Tax scam conservationist claimed he could influence Gordon Brown

A conservationist accused of involvement in a £60m tax dodge claimed he could influence former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown while promoting schemes tackling climate change, a court heard.

Professor Ian Swingland OBE, 69, allegedly took part in a three-year scam which helped wealthy investors avoid tax on £170m worth of income.

Swingland founded the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology in 1989 at the University of Kent, and is now a world-leading research facility into biodiversity, communities and sustainable development.

He was given his OBE in the 2007 birthday honours for services to conservation.

Anthony Blakey, 65, John Banyard, 67, Martin King, 54, and Andrew Bascombe, 58, are also accused of involvement in the scheme.

A company based in Mauritius called Carbon Research and Development Ltd (CRD) was said to have been used to carry out some of the environmental contracts.

Swingland made himself available for a retainer of £10,000 and took on a supervisory and reviewing role for CRD’s plans and proposals, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Julian Christopher, QC, prosecuting, said today (thurs): ‘Ian Swingland’s connection to the schemes was a valuable asset to Anthony Blakey who could use his name to add credibility to the idea that CRD was a research company of substance.

‘Ian Swingland had portrayed himself as being in a position to influence Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to adopt a supportive attitude towards businesses addressing environmental problems.

‘The prosecution suggest that it was nothing actually more than a bank account operated by a management services company.

‘The prosecution suggests that it appears to have been operated on the instructions of Mr Blakey and Mr Banyard.’

Part of Swingland’s alleged role supposedly involved him seeing how he could ‘stop HMRC killing investment’ through their enquiries into tax relief claims.

In 2007 it was agreed that the professor would take on the role of CRD’s Director of Science in return for a £75,000 annual salary, the prosecutor claimed.

Through this Swingland allegedly contacted a number of scientific colleagues to join a CRD advisory group in return for £10,000 each.

This was done to ‘back up subscribers’ claims to tax relief by providing evidence of money being spent on research’, Mr Christopher claimed.

Swingland submitted a letter of resignation in January 2009but later emailed Blakey to say he could ‘continue to give confidential advice behind the scenes’, the court heard.

He provided a statement to HMRC on January 25 2009 giving the impression that ‘a considerable amount of research work had been carried out’, jurors were told.

‘The prosecution allege that each of Antony Blakey, Martin King and Ian Swingland was playing his part in an agreement between them that HMRC should be given false information in response to the enquiry.’

Mr Christopher claimed Blakey and Banyard were ‘at the heart of the schemes, operating all the relevant companies’ with the former being the ‘driving force’ behind them.

Financial director Banyard was said to know ‘precisely’ how much was actually being spent on research and development and signed off many of the tax returns.

Requests for ‘too much information’ were often batted away by maintaining that CRD were ‘concerned about releasing commercially sensitive information’, jurors were told.

One email from King appears to show he is painting a different picture to ‘the outside world’ as opposed to what was really going on.

All of the defendants, apart from Swingland, were also allegedly involved in a ‘variant of the scheme’, for the benefit of companies, under the guise of research into HIV vaccines.

They allegedly took advantage of rules designed to encourage vaccine research which provided relief against profits.

Companies could avoid corporation tax by joining a consortium supposedly investing in such research and use the losses made to shelter their tax profits, it is said.

The group allegedly used Saving Lives Ltd to carrying out ‘a series of circular transactions’ so that no actual money was available for investment in research.

A further company named Invitro & Clinical Research Ltd was set up in the Seychelles and the prosecutor claimed it was the equivalent company to CRD.

‘The research and development agreement between Saving Lives Ltd and Invitro and the ‘loans’ were nothing more than devices used to justify false assertions in the tax return that there had been research and development expenditure of over £2million,’ Mr Christopher claimed.

‘Unsurprisingly, nothing came of the projects to be undertaken by Invitro.

‘They were opportunities to invest in research designed to counter-act the effects of climate change and to find a cure for HIV,’ Mr Christopher said.

‘They were designed to be attractive to people who had a large amount of income that they would rather not pay tax on.

‘The prosecution allegation is that the tax advantages were entirely dependant on a false account being given to HMRC and the prosecution allege that each of these five defendants knew that the tax advantages were dependant on a false account being given.’

Bascombe, of Ringford Road, East Putney, southwest London, and Banyard, of Dickins Way, Horsham, West Sussex, each deny two counts of cheating the public revenue.

Blakey, of South Terrace, Littlehampton, West Sussex, and King, of Oakfield Gardens, Beckenham, Kent, deny two counts of cheating the public revenue and one of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

Swingland, of Nash Ash, Canterbury, Kent, denies cheating the public revenue and conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

The trial, expected to last three months, continues.

ends