VAT Fraud & Triangulation

20 Pages Posted: 8 Dec 2012 Last revised: 2 Dec 2019

See all articles by Richard Thompson Ainsworth

Richard Thompson Ainsworth

NYU - Graduate Tax Program; Boston University - School of Law

Date Written: December 7, 2012

Abstract

Missing trader intra-community (MTIC) fraud has received a lot of domestic enforcement attention. True cross border enforcement (joint or coordinated multi-Member State audit) has been limited. There are signs that this is changing as the Member States become more aggressive in their search for revenue.

Along with this shift in enforcement focus, triangulation analysis has moved from being an interesting aspect of the MTIC fraud structure to the central element in a larger understanding of how a fraudster thinks and how he carries out his fraud. We are coming to understand that triangulations are not only the mechanism of how the fraud is carried out; they are a cloak of invisibility that the fraudster casts upon his fraud to hide it from the authorities.

Germany for example, is currently engaged in a multi-billion euro fraud investigation involving the triangulation of consumer goods and CO2 certificates. The Augsburg District Court is overseeing the investigation.

The Augsburg investigation is not only uncovering triangulations that “hide the goods,” but it is also uncovering sophisticated payment platforms that “hide the money transfers.” The intent of these structures is to make the fraud fully invisible to the authorities (goods and funds) until after the trader has disappeared.

The breadth of the German investigation is breathtaking, but with the Mutual Assistance for the Recovery of Claims (MARC) Directive, in effect as of January 1, 2012, this kind of comprehensive multi-jurisdictional MTIC investigation may be becoming the new norm. If so, triangulations will most certainly be at its core.

This paper focuses on the developing law. It explains triangulation, triangulation simplification, and then considers several recent court decisions where fraudsters manipulated the VAT system with triangular trades. The cases illustrate both the enforcement problems with triangular trades, and highlight how the courts’ examination of triangular frauds is leading to significant developments in the VAT law. Three cases are drawn from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and three are from national courts.

Keywords: VAT, EU, Missing Trader Fraud, Triangulation, Simplified triangulation, Teleos, Facet and X, Mexcom, Mecsek-Gabona

JEL Classification: K10, K34

Suggested Citation

Ainsworth, Richard Thompson, VAT Fraud & Triangulation (December 7, 2012). Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-52, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2186474 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2186474

Richard Thompson Ainsworth (Contact Author)

NYU - Graduate Tax Program ( email )

Bobst Library, E-resource Acquisitions
20 Cooper Square 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-711
United States

Boston University - School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
499
Abstract Views
2,829
Rank
104,268
PlumX Metrics