[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A lawyer who gave false information to the tax authorities with the aim of encouraging the government to pay him a payment under the Productivity and Innovation Credit System (PIC), was removed from his role Wednesday, November 28.
The sole proprietor Kangatharan Ramoo Kandavellu "has demonstrated flagrant disregard for the law and a serious lack of integrity," said Supreme Court President Sundaresh Menon, in issuing the ruling of the Three Judges Court, which is entitled to suspend and expel lawyers.
Kangatharan, 56, was fined $ 4,500 US last year after admitting to making false statements at the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) in 2014 for the purpose of Abuse of the PIC regime.
This program, administered by Iras, aims to boost productivity by providing cash payments and bonuses to businesses.
With the help of a "PIC promoter", he falsely stated in the application form that his son and his sister were local employees of his company Kanga & Co, even though they were not in the same business. They did not work there. He also falsely claimed that his company incurred an expense of $ 16,010.
Iras detected false information and no payment was made. If he had succeeded, Kangatharan would have received $ 24,606.
The Bar then went to the Three Judges Court to punish Kangatharan for invoking a provision of the Legal Profession Act that required him to do so when a lawyer was found guilty of an offense "for fraud or dishonesty".
There is, however, a legal question as to whether the provision can be invoked in the present case.
This is explained by the fact that Kangatharan was found guilty of providing false information under the Income Tax Act, an offense that is not directed against fraud or dishonesty. .
On Wednesday, Law Society lawyer Colin Liew argued that the court should adopt a broad interpretation of the provision.
He added that the provision could be invoked as long as the lawyer had committed the offense in a fraudulent or dishonest manner, even though fraud or dishonesty was not necessarily an element of the offense. offense.
Mr. Liew stated that it was clear that Kangatharan had taken part in a scam aimed at defrauding the government and that he had deliberately made false statements to incite Iras to pay his firm money to which he was not responsible. was not entitled.
The court agreed.
He was "no doubt" certain that Kangatharan had acted dishonestly and that he had agreed with others to defraud the government by abusing the PIC system, said the court, which also included the judges of the call Andrew Phang and Steven Chong.
Kangatharan, who had not renewed his exercise certificate since 2015, was not in court. He had submitted a letter to the court asking for a stay.
[ad_2]
Source link
