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

As in its argument against Sanjay Shah (see paragraph 82 above), so also against each of the DWF Ds, SKAT rested in closing on the non sequitur that because he had made an admission that anyone seeing a CAN would think, or assume, that the custodian had acted honestly, or the like, he had therefore admitted to understanding and intending at the time that the honest custodian representation was being made to SKAT with each tax refund claim submitted. I consider it a fair criticism, advanced by the DWF Ds in closing, that SKAT did not put a case in cross-examination that they realised and intended at the time that SKAT was being told by the tax reclaim documents, interpreted in context, that the custodian honestly believed the core representations to be true.