Candy brothers deny allegations of tax evasion
Christian Candy, the luxury property tycoon, has denied that he gave gifts totalling over £200m to his brother, Nick, as part of a scheme to evade tax. Candy claims that the gifts, which include a penthouse at One Hyde Park, a mansion in Chelsea and £10m cash, were made out of affection and family loyalty. The allegations about tax evasion emerged during an ongoing legal dispute with property developer, Mark Holyoake. The claims rest on accusations that Nick secretly co-owns and runs his brother’s business, CPC, and receives income from it unofficially.

The luxury property tycoon Christian Candy has insisted he gave his brother Nick gifts worth more than £200m out of family affection and respect for the dying wishes of their late father — and not as part of an alleged plot to evade tax.

The largesse Christian handed to his business partner brother include a penthouse apartment at One Hyde Park, where Nick lives with his pop singer wife Holly Valance; the couple’s future family home, a grade II-listed mansion in Chelsea; and £10m in cash.

Loans from Christian’s business empire have also been used, in part, to help Nick buy a £26m, 60-metre Italian yacht called 11-11.

The multi-millionaire brothers, who are Conservative party donors, have been forced to provide a rare glimpse into their relationship — both business and personal — as part of a bitter legal dispute over a loan to another property developer, Mark Holyoake.

They say Holyoake is making allegations about tax evasion to force settlement of his claim and detract from business problems of his own.

Witness statements from Nick and Christian Candy were submitted to the high court in London after questions were raised about how Nick came by his personal fortune, and the role he played in his brother’s CPC Group.



A highly profitable property empire, CPC — which takes its name from Christian’s initials — is best known for super-luxe London developments such as One Hyde Park, where the sale of apartments brought in £2bn.



In court Nick has been accused of secretly owning and running CPC jointly with Christian, receiving income from the business secretly in order to evade tax. This is vehemently denied.

In their written statements, the brothers confirm that the costly lifestyle led by London-based Nick could not be supported by income from his interior design business, which produced comparatively modest profits.

They show how Nick received three valuable gifts, as well as multimillion-pound loans, from his younger brother, who was until recently based in Monaco.

Both brothers strongly reject accusations that such gifts amount to hidden income from Nick’s alleged co-ownership of CPC. They deny Nick had a stake in the business or that he acted as a “shadow” director.

The Candys provided the court with their explanations only after a judge noted in April that there was “a disconnect” between the “lavish billionaire lifestyle” led by Nick and his apparent inability to finance such high living.

The brothers told the court their statements were “private and confidential and sensitive”, and requested they not be made public. Applications from the Guardian and Times newspapers, however, ensured that these and other documents from the case were released in accordance with legal principles of open justice.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Candys have accused those bringing the lawsuit of attempting to use their claim to cause the brothers embarrassment and to instil fear that scrutiny of their affairs will spark a lengthy tax inquiry.

The claim is being brought by Holyoake, who is seeking more than £132m over a loan dispute. Business arrangements between Nick and Christian are peripheral to his claim, but have nevertheless become a bitterly contested issue in court.

Holyoake, who has known Nick since their student days together at Reading University, insists his former friend had told him on many occasions that he worked with his brother Christian on a 50/50 basis. In truth, Holyoake alleges, the brothers are effectively joint owners of CPC, hence Nick’s considerable wealth.

A spokesman for the Candys told the Guardian: “Throughout this case Mark Holyoake has sought to make slanderous and entirely false allegations about Nick, Christian and CPC’s businesses and tax responsibilities. He is doing so in a cynical attempt to force settlement of his claim.”

A full trial is scheduled to start in February of next year, when the brothers and Holyoake may be asked to enter the witness box and answer detailed questions about their version of events.

Nick said in his witness statement he had personal wealth — his assets minus the value of loans — of £194m. The vast majority of this fortune, he acknowledged, was the result of gifts from his brother.

“Christian is a hugely successful businessman,” Nick said in his witness statement. “In the wake of his success, Christian has … gifted to me some of his assets.

“He did not have to do this … These gifts were made through his generosity, and also in line with the wishes of our father, who before he died … asked Christian to ensure that the two of us are equally wealthy.”

The same explanation was given by Christian in his statement. “Nick is my brother. We grew up together, have lived together, socialised together and done business together … Whilst we do not always agree on everything, blood is thicker than water.”

He confirmed gifts to Nick reflected their father’s wish, expressed shortly before he died of cancer in September 2013, that the two sons achieve equal fortunes.

In their witness statements, the brothers also hit back at accusations that Nick was acting as a shadow director of CPC. Nick explained that a misunderstanding may have arisen because his interior design firm had often worked alongside CPC on property developments. He had also occasionally become involved in CPC’s affairs — though never controlling or directing the group.

In these circumstances, Nick conceded “language may well have been used loosely”.

Problems over confused language were first revealed in June last year when the Guardian published details from a promotional video for One Hyde Park. A memo from a CPC tax adviser warned that the video presented “huge issues” unless certain wordings used in the script were edited out or changed.

Among the memo’s recommendations was that Nick not be portrayed as acting in any way as the developer. Towards the end of the video, Christian had said: “This project [One Hyde Park] can’t be built by just Nick and myself. We’ve got a phenomenal team beneath us.”

Holyoake has seized upon language used by and about the brothers, claiming it points to the true nature of Nick’s role at CPC. He has provided the court with a witness statement from another businessman who makes similar accusations.

The Swiss-based private banker William Pym, a former friend and business partner of the Candys, said: “Nick would attend meetings, conference calls and was integral to the decision making process. Nick would email direct, be included by cc and respond to emails on all the transactions I have been involved in with CPC.“Nick … would tell anyone he could that he was a ‘billionaire’ and that he and Chris owned everything together. I have witnessed this, firsthand, on dozens of occasions.”

Lawyers for the Candys have suggested Pym’s statement was influenced by a financial interest in siding with Holyoake, something Pym has denied.