Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Add new comment
10 comments
But he absolutely doesn't dope.
Not exactly an honest sort of fellow from the looks of this.
I'm not actually saying he does dope, but this can't help his image too much.
Apply the berlusconi principle and all is well in Italy.
What's the difference between paying a fine to close the case and bribing the court into not sending him to prison? A poorer man would do time whilst the elite just pay their way out of trouble.
A poorer man is unlikely to have evaded the €50,000+ of tax that would be required for it to be classed as a potential jail sentence case though, so it's not a reasonable comparison is it?
I think it is a fair comparison. In his book 'The Great Tax Robbery' Richard Brooks showed that, pound for pound of criminal activity, HMRC were 1,800 times more likely to prosecute benefit fraud than tax fraud. OK, this is the UK, not Italy, and income tax fraud comes in between those two in the scale of how harshly it is prosecuted. But the general principle of treating poorer people more harshly, holds. Higher up in the level of privilege there are eye-wateringly scandalous cases like that of Vodafone which, having saved themselves quite a few billion in corporation tax via shunting money around through shell companies, are actually let off paying most of this at all, charged no interest, and suffer no fine, let alone jail for the fat cats, because HMRC don't want to damage 'their relationship' with big companies. That's money that could have helped the NHS, paid for actual worthwhile cycling infrastructure and more besides, had HMRC bothered to do their job. Sorry, this has drifted further off-topic, but it did start with tax fraud, even if Nibali's...
So he's still saved himself €245,000, not a bad result for him! Or does he have to pay the original €290,000 Too?
I have been in an English courtroom, when it was put to an Italian (being accused of insurance fraud) that he could not have paid the sum he said he had paid for the yacht (that had been destroyed by a suspicious fire) because his tax returns showed nothing like the necessary amount of income necessary to buy the yacht for the price he claimed.
His answer? On oath. In an English Court. "Do not be ridiculous- absolutely no-one in Italy declares his true income."
Doesn't he have an accountant?
Quite right - trivial mistake - anyone could forget to declare the odd 3/4 million Euros - the kind of money one finds down back of sofa etc etc.
Mind you, could be least of his probs as finding a new team might be high priority soon...
Perhaps if Astana lose their licence he could get a job at Starbucks.