Whistleblower solicitor Jas Bains condemns eight-year ordeal in £1.4bn tax fraud case
A former City solicitor who exposed one of Europe’s largest tax frauds has condemned the eight years he spent defending himself in the very litigation that stemmed from his own whistleblowing. Jas Bains, admitted as a solicitor in 2002, spoke out following the High Court’s dismissal of a £1.4 billion claim brought by Denmark’s tax authority over a massive dividend refund scandal.
Bains, formerly head of legal and de facto chief operating officer at Solo Capital, the London hedge fund owned by trader Sanjay Shah, alerted the Danish authorities in 2015 to what became known as the cum-ex fraud. The scheme involved trading shares on “cum-ex” terms, exploiting a loophole that allowed multiple parties to claim refunds of the same dividend tax. Between 2012 and 2015, Denmark’s Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) paid out billions in refunds before discovering the losses. Shah, extradited from Dubai, was convicted in December 2024 and sentenced to 12 years in prison for defrauding the Danish state of taxes worth £1.4 billion. He is currently appealing his conviction.
In England, SKAT launched an unprecedented civil case to recover the sums paid out, naming 56 defendants, including Bains, Shah, and Solo Capital. Although Bains had never been charged with any offence, he became embroiled in the complex litigation known as Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners & Ors, which ran for nearly a decade. Proceedings began in January 2020 at the Rolls Building and culminated in a 33-week trial that ended in April 2025.
Embed from Getty Images
Mr Justice Andrew Baker delivered his 331-page judgment last week, ruling against SKAT. While the judge dismissed Shah’s claims of ignorance, describing his evidence as “riddled with implausible claims and obvious lies,” he ultimately found that SKAT had failed to prove its losses. The tax authority’s internal controls for paying dividend refund claims, he said, were “so flimsy as to be almost non-existent.” The court therefore rejected the £1.4 billion restitution claim in its entirety.
Despite the outcome, the judgment was not without criticism of Bains. The court found his evidence unsatisfactory, observing that as Solo’s head of legal, he had not challenged the firm’s questionable trading model. Justice Baker wrote that Solo’s business was built on “two basic premises that I would expect a qualified lawyer instinctively to think at least doubtful” — namely, circular settlement loops among entities that never owned shares and the assumption that someone with no shareholding could still claim a dividend tax refund. The judge added: “Solo could have done with an independent-minded, serious impartial head of legal to raise that doubt. I do not think Mr Bains was that person.”
Bains, who began his legal career at Freshfields before joining Solo Capital, was nonetheless relieved by the court’s ruling, which cleared him of liability. Reflecting on the drawn-out litigation, he criticised both the process and its toll on his life. “This unnecessary trial cost me eight years of my life and I’m grateful to the justice system for exonerating me in what was clearly politically motivated litigation, exacerbated by the greed of lawyers,” he said.
The case, one of the largest civil fraud actions ever heard in the English courts, drew global attention for its scale and complexity. More than 4,000 dividend refund claims formed part of the evidence, highlighting systemic weaknesses in international tax control systems. Legal analysts say the outcome represents a significant defeat for SKAT, which may still consider appeal options but faces questions over its oversight failures.
For Bains, the verdict brings to an end years of professional and personal strain. As he seeks to rebuild his career, his case stands as a stark example of how those who expose wrongdoing can become entangled in the very machinery they once tried to hold accountable.