CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

Deceit

288.

The deceit claims pursued by SKAT against these Other Solo Model Ds were all claims alleging accessory liability, except that:

(i)

the corporate Godson Ds were Solo Model USPFs, and in respect of the tax refund claims submitted on their behalf, SKAT alleged that they had a primary liability in deceit if misrepresentations were made on their behalf by Goal (which was always the Tax Agent in their case); and

(ii)

Mr Jain’s LabCos, Kandi Capital Ltd, DJ Capital Ltd, Shayka Consulting Ltd, and TenTwo Trading Ltd, were not defendants in these proceedings, but they were Solo Model LabCos and SKAT alleged that Mr Jain had a primary liability in deceit if misrepresentations were made on their behalf by Acupay (which was always the Tax Agent in their case).

289.

The summaries I set out above recapping the Other Solo Model Ds’ respective involvements with Solo Model trading justify the finding, and I do find, that they provided more than minimal assistance in the operation of the Solo Model tax refund claim business, with the exception of the corporate Jain Ds, which had no involvement in Solo Model trading. If that business involved the making to SKAT of the representations it alleged were made to it with each tax refund claim, then (with that same exception), these Other Solo Model Ds indeed provided material assistance towards the making of those representations, and the main issue of fact for all of these trial defendants would have been their state of mind, i.e. their knowledge, intention, understanding, or as the case may be, as might be required in law for the various causes of action pursued against them by SKAT.

290.

To identify my findings in relation to that main issue, I find it convenient to deal first with those of the Other Solo Model Ds who were principally involved in providing trading counterparties required by the Solo Model to enable the USPF and LabCo equity buyers to settle their cum-ex purchases without funding, and then to deal separately with the others, whose principal involvement was at the USPF/LabCo end of Solo Model trades. Mr Murphy had an involvement in both areas. Novus’ broking of trades and Mr Murphy’s later involvement as a short seller was on the trading counterparty side of things. Mr Murphy’s assistance to Sanjay Shah as introducer of Mr Fletcher, and through him the other Standard Credit Individuals, in the summer of 2013 was at the USPF end of the trading. It makes no difference to any finding I make, but for what it may be worth I find it more natural to consider Mr Murphy as part of the trading counterparty group, because like the rest of that group he had at least some background in dividend arbitrage prior to his involvement with the Solo Model, whereas those I consider later did not (Messrs Devonshire, Fletcher, Godson, Jain and Preston).