Suspect jurisprudence has submitted national insurance where incorrect amounts in health care costs

Suspect jurisprudence has submitted national insurance where incorrect amounts in health care costs and gifts were given for the years 2010 and 2011, about 600 income tax returns / premiums
Fact 1: alone or together with others, forgery committed by tax returns IB / national insurance contributions in writing falsely usis make, on or whether or not together with others, committed by deliberately misreporting IB tax / national insurance contributions to be submitted;
The prosecutor has asked for it to be declared charge proven under alternative count 1 and count 2 and that the defendant is sentenced to community service for the duration of 240 hours, a suspended prison sentence of 18 months with associated special conditions that the Defendant will propose a location commandment according instructions of the probation service and they will behave according to the rules of the probation to be attached to offset the batter out., a fine of 11,385.00, and during that period under electronic surveillance
The defense has taken the position that the accused should be fully exonerated. According to the defense, the defendant had no intent to falsely or incorrectly filling usis out tax returns. The defense has argued in this respect that all declarants to suspect have passed the health care costs that they have made and the gifts they have done and that it stated. These amounts on the returns usis of the amounts Declarants have thereby Defendant stated that they had proof of payment usis of health care costs incurred and the gifts made. Defendant has total reliance on the information it was given.
Suspect has a number of people around her electronic income tax returns / national insurance contributions made by the Tax department. In these declarations to high amounts of health care costs and gifts were increased. Some of the relevant taxpayers, including the persons named in the indictment, not only declared that their tax returns were completed by defendant and that the amounts listed in those statements to health usis care costs and donations are not correct, but also that those amounts not have been passed. them suspect The persons heard have also stated that they have paid for completing their tax return. Amount of money to a suspect The refunds as a result of the negative tax bills are always paid on the bank accounts of different taxpayers.
Furthermore, it appears that the defendant has used different IP addresses, even without the owner of the (unprotected) IP was thereof. Use when submitting electronic declarations usis In addition, on the defendant's computer software program "Platinum usis Hide IP" encountered. This is a program that generates an IP address which one is visible on the Internet, while the actual IP address used remains invisible.
According to the defense, the defendant had no intent to falsely or incorrectly filling out tax returns. Suspect would only amounts to health care costs and gifts that taxpayers gave to her by the declarations have included. If these amounts are not correct then they are not known.
All taxpayers have heard a consistent statement regarding the amounts specified in the declarations in health care costs and gifts. They all declare that they have not passed. The amounts included in the statements of accused They have to fill in declarations just enlisted the help of the accused because they were not able to do it themselves. When filling out the returns they had no supporting documents in the form of receipts with him.
Now one hand is not in dispute that the accused was that electronic declarations of hearings has completed and then submitted to the tax authorities and the other, the individual cases mentioned in the charge every respect to the same facts in the same way have been established ones , the court finds the statement from one taxpayer reason for giving evidence in relation to the other taxpayers.
In addition, suspect in sending the electronic returns using different IP addresses and is on her computer program detected that prevents the registration of its own IP address when submitting usis returns via the Internet. The court concludes that the defendant sought to avoid its own IP address could be used as the IP address from which the respective obsolete