Can Inland Revenue look in my bank accounts?

Stavros_3

Blah99 wrote: »

Excuse me? I said they could potentially do this, which is absolutely accurate. Not the first time you've objected to one of my posts on spurious grounds. You love being a pedant, don't you!
quote]

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. They can't even potentially do it. Lets have a look at your original comments, my objections are to its accuracy, here goes.
Quote Blah99 - "Yes, the police could *potentially* engage a wiretap or surveillance on you without proper legal authorisation"


No they can bloody well not. There is a piece of legislation called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
This safeguards and is compatible with ECHR. It requires that the relevant authorities satisfy a number of public interest tests, including proportionality before they can even apply for such measures. Even then they have to go through a stringent authorisation process and chain of command before an application is considered for approval and the relevant authority is signed and authorised, how do I know, well I've just spent 30 years in that area of work.
So please stop accusing me of being pedantic, It is blatantly clear that you know absolutely nothing regarding this subject other than what you may have read on some spurious websites. Wind your neck in and make sure you know what you are talking about before posting highly innacurate and highly misleading information on an internet forum, here endeth the lesson

itsallagame_2

Stavros wrote: »

Blah99 wrote: »

Excuse me? I said they could potentially do this, which is absolutely accurate. Not the first time you've objected to one of my posts on spurious grounds. You love being a pedant, don't you!
quote]

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. They can't even potentially do it. Lets have a look at your original comments, my objections are to its accuracy, here goes.
Quote Blah99 - "Yes, the police could *potentially* engage a wiretap or surveillance on you without proper legal authorisation"


No they can bloody well not. There is a piece of legislation called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
This safeguards and is compatible with ECHR. It requires that the relevant authorities satisfy a number of public interest tests, including proportionality before they can even apply for such measures. Even then they have to go through a stringent authorisation process and chain of command before an application is considered for approval and the relevant authority is signed and authorised, how do I know, well I've just spent 30 years in that area of work.
So please stop accusing me of being pedantic, It is blatantly clear that you know absolutely nothing regarding this subject other than what you may have read on some spurious websites. Wind your neck in and make sure you know what you are talking about before posting highly innacurate and highly misleading information on an internet forum, here endeth the lesson

Well, yes they can, and do. Just because the law states this and that, RIPA, etc, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Blah is correct that potentially it can happen.
I know of at least one ‘case’ involving ‘illegal’, wire tap, GPS tracking etc.
For the evidence to be be acceptable to a court, a Judge must sign the order but if the Judge has not signed the order from the outset, E.g. a week into the surveillance then it can not be used, and subsequently thrown out. Of course compensation will be paid, even if those under surveillance are more than likely wrong doers. But a message has been given.;)
Sorry Stavros, you’re out of touch with what actually happens.
Before you all panic, this happens only to people suspected of very serious crimes,
not for your average bit of tax evasion..:D

Stavros_3

itsallagame wrote: »

Stavros wrote: »

Well, yes they can, and do. Just because the law states this and that, RIPA, etc, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Blah is correct that potentially it can happen.
I know of at least one ‘case’ involving ‘illegal’, wire tap, GPS tracking etc.
For the evidence to be be acceptable to a court, a Judge must sign the order but if the Judge has not signed the order from the outset, E.g. a week into the surveillance then it can not be used, and subsequently thrown out. Of course compensation will be paid, even if those under surveillance are more than likely wrong doers. But a message has been given.;)
Sorry Stavros, you’re out of touch with what actually happens.
Before you all panic, this happens only to people suspected of very serious crimes,
not for your average bit of tax evasion..:D

!!!!!!, Just like un-educated moths around a light bulb don't we attract them. Firstly, surveillance authorisations are NOT signed by a judge (and never have been), they are signed by a senior Police/customs officer. I'm not out of touch unlike this poster who is neither 'in-touch' with reality.

trenchwars

Blah99 wrote: »

It absolutely does apply to the UK. For a flippant example, consider the well-known solicitor who gets people off speeding tickets. He does it on technicalities exactly like this - incorrectly issued documents etc etc.

It might be possible to get a simple fine dismissed if it has not been issued using the correct paperwork, but that's a difference matter to getting improperly obtained evidence excluded in a criminal trial. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just not automatic, and is basically left to the discretion of the Judge.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1996/14.html

...the decision of Your Lordships' House in Reg. v. Sang and the many decisions which have followed it make it plain that as a matter of English law evidence which is obtained improperly or even unlawfully remains admissible, subject to the power of the trial judge to exclude it in the exercise of his common law discretion or under the provisions of section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Section 78 of PACE states:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

Liloly

This is an interesting one for me as I work in a benefits office where we assess claims for means tested housing and council tax claims.

Every so often we get data matches where our claims are compared with HMRC data for interest paid in relation to capital declared. Where there is a discrepancy these are flagged up for investigation.

The data HMRC supply is very detailed. It gives name of inistitution account is held, in whose names, account number, account name and gross interest paid. It does not give transactions - however full statements can be and are obtained by our fraud department without the claimants knowledge or consent and are presented to the claimant once the overpayment has been calculated during an interview under caution. To some extent the data is historic maybe relating to the tax year before last when they may not have been claiming. However this is also looked at and if it is revealed that a large amount of capital has been disposed of this must be accounted for and can be treated as still belonging to the claimant if they are judged to have given it away or "deliberately deprived" themselves of it with a view to claiming benefits.

These data sharing powers were enacted in the latter days of the Major Government but were not used until Harriet Harman gave the go ahead in her brief stint as Social Security Secretary in the early Blair days.They are exempt from the Data Protection Act as they are defined as preventing fraud/criminal activity.

Most if not all Government Departments now routinely share data and HMRC's powers are wider than anyones. I know of someone who foolishly failed to declare an interest bearing account on their tax return and was called in for a full tax enquiry. The comment made was "they know more about you than you do yourself when you walk through the door". They did supply HMRC with full statements for that account, however the interviewing officer said she could easily obtain them if they cound not or would not.

Blah99

Stavros wrote: »

No they can bloody well not. There is a piece of legislation called the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)
This safeguards and is compatible with ECHR. It requires that the relevant authorities satisfy a number of public interest tests, including proportionality before they can even apply for such measures. Even then they have to go through a stringent authorisation process and chain of command before an application is considered for approval and the relevant authority is signed and authorised, how do I know, well I've just spent 30 years in that area of work.
So please stop accusing me of being pedantic, It is blatantly clear that you know absolutely nothing regarding this subject other than what you may have read on some spurious websites. Wind your neck in and make sure you know what you are talking about before posting highly innacurate and highly misleading information on an internet forum, here endeth the lesson

Right. So you're saying that the simple presence of RIPA means that there is absolutely zero chance of any authority engaging surveillance without proper grounds? Really? Are you sure? There would be no need for the Office of Surveillance Comissioners then, would there.
http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk

Your assertion is that the simple presence of RIPA and an authorisation process will categorically prevent the potential wrongful engagement of surveillance is an odd stance. In your outstanding 30 years of service, have you never seen anyone make a mistake or break the rules? Answer honestly, now.

Consider that you may not be the only person who has cause to understand this field, too.

It might be possible to get a simple fine dismissed if it has not been issued using the correct paperwork, but that's a difference matter to getting improperly obtained evidence excluded in a criminal trial. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just not automatic, and is basically left to the discretion of the Judge.

From the following link:
http://www.penwith.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=22593

"Non-compliance with RIPA would result in evidence being deemed inadmissible and the council may be subjected to a claim under the HRA 1998."

however full statements can be and are obtained by our fraud department without the claimants knowledge or consent

This is only possible because the form to claim benefit requires the claimant to sign a section authorising the Council to inspect the listed bank accounts at any time without any further authorisation. If the claimaint has another account that isn't listed on the form, the Council cannot inspect it without further authorisation.

wellington1

Can the IR also look in building society accounts?

oz0707

This is quite an interesting thread if you exclude all the terrorist/surveillance nonsense. Gone off on some far away tangent. Never realised anybody could get detailed statements without your knowledge. Do you have to go to court for this permission liloly?

Mikeyorks

oz0707 wrote: »

Never realised anybody could get detailed statements without your knowledge.

Other than at the very margins - they can't :-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=19910455&postcount=29

........ the data mandatorily provided to HMRC is limited in scope to what is essential for tax purposes. Look at TDSI (Tax Deduction Scheme for Interest) on the HMRC site for fuller detail.