Examples of specific checks carried out by existing businesses
Examples of specific checks carried out by existing businesses
obtain copies of Certificates of Incorporation and VAT registration certificates. This was done
verify VAT registration details with HMRC – this was done
obtain signed letters of introduction on headed paper – not done
obtain some form of written and signed trade references – not done
obtain credit checks or other background checks from an independent third party – not done, but SKM was not taking credit risk on BTL
insist on personal contact with a senior officer of the prospective supplier, making an initial visit to their premises if possible – a visit was made albeit LP was not met
obtain the prospective supplier’s bank details to check whether (a) payments would be made to a third party and (b) in the case of an import, the supplier and their bank share the same country of residence – SF’s evidence as that payment was only made to verified bank accounts of BTL
check details provided against other sources e.g. website, letterheads, BT landline records. Not done
The HMRC Leaflet explained that the examples contained in the leaflet are guidelines for the kind of checks a trader could make to help avoid participating in a fraudulent supply chain. It went on to state that the checks a particular trader needs to make, and the extent of them, will vary depending on the individual circumstances.
Some due diligence was undertaken by SKM and some of the examples of steps that traders could take were not relevant to SKM. However, there were additional steps that could have been taken. Balancing these factors we considered that the due diligence by SKM was inadequate but that, as with a number of the other factors set out above, that would not on its own have put a prudent trader in the position of SKM into the position that it should have known that it was participating in a fraud. The most that could be said is that SKM ought to have identified there was a risk it was participating in a fraud.
- Heading
- Introduction
- summary
- Issues for determination
- Evidence and submissions
- Officer Borland
- Officer Pathak
- Mr Feldman
- Mr Granger
- Adverse inferences - Mr Perdicou
- Findings of fact
- Background – SK
- Background KG
- Background SKM
- Background SKM – Knowledge of MTIC
- SKM’s Business – control
- SKM’s business
- BTL’s business and its dealings with SKM
- Commencement of trading with SKM
- Invoices
- HMRC’s First Investigation of SKM
- SKM’s approach to Due Diligence
- HMRC’s investigation of BTL
- HMRC’s Second Investigation of SKM
- EU background
- Right to credit for input tax
- Liability to a penalty
- Officer’s Liability
- Mitigation
- Case law Authorities
- Denial of credit for input tax - Kittel
- Mobilx
- Limits of the relevance of due diligence
- Reasonable explanations for circumstances of a transaction
- the parties cases
- The Appellants’ case
- consideration of the issues
- Knowledge of the existence and prevalence of fraud in SKM’s trading sector
- Significant trade with a fraudulent defaulter
- No evidence of commercial negotiations
- Lack of contractual documentation
- Issues with invoices
- Lack of commerciality in the way the transactions were structured
- Insufficient due diligence
- Viability of the goods as described by your supplier. For example
- Examples of specific checks carried out by existing businesses
- Looking at the overall picture
- Conclusions
![TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)