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

In short, this was, in substance, SCP’s tax reclaim business. I do not consider that is affected by the fact that Mr Shah chose to take the primary profit into Ganymede rather than SCP itself. I have no doubt he did so because Ganymede was an unregulated, offshore entity, and Mr Shah instinctively wanted to avoid the risk of the FCA questioning the appropriateness of what SCP was doing, if it saw that SCP was generating very substantial profits for itself through creating and then taking the lion’s share of tax refund claims. In principle, indeed, I think it may be open to question whether Mr Shah had any right to divert profits away from SCP in that way, but I do not consider that further as it was not raised as part of any of SKAT’s pleaded claims.

In my judgment, the business reality is also unaffected by the subsequent Solo Group arrangements under which (i) the GSS business unit operated as Genoa, providing services to SCP, (ii) the new Solo Model custodians were used, via ‘white labelling’ arrangements, to create the appearance of four similar businesses, not just a single SCP (GSS) business, and (iii) the automation machinery, when it was developed, was provided via other related companies. They were all means by which SCP’s tax reclaim business developed, increasing in complexity and sophistication, and expanding hugely; but it remained, in substance, SCP’s business throughout.