The difference between someone who has knowledge of a thing and someone who ought to have knowledge of it can be crucial in a court of law and nowhere is this more true than in fraud cases.

In a recent case, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) sought to show that the conduct of a company that was involved in a ‘missing trader’ VAT fraud was dishonest and therefore tax evasion which resulted was fraudulent. However, HMRC failed to demonstrate that this was the case, the court deciding that the conduct of the company was negligent, not fraudulent. The company ought to have known, but did not know.