An island businessman at the centre of a tax fraud inquiry has lost his doleance petition against the island’s Solicitor General.

Paul Anthony Bell is facing criminal charges in the UK relating to tax fraud and money laundering. The matter was investigated by the HMRC in an operation codenamed Bannock.

He is also accused of offences alleged to have been committed in the Isle of Man, said to be where the proceeds of the alleged UK tax frauds were laundered.

This investigation, conducted by the Isle of Man Constabulary, was codenamed Operation Braid.

Matters in relation to Operation Braid had been delegated to barrister Timothy Green KC.

Deemster Andrew Corlett has now rejected a doleance petition submitted by Mr Bell in connection with Operation Bannock, ruling that it is without merit.

Mr Green had been authorised by the then Chief Minister Allan Bell in November 2014 to act in the case of Operation Braid only, as the acting Attorney General, the late John Quinn had a conflict of interest.

Walter Wannenburgh, appointed Solicitor General in 2015 and then Attorney General in 2022, was similarly conflicted.

A second direction was signed by then Treasury Minister Eddie Teare in 2015 which referred to ‘Operation Braid and associated matters’.

In March that year, Mr Green applied to the high court for warrants to search several premises linked to Mr Bell, including his home in Onchan, during which £500,951 in unexplained cash was found.

Mr Green alleged that £22m of VAT was diverted from HMRC into Mr Bell’s control in the Isle of Man.

In a doleance petition, Mr Bell claimed Mr Green had acted unlawfully in responding to International Letters of Request (ILORs) from the UK concerning Operation Bannock.

The focus of the doleance claim was a letter written by current Solicitor General Elizabeth Smith KC in 2023 in which she confirmed that the direction properly given by then Treasury Minister Mr Teare had been sufficient to empower Mr Green to receive and respond to ILORs.

In a judgment, Deemster Andrew Corlett concluded that the doleance claim had been brought in time, but he was firmly of the view that it had no merit.

He said: ‘The Solicitor General was entirely correct in reaching her own conclusion that the section 20 direction given by the Treasury Minister was sufficient to empower Mr Green to respond to the ILORs.’

Deemster Corlett also addressed the issue of whether the Solicitor General had the power to request the return of documents if an ILOR had been unlawfully responded to.

He concluded: ‘While I have no doubt that the Attorney General and/or the SG have the right to request the return of documents which it is argued or agreed should not have been transmitted to another jurisdiction, I do not consider that the court would normally become involved in any dispute.

‘In any event, the point is academic in light of my conclusion that the doleance claim must be dismissed.’