The two procedures have different purposes
The tax authority assesses tax compliance, while criminal proceedings address potential criminal liability. Evidence sources may nevertheless overlap.
The audit itself is not the only risk indicator
The relevant question is what transactions are being examined, what documents are requested and whether concerns are raised about accounting, transaction reality, origin of funds or similar facts.
Explanations should remain factually consistent
Where several procedures run in parallel, an untested or rushed explanation in one process can complicate the overall position.
Early analysis separates real risk from assumptions
Not every tax violation amounts to a criminal offence. The legal analysis should distinguish tax findings from the separate requirements for criminal liability.
Related practice
Tax law →This article provides general information only and is not individual legal advice. The appropriate procedural route and strategy depend on the facts and the applicable law at the relevant time.