“The phrase ‘knew or ought to have known’ when applied for the purpose of identifying the state of a mind of a person who had participated in a transaction which was in fact connected with a fraud encompassed two different states of mind. A person who knew that a transaction was connected with fraudulent tax evasion was a participant in that fraud and had a dishonest state of mind; by contrast, a person who merely ought to have known of the relevant connection was not dishonest, but had a state of mind broadly equivalent to negligence.”
WLR Daily, 19th January 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
