Source: HMRC Press Release 30 September 2017
From 30 September 2017, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 introduces two new criminal offences – one applying to the evasion of UK taxes and one applying to the evasion of foreign taxes.
The offences hold corporations and partnerships criminally liable when they fail to prevent their employees, agents, or others who provide services on their behalf, from criminally facilitating tax evasion. This is a significant change from existing law under which they can only be found liable for criminally facilitating tax evasion if the most senior members of the organisation – typically the board of directors – are aware of the facilitation.
Source: Waterfront Solicitors LLP via mondaq.com 31 August 2017
“In good news for brand owners, the UK Supreme Court has decided that the distribution of grey market goods without the consent of the brand owner is a criminal offence.
So called grey market goods, also referred to as parallel imports, are goods which have been manufactured by or with the consent of the brand owner but sold without the brand owner’s consent – in other words, they are authentic products sold by unlicensed resellers. For example, Gucci might manufacture particular styles of watch for sale only in France. If a third party buys these watches and sells them in the UK without Gucci’s consent, the watches will be “grey” goods. They are distinct from counterfeit goods, which are simply fakes.
Brand owners have long been able to enforce their trade mark rights in the civil courts with respect to counterfeit goods and grey market goods. It is also established law that dealing in counterfeit products is a criminal offence.
In the recent case of R v M & Ors  UKSC 58, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether dealing in grey market goods is also a criminal offence.”
Source: tax justice.net 15th March 2017
“The #LuxLeaks whistleblowers appeal verdict is in and once again it demonstrates what an upside down world we’re living in, when whistleblowers on the frontline of tax justice find themselves convicted for a second time for exposing information that was so clearly in the public interest.
Disclosure of such information can be decisive for driving political change, and this is exactly why tax deals in Luxembourg were brokered behind closed doors.
Now it’s time to swing the spotlight onto accountancy firm PwC not only for the disgraceful way they treated these whistleblowers, but to hold them to account for their role the whistleblowers exposed in siphoning off tax revenue from so many EU member states.”