Lawyer affirms Andrew Tate and brother's bank transfers were legal

In a legal battle unfolding at Westminster Magistrates' Court, controversial social media influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan are facing accusations of failing to pay taxes on £21 million of revenue from their online businesses earned between 2014 and 2022. The police have applied for approximately £2.8 million in seven frozen bank accounts to be forfeited, alleging tax evasion and money laundering. The prosecution claims that money from the Tates' online ventures was moved through various UK bank accounts, with suspicions of illicit financial activities. Defending the Tate brothers, lawyer Martin Evans KC argued that the bank transfers made by the siblings were "entirely orthodox" and in line with standard business practices. He emphasized that the movement of funds from a payment platform to the Tates was to be expected, given the nature of online sales requiring merchant providers. Evans refuted claims of tax evasion and money laundering, asserting that the brothers had not engaged in illegal activities but rather used the money for legitimate purposes, such as purchasing luxury cars. The prosecution, represented by Sarah Clarke KC, painted a different picture, alleging that Andrew and Tristan Tate are serial tax and VAT evaders who had created a complex network of bank accounts to obscure the origins of their earnings. Clarke described the financial transactions as indicative of tax evasion and money laundering practices. The court also heard accusations that the brothers had opened a Stripe account in someone else's name, funneling income from their businesses into personal accounts. The legal proceedings revealed that the Tate brothers, who were not present in court, are also facing separate criminal charges in Romania related to rape, human trafficking, and forming a criminal gang. Despite the ongoing legal battles, the defense maintains that the financial transactions in question were conducted in a lawful manner and that the brothers should retain ownership of the contested funds. The court is yet to reach a verdict on the matter, with further deliberations expected in the future.