The High Court has disqualified John J. (also known as Jack) Stakelum from being concerned in the management of a company for five years, after finding that his conduct facilitated the evasion of tax.
The order followed an application by the Director of Corporate Enforcement under section 160(2)(e) of the Companies Act 1990. The application relied on a report by court-appointed inspectors who examined the Irish business of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited. The inspectors’ report included findings about Stakelum’s role in handling clients’ funds.
The inspectors found that Stakelum provided a deposit-taking and withdrawal service, including using an interest-free current account operated through Clyde Enterprises. Funds lodged by clients were held in a float and used to pay clients seeking to withdraw money held offshore. The inspectors said this provided a way for Irish residents to access offshore funds in Ireland and found evidence tending to show that the arrangement was intended to defraud the depositors’ creditors, including the Revenue authorities. They concluded, however, that his assistance to Ansbacher was not knowing assistance because his detailed knowledge of its Irish business was sparse.
In considering the inspectors’ evidence, Mr Justice Brian McGovern referred to Stakelum’s sworn testimony that clients’ funds were placed in a current account to preserve confidentiality and avoid attracting attention through deposit interest and bank reporting to Revenue. The judge accepted the Director’s submission that the system was designed to hide funds from the tax authorities. He found that Stakelum, a chartered accountant, knew the implications of his actions and that the conduct showed a lack of commercial probity.
Stakelum argued that the inspectors’ remit did not extend to companies he owned or controlled, that the court should not rely on conduct before section 160 came into force in 1991, and that a disqualification order was unnecessary given the age of the events, his retirement, lack of benefit, and ill health. The judge rejected those submissions. He held that the inspectors’ observations were within their terms of reference and that at least some of the relevant activity occurred after 1 August 1991.
The judge said it was unnecessary to decide whether the evidence supported other suspected offences, including unlicensed banking, because the finding that Stakelum facilitated tax evasion was sufficient. He made a five-year disqualification order. The judgment does not record any criminal conviction.