Case details for NICHOLAS MARK HOLMES

Name: NICHOLAS MARK HOLMES

Name: TECHCOMP LIMITED

Date of Birth: 14 / 10 / 1961

Date Order Starts: 31 / 1 / 2019

Disqualification Length: 12 Years 0 Month(s)

CRO Number: 4818559

Last Known Address: 17B HANSCOMBE END ROAD, , SHILLINGTON, HITCHIN, , SG5 3NB

Conduct: 1. Between 4 July 2006 and 22 August 2006, Nicholas Mark Holmes (“Mr Holmes”) caused or allowed Techcomp Ltd (“Techcomp”) to participate in transactions which were connected with the fraudulent evasion of Value Added Tax (“VAT”), such connections being something he, as a joint director of Techcomp, either knew or should have known. 2. He caused or allowed Techcomp to make wrongful claims for input tax in VAT periods 07/06 and 08/06 totalling £216,639. Annex 1. He was aware of the fact that VAT fraud was rife in the wholesale electronic goods sector or ought to have been aware of it because: He had been warned of it during a meeting with Her Majesty’s Revenue and customs (HMRC) on 13 April 2005, and again by letter dated 18 April 2005, He had also been referred to HMRC’s public notice 726 regarding joint and several liability and invalid input tax on 14 June 2005, Techcomp was issued with a tax loss information letter dated 11 May 2005, stating that 15 out of 46 transactions in the VAT period 11/05 had been traced to a defaulting trader, with a loss to the revenue of £256,000, Techcomp conducted 707 VAT verification checks on prospective trading partners between 06 January 2004 and 29 August 2006, thereby recognising the need for such due diligence to be conducted, He was present at each of 18 visits conducted by HMRC upon Techcomp between 2003 and January 2006, and received repeated advice of the serious possibility of fraud in the sector. 2. The trading in which Techcomp was involved had features which put him, or should have put him, on enquiry about the legitimacy thereof, as follows: Techcomp was able to source goods and complete the purchase and onwards sales within a very short space of time – usually on the same day, Techcomp was able to sell exactly the same quantities of goods as it purchased and did not enter into any form of price negotiations with its trading partners, The average of 1% - 2% profit margin made by Techcomp on the transactions in which it was involved, reflects a pattern common in VAT fraud. 3. Despite being aware of VAT fraud in Techcomp’s trade sector and engaging in transactions bearing the features of such fraud, he failed to ensure that Techcomp carried out effective steps, checks and / or due diligence in respect of its trade and of its trading partners as follows: Techcomp did not arrange insurance to cover the goods that it traded, and therefore placed the company at risk of loss in the event of theft of damage in transit, Techcomp did not enter into any formal trade contracts with its suppliers and customers, which would otherwise have dealt with faulty or damaged goods, payment terms or any failures in delivery or in sale, He informed a First Tier Tax Tribunal that the due diligence conducted by Techcomp was ‘non existent’. 4. The trading chains in which Techcomp was involved caused significant loss to HMRC, in that: 6 deals undertaken in VAT periods 07/06 and 08/06 have been traced back to default VAT losses of £174,914. 5. HMRC denied input tax claimed by Techcomp of £173,704 in the VAT period ended 07/06 and £42,934 in the VAT period 08/06. 

This information is correct as at 5 / 2 / 2019


Name: MICHAEL ALFRED WESTLEY

Name: TECHCOMP LIMITED

Date of Birth: 5 / 1 / 1960

Date Order Starts: 7 / 3 / 2019

Disqualification Length: 12 Years 0 Month(s)

CRO Number: 4818559

Last Known Address: 12 WEST RIDING, TEWIN WOOD, , , WELWYN, AL6 0OD

Conduct: Between 4 July 2006 and 22 August 2006, Mr Michael Alfred Westley caused or allowed Techcomp Ltd (“Techcomp”) to participate in transactions which were connected with the fraudulent evasion of Value Added Tax (“VAT”), such connections being something he, as a joint director of Techcomp, either knew or should have known. 1. He was aware of the fact that VAT fraud was rife in the wholesale electronic goods sector or ought to have been aware of it because: 1.1 He had been warned of it during a meeting with Her Majesty’s Revenue and customs (HMRC) on 13 April 2005, and again by letter dated 18 April 2005 1.2 He had also been referred to HMRC’s public notice 726 regarding joint and several liability and invalid input tax on 14 June 2005, 1.3 Techcomp was issued with a tax loss information letter dated 11 May 2005, stating that 15 out of 46 transactions in the VAT period 11/05 had been traced to a defaulting trader, with a loss to the revenue of £256,000, 1.4 Techcomp conducted 707 VAT verification checks on prospective trading partners between 06 January 2004 and 29 August 2006, thereby recognising the need for such due diligence to be conducted, 1.5 He was present at most of the 18 visits conducted by HMRC upon Techcomp between 2003 and January 2006, and received repeated advice of the serious possibility of fraud in the sector. 2. The trading in which Techcomp was involved had features which put him, or should have put him, on enquiry about the legitimacy thereof, as follows: 2.1 Techcomp was able to source goods and complete the purchase and onwards sales within a very short space of time, 2.2 Techcomp was able to sell exactly the same quantities of goods as it purchased and have not provided any evidence of price negotiations with its trading partners, 3. Despite being aware of VAT fraud in Techcomp’s trade sector and engaging in transactions bearing the features of such fraud, he failed to ensure that Techcomp carried out effective steps, checks and / or due diligence in respect of its trade and of its trading partners as follows: 3.1 Techcomp did not enter into any formal trade contracts with its suppliers or customers in advance of those transactions taking place which caused the company to be at risk of loss in respect of faulty or damaged goods, payment terms or failure to deliver. 4. The trading chains in which Techcomp was involved caused significant loss to HMRC, in that: 4.1 6 deals undertaken in VAT periods 07/06 and 08/06 have been traced back to default VAT losses of £174,914. 5. HMRC denied input tax claimed by Techcomp of £173,704 in the VAT period ended 07/06 and £42,934 in the VAT period 08/06. He caused or allowed Techcomp to make wrongful claims for input tax in VAT periods 07/06 and 08/06 totalling £174,914. 

This information is correct as at 15 / 2 / 2019



If you believe this page contains any errors, please email civil.proceedings.team@insolvency.gov.uk with details of the error that you have found.