Home   News   Features   Interviews   Magazine Archive   Symposium   Industry Awards  
Subscribe
Securites Lending Times logo
Leading the Way

Global Securities Finance News and Commentary
≔ Menu
Securites Lending Times logo
Leading the Way

Global Securities Finance News and Commentary
News by section
Subscribe
⨂ Close
  1. Home
  2. Industry news
  3. High court dismisses Denmark’s £1.5bn cum-ex case against Sanjay Shah
Industry news

High court dismisses Denmark’s £1.5bn cum-ex case against Sanjay Shah


27 April 2021 UK
Reporter: Drew Nicol

Generic business image for news article
Image: chris2766/adobe.stock.com
British hedge fund manager Sanjay Shah has won a landmark dismissal of the Danish tax agency’s £1.5 billion cum-ex claim as a high court judge rules the case is not in the right jurisdiction.

Shah is accused of masterminding a cross-border, multi-billion pound tax fraud that leveraged cross-border securities lending transactions and involved banks, pension funds and brokers. He denies any wrongdoing.

In a “major blow” to all active cum-ex cases, judge Andrew Baker today ruled Denmark’s claims are barred because foreign countries are not allowed to enforce their laws in English courts.

Justice Baker dismissed the entirety of the case against all defendants on the basis that the Danish state was not entitled to enforce its own tax laws in an English court.

It means that the main trial against Solo Capital Partners and 91 other defendants, which was due to start in January 2023 and last an entire calendar year, will no longer go ahead.

The Danish tax agency is appealing the decision, according to Bloomberg.

It has been widely acknowledged that the agency’s claim would be the most expensive commercial court litigation in UK court history.

Shah’s lawyer Chris Waters says: “This is not a jurisdictional matter but one of admissibility. He [Andrew Baker] has rightly concluded that the English courts cannot be used to recover a foreign state’s taxes.”

Shah is understood to now be seeking damages from Denmark for the “very significant financial loss and damage” incurred from the tax agency campaign against him.

Syed Rahman, partner at law firm Rahman Ravelli, which is involved in several different cum-ex cases, says: “Generally when foreign law applies, the law must be pleaded and proved as a fact to the satisfaction of the judge by expert evidence or other means.

“In the absence of foreign law, the court will apply English law to such a case. Here the court needed to assess whether foreign law should apply — and its ruling is hugely significant.”

The judgment will be a major blow to cum-ex investigations where UK traders may be involved, Rahman notes.

“It highlights one of the dangers in cross-border cases in particular when dealing with issues relating to artificial share transactions which enabled multiple improper claims for tax rebates to be made in Europe,” he adds.

Rahman predicts the ruling will have a serious knock-on effect on any investigations into institutions and individuals who operated out of London and carried out dividend arbitrage schemes in European countries.

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority is currently investigating eight individuals and 14 firms for cum-ex tax fraud as of 24 February.

Shah, as the founder of now-defunct UK-based hedge fund Solo Capital, is at the centre of a web of dividend tax fraud scandals centred on several European countries including Germany, France and Denmark, which is understood to have deprived authorities of an estimated €55 billion.

Denmark’s tax agency is among the most proactive in attempting to recoup losses and has pursued Shah for several years with claims that his fund was prolific in the illegal dividend arbitrage strategy in the years before it closed in 2016.

Although the vast majority of tax revenue losses were suffered by a few EU authorities, a significant percentage of the actual dividend arbitrage trading is understood to have taken place in London.

Shah, who now resides in Dubai, has previously said he would not fight extradition to face tax fraud charges but no such order has been issued.
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one securities finance news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Securities Finance Times
Advertisement
Subscribe today
Knowledge base

Explore our extensive directory to find all the essential contacts you need

Visit our directory →
Glossary terms in this article
→ Dividend
→ Hedge
→ Arbitrage

Discover definitions, explanations and related news articles in our glossary

Visit our glossary →