier Tax Tribunal) 28.6.2012 TC02106
Leading Junior in appeal against decision to deny input tax of £2.4 million.
Rigcharm Limited v HMRC (First tier Tax Tribunal) 30.4.12
Leading Junior in appeal against decision to deny input tax of £2.7 million.
VAT AND MTIC FRAUD
R v Skidmore and Others (Crown Court)
The VAT 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 Clodd Broom (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 the UK from other countries in the European Community. £39 million of VAT was evaded on the supply of these mobile phones.
R v Jones and Woolley (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, The principal, Mr. Hening received the largest sentence in an MTIC fraud, namely 15 years.
FRADULENT TRADING / MONEY LAUNDERING
Operation Tangelo 1 (Crown Court)
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.
R v Jones & Morrissey (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 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 (Crown Court)
This was a money laundering case [over £1 million] Expert evidence was called from forensic accountants.
CONFIDENCE FRAUD / ADVANCE FEE FRAUD
R v Elda Beguinua (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 Steele (Crown Court)
This case concerned a prosecution by the SFO of an alleged fraud (23 million euros) by a partner of well know firm of Solicitors. Jenny acted as Junior Counsel in the Crown Court case and later appeared on behalf of the Defendant in an appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal.
R v Chen (Crown Court)
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 (Crown Court)
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.
R v Wilson and McKay (Crown Court)
This case concerned the Prosecution of the directors of 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.
COMPLEX EXCISE FRAUD
R v Parma, Mori and Parma. (Crown Court)
Inward Excise diversion fraud concerning importation of wine from Italy. Revenue loss approximately £5-6 million.
R v Omar  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 H 
Leading junior in the successful prosecution of multi handed fraud, with estimated value of 1 million pounds.