Description
Operation Barbados was an HMRC investigation that began in late 2012 into an Organised Crime Group that conspired to cheat the Public Revenue and, moreover, succeeded in obtaining over £20 million in VAT due to the Revenue.
The Defendant was arrested in 2015 and interviewed over his connection to the conspiracy, which centred around a company named Winnington Networks Limited. Those behind Winnington had used the company’s VAT returns to effect a massive Missing Trader Intra Community (‘MTIC‘) fraud. They created bogus transactions in Voice Over Internet Protocol (‘VOIP‘) airtime to generate false input tax reclaims, which were used to off-set against their output tax liability arising from their genuine trade in electrical goods and metals.
HMRC Charges
HMRC suspected that Winnington had been responsible for creating offshore companies and a fake alternative banking platform (‘ABP‘) to facilitate the fraud and the distribution of the proceeds to the conspirators. The client was alleged to have done so using businesses in the US and United Kingdom and using banks around the world.
Charges were not brought until 2022, 7 years after his interview, which shows the complexity of the investigation. HMRC alleged that the Defendant was “important to the conspiracy ..… beyond helping to dispose of its proceeds ….. he helped to ensure the OCG could pay its necessary costs.”
The most beautiful words in the English language are ‘Not Guilty’.”
Maxim Gorky
Parties involved in the Defence
Simon Gurney was instructed by Daniel King of Forbes Solicitors, alongside Brendan Kelly KC of 2 Hare Court, to represent the Defendant. They worked together over a period of 3 years between charge and trial concluding in July 2025.
Stephen Taylor of Expert Evidence International Ltd was retained by Forbes Solicitors in relation to the operation and deployment of the financial software and the use of money remittance companies used to support the case that the Defendants activity was legitimate.
The Charge
The prosecution alleged that the software had been configured with the intent of performing illegal transactions and those using it were complicit in the cheat.
The Trial
By analysing the software programs that had been deployed, the manner in which they had been set-up and the way they had been used, Stephen Taylor, the expert witness, was able to demonstrate this had not been the reality. It was then necessary to convey these complicated technical and commercial insights to a jury, whose knowledge of financial software, cash management and treasury processes was assumed to be limited.
The Result
The Defendant was acquitted unanimously by the jury.
Expert Evidence
His solicitor, Daniel King of Forbes Solicitors added:
“We instructed Stephen Taylor in his capacity as a software and systems expert in a complex fraud trial. He provided expert “fintech” evidence in relation to the operation of alternative banking platforms and money remittance companies. He was tasked with reviewing a large volume of documentation relating to different software applications and helped to demystify the background to the case and to support the case that our client’s behaviour was legitimate. His report was detailed, well-reasoned, and demonstrated a deep understanding of the technical and commercial aspects of the case. His analysis contributed to persuading the prosecution to step back from its initial stance that the software in question could have no non-criminal use, and to our client being acquitted.”
Expert Evidence prides itself on assisting throughout the legal process where required and is a professional firm concentrating on the four main areas of dispute resolution; acting as expert witnesses in financial litigation, mediation, arbitration and adjudication. The firm has a civil, criminal and international practice and has advised in many recent cases. Areas of specialisation include banking, lending, regulation, investment, and tax.
Ask a question about Expert Witness services. We are here to help!
Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.
