MTIC fraud meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Cross-border disputes Injunctions Litigation Applications—specific Evidence and disclosure Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Appointments The Law Society of England and Wales has confirmed Mark Evans as its 181st president, with Brett Dixon appointed vice president and Dana Denis-Smith taking the role of deputy vice president. Evans, a Welsh solicitor bringing 28 years’ expertise in property and private law and currently lecturing at the University of Law, has held senior positions within regional and national law societies since 2010. For further information, see: LNB News 09/10/2025 35—Law Society appoints Mark Evans as 181st president. Hague Conference on Private International Law The HCCH has moved forward its Good Practices document concerning the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions. This follows the second meeting of its Working Group...

Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Low and another [2024] EWHC 1812 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision carries notable weight and will attract attention from insolvency practitioners, given the court’s readiness to attribute responsibility to Mr Low for the Company’s participation in missing trader intra‑community (MTIC) fraud without proof that he actually knew of any specific link. Moreover, even though the court accepted Mr Low’s testimony and contention that his role in the Company’s operations was subordinate to at least one other individual with managerial responsibility, his status as a director, by itself, left him accountable for the Company’s financial affairs. Because the Company’s trading bore multiple classic indicators of MTIC fraud, and there was no evidence that Mr Low had carried out appropriate verification or due diligence, the court concluded that his behaviour failed to meet the requisite standards of probity and the norms expected of those considered suitable to serve as company directors. Accordingly, in the absence of...

Offence of cheating the public revenue The offence of cheating the public revenue is a common law crime triable solely on indictment. Consequently, where the public purse is the victim, the fraud will invariably be heard in the Crown Court, even though an equivalent matter between private individuals might be suitable for summary trial. Section 32(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968) preserves this offence whilst abolishing cheating in general. In R v Dosanjh, the Court of Appeal concluded that it is reasonable to infer that Parliament intentionally left the common law offence unaffected by statutory reforms in this area, recognising that doing so was appropriate for the protection of the public. In that case, the Court of Appeal further held there was sound reason to prefer charging the common law offence in relation to ‘missing trader intra‑community’ (MTIC) frauds (see further: Missing trader intra‑community (MTIC) or carousel fraud)...