Is this being an accessory after the fact?

This story is most peculiar, "The British tax authorities have paid an informant for the bank details of scores of wealthy Britons. The records were stolen from one of the world’s most secretive tax havens.

HM Revenue & Customs paid £100,000 for data that it is using to launch investigations of up to 100 British citizens who have accounts at Liechtenstein’s biggest bank.

British authorities regard it as a coup to have penetrated accounts that have been beyond their reach for decades."


Am I alone in thinking that HMRC by paying money to someone who has been "sacked and convicted of fraud" are guilty of handling stolen goods and being an accessory to theft?