Investigators swoop in Manchester to arrest man suspected of helping fraudster flee justice

The suspect is alleged to have helped Craig Rees flee the UK

A man has been arrested on suspicion of helping fraudster Craig Rees flee the UK part-way through his criminal trial. Investigators swooped on an address in Manchester today (Thursday, April 30) to make the arrest.

It comes as a Rees, who fled his trial which ended with him being jailed in his absence over a £1m tax fraud, is back behind bars after he was tracked down while on the run in central Europe.

The 50-year-old went on the run mid-way through a trial which ended with him and his brother Carl Rees, 52, both being convicted and handed jail sentences.

It prompted a manhunt for Craig Rees, who was jailed in his absence. He claimed he had fled to Ukraine but he was eventually arrested in the Czech Republic before being extradited back to the UK.

At Birmingham Crown Court yesterday he was handed a further six months for skipping bail, on top of the seven years for his fraud crimes.

Today investigators for HM Revenue and Customs stormed an address in Manchester to arrest a 36-year-old man on suspicion of assisting an offender. He remains in custody being questioned by officers.

The brothers were handed their original jail sentences in April last year over what a court heard was a ‘staggering’ attempt to defraud the British taxpayer out of £1m by pretending to have made a series of films.

The brothers were found guilty of submitting fraudulent claims for Film Tax Relief and VAT to HMRC, totalling more than £1m for films that were never made in the UK, or at all. Film Tax Relief was created to encourage directors and studios to make at least of part of their films in the UK, with a tax break for those that make a quarter of their film here.

HMRC proved in court that the pair had claimed their first film Whispers was made in the UK, when it was an American-made film, while their second film, The Eight, was entirely made up. Their third film, Violence, was found to have been produced simply so that the pair could submit a fraudulent tax claim for it.

In passing sentence Her Honour Judge Heidi Kubik KC, said they were convicted with overwhelming evidence which had revealed “staggering and audacious dishonesty.”

To present a façade of legitimacy, the duo, from Warwickshire, set up film production companies which provided forged documents to HMRC for both the FTR and VAT repayment claims. In total, they attempted to defraud the taxpayer for £542,840 in Film Tax Relief and £484,933 in VAT repayments.

All of these claims were made between 2011 and 2015, with the pair receiving £367,000 before they were caught by the taxman. The pair, both of Shakespeare Avenue in Warwick, were found guilty after and 18-week trial, with each brother sentenced to seven years in prison and both being disqualified from acting as a director of any company for 15 years.

Ben Close KC, for the prosecution, told Birmingham Crown Court yesterday that Craig Rees had failed to attend day 51 of his trial, in January 2024, and had emailed to say he had travelled to Ukraine.

He added: “Mr Rees said he had an extremely urgent matter and needed to travel to Ukraine to see his girlfriend and did not have access to a phone.

“But he overlooked the default signature on that message that said it was sent from his iPhone.”

The court heard there had been extensive efforts from HMRC’s fugitive unit to locate, arrest and return Rees, including work across multiple European jurisdictions.

But Rees only returned to the UK after a Czech court approved an extradition order following his arrest last month.

In sentencing Rees to a consecutive six-month prison sentence for the bail offence Her Honour Judge Heidi Kubik KC said: “This was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the jury’s verdict and to interfere with the administration of justice.

“It is no coincidence that your departure coincided with allowing yourself to give your own evidence. But you deliberately departed to prevent cross-examination of that evidence. This was a deliberate tactic to avoid facing the gaping holes in your account.

“The result meant the jury were faced with your partial evidence involving your own favourable, self-serving account which had not been challenged rigorously.

“You sent a number of messages promising to return, none of which resulted in your return. There has been significant time, resource and expense, requiring international co-operation, to bring you back before the court to serve the sentence that had been imposed in your absence.”