£100k Bounce Back Loan abuse leads to disqualification

The sole director of a surveyor’s firm, CKO Civil Engineering and Surveying Limited (CKO), has been disqualified for eleven years for his abuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS).

John McGarvey, from Rutherglen (a town on the outskirts of the centre of Glasgow), falsely claimed two Bounce Back Loans worth a total of £100,000 and used the money “for personal gain.”

In addition to claiming two loans each at the maximum amount allowed under the scheme (companies were limited to one £50,000 loan or multiple loans totalling no more than £50,000) and using the funds for his own use (instead of “for the economic benefit of the business”), McGarvey also exaggerated his company’s turnover in order to obtain the loans.

The BBLS allowed companies to apply for loans of up to a quarter of their 2019 turnover to a maximum of £50k. McGarvey’s applications through CKO stated the company’s 2019 turnover as £225,000 (in a July 2020 application) and £218,000 (in an application the following month). In reality, CKO’s “most recent accounts showed a turnover of only around £46,400.” Therefore, CKO was given loans worth more than eight times the amount it was eligible for.

CKO, based in Kirkinitlloch (also near Glasgow), entered a creditors voluntary liquidation (CVL) owing around £183,000 in November 2021. The liquidation process triggered an Insolvency Service investigation, which revealed the Bounce Back Loan Scheme abuse.

McGarvey’s disqualification started on 28th October 2022 – the details of the case have only been announced by the Insolvency Service today (8th December 2022) – and lasts for eleven years.

Of the case, Steven McGinty, Insolvency Service Investigation Manager, said:

“Not only did John McGarvey grossly exaggerate the company’s turnover to secure an initial loan, he also applied to a second bank for another loan his company wasn’t entitled to. To compound his actions, he used the money for his personal gain.

“His eleven-year ban should serve as a warning that if you abuse government support, we will use our full powers to bring you to account.”

McGarvey’s case was settled through a disqualification undertaking, which was accepted by the Secretary of State. Disqualification undertakings are the administrative equivalent of a disqualification order but do not involve court proceedings.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

.

Bounce Back Loans: November 2022 news roundup

As we’ve been reporting, the Insolvency Service’s recent press releases have been awash with director disqualifications and bankruptcy restrictions related to misuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS).

November was a particularly busy month for such news, with ten separate announcements detailing a total of 137 years of director disqualifications and bankruptcy restrictions published.

Here’s a roundup of what was announced.

The consequences of being uncooperative

Beginning our November roundup is the most stringent punishment announced this month.

A thirty-four-year-old man from Middlesbrough has been handed a prison sentence of fifteen months, suspended for eighteen months, for his abuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme.

Ben Hamilton successfully applied for a Bounce Back Loan (BBL) in May 2020 for his business, Netelco Ltd. Once the loan funds had been paid into Netelco’s bank account on 14th May 2020, the following day, Hamilton filed to dissolve the company.

The company dissolution process dictates that creditors must be notified of the application within seven days. Hamilton failed to notify the institution that provided Netelco with the BBL – a criminal offence.

Initially, Hamilton refused to cooperate with the Insolvency Service investigation team, including non-attendance at an interview with the investigators. It took a restraining order on Hamilton’s bank accounts (under the Proceeds of Crime Act) to convince him to engage in the process, at which point he repaid the loan in full.

Julie Barnes, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service said: “This was a clear case of attempted fraud by a company director who thought he could abuse the Covid-19 financial support schemes and get away with it.”

Hamilton was sentenced at Teeside Crown Court on 15th November 2022 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500 in addition to the suspended sentence, having pleaded guilty to charges on 14th October at Teeside Magistrates’ Court.

Back to top

Restrictions on top of restrictions

Simon King, from Plymouth, was already subject to a five-year bankruptcy restriction for Bounce Back Loan abuse when he was handed a ten-year director disqualification effective from 7th November 2022 for further abuse of the scheme.

King’s bankruptcy restrictions relate to his false claim of a £50,000 BBL as a sole trader under the name Blackfriars Contracts Division – a loan he wasn’t entitled to.

An investigation has since found that King obtained two additional loans under the BBLS totalling £80,000, which is more than the £50,000 maximum allowed by the scheme.

King ran Blackfriars Contract Ltd, a printers in Plymouth, until December 2020 when the company went into liquidation with debts of over £230,000 including the full Bounce Back Loan amounts.

Mohammed Subhan ran a restaurant in Dudley through his company Zara Spice Limited, as well as a catering business called Thania Spice. He applied for his own bankruptcy in March 2022, with the Official Receiver appointed as his Trustee.

The Official Receiver found that Subhan had obtained £70,000 under the BBLS through his self-employment business, Thania Spice. Subhan exaggerated his turnover when applying for the loans. He was able to acquire a £50,000 loan, initially, by stating a turnover of £200,000. In reality, his turnover for the relevant period “was closer to £3,000 to £4,000” – fifty times less than he claimed.

Subhan went on to successfully apply for two more loans. He “withdrew more than half the funds in cash” and spent thousands on expenses which weren’t for the benefit of his business.

As a result of the findings, Subhan has been given an additional eleven years of bankruptcy restrictions.

“He posed a significant risk to creditors and eleven years of restrictions will severely curtail Mohammed Subhan’s ability to abuse his future lenders”, said Karen Fox, Deputy Official Receiver.

Back to top

More overstated turnovers

Directors overstating their company’s turnover for 2019 (the relevant period for the BBLS application) is a common theme in many of the cases reported by the Insolvency Service.

Anthony Killarney, from Brentwood, successfully applied for a £50,000 loan by stating his company’s turnover was £600,000. However, the turnover for K11 Developments Ltd – Killarney’s property development company – was actually £0 for 2019 and for the two previous years. The company went into liquidation at the end of 2021, owning nearly £400,000. Killarney has been disqualified as a director for eleven years.

Shafiqur Rahman claimed a £25,000 loan for his sports coaching business in Manchester – “more than eleven times the money to which the business was entitled”. Rahman also spent £20,000 of the loan, paid to his company Aspire Sports Coaching & Partners Ltd, “without being able to prove it had been used to support the company.” He has received an eleven-year ban.

Nija Bite Limited director Malcolm Forbes obtained the maximum £50,000 BBL by claiming a turnover of £225,000. However, the takeaway and mobile food stand business’s actual turnover “was closer to £24,000”, which would have made Forbes’ company eligible for a £6,000 loan. Forbes has been given a ten-year director ban.

Similarly, Avin Habash falsely stated the turnover of his takeaway business, Hot Spot Liverpool Limited, was £200,000 – around double the actual figure – when applying for a £50,000 BBL. Habash has been banned for ten years, as well.

Michael Hansen claimed a £160,000 turnover for his company, MH Property & Engineering Services Limited, when it was, in fact, £8,294. Hansen obtained a £40,000 loan under the BBLS, rather than the £2,000 (approx.) loan his company was entitled to. Further compounding the situation, Hansen transferred £24,600 of the loan monies to himself over a ten-month period and “was unable to show investigators that the money had been used for the economic benefit of the company.” He, too, has received a ten-year director disqualification.

Jason Meads obtained £37,500 from two Bounce Back Loans by falsely claiming the turnover of his business, Hodl Clothing Limited, was £150,000. In reality, the company’s 2019 turnover was nil. He has been banned for ten years.

Another takeaway owner, Muhammad Rais from Leicester, stated his company’s turnover was £200,000, entitling him to the full £50,000 BBL. However, Lokma BBQ Ltd’s actual turnover was approximately £74,000, meaning Rais received more than twice the amount he should have from the scheme. “Rais has agreed with the liquidator to re-pay £8,000 of the money owed through monthly installments.” He has been disqualified for nine years.

Back to top

Non-business use

Another term of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme was that funds must be used only for the economic benefit of the company obtaining the loan.

Kamil Ozkan ran Martinos Italian Kitchen in Peterlee through the company Papa Peterlee Limited. Ozkan legally obtained a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan, but transferred around £37,500 of the loan monies to his personal account. As a result, Ozkan has received a six-year director disqualification.

Lee Mankelow, from Nottinghamshire, also claimed a £50,000 loan, which his company, Wolf Timber Ltd, was eligible for. However, Mankelow transferred all of the £50,000 to a former director of the business, the day after receiving the loan funds. He, too, has been banned for six years.

Back to top

No eligibility

Some directors applied for Bounce Back Loans for businesses that were not even trading at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Thirty-one-year-old Lavinia-Larisa Mociar obtained a £50,000 loan for L&M Construct Ltd, based in Harrow, London. Her company had ceased trading a year before she applied for the BBL.

In addition, Mociar overstated the company’s 2019 turnover and withdrew the loan funds as cash – both against the terms of the scheme. She has been disqualified for eleven years.

David Okot has also been banned for eleven years, after he applied for a £50,000 loan for B&S News Ltd which traded as B&S Newsagents in Lewisham, London, but closed down in January 2020 – six months before Okot applied to the BBLS.

And finally, Selvendran Ramar, from Southampton, obtained a £45,000 Bounce Back Loan in July 2020. He stated the turnover of his business, SJSA Ltd, was £180,000 a year. To be eligible for the scheme, businesses had to have been trading on 1st March 2020. SJSA Ltd was not incorporated until 30th March 2020. And, by the time of Ramar’s application, the company had made only £5,500 in three months.

Further breaking the terms of the scheme, Ramar then transferred £35,000 of the loan to his personal account and the remaining amount to a family member.

Ramar has been disqualified as a director for eleven years, and the Liquidator – Begbies Traynor Group – has so far recovered £25,000 of the loan.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

 

 

Man jailed for eight months for breaking terms of bankruptcy

Sukhi Sanghera, from Leamington Spa, has been sentenced to eight months in prison on four counts of bankruptcy offences.

Sanghera concealed a rental property from the Official Receiver and his bankruptcy trustees, after being made bankrupt in August 2017 owing more than £140,000.

The Coventry property brought Sanghera a rental income of £1,900 per month, which he hid from his trustees to avoid paying the money out to his creditors.

Sentencing the fifty-year-old – also known as Sukhwinderjit or Sukhwinder – at Warwick Crown Court on 27th October 2022, the judge, HHJ Berlin, described Sanghera as a “profoundly flawed and dishonest man….who showed a flagrant disregard for the law and authorities.”

Sanghera had an obligation to disclose all his assets to his trustees under the terms of his bankruptcy. The Official Receiver was initially appointed trustee before the administration of Sanghera’s affairs passed to other trustees.

Two years in to Sanghera’s bankruptcy, the Official Receiver requested further restrictions against him “[d]ue to the risk he posed to creditors”. Sanghera admitted that he failed to tell the Official Receiver about the property, of which he was the sole owner. As a result, a ten-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking was put in place.

Glenn Wicks, Chief Investigator for the Insolvency Service, said:

“At multiple points Sukhi Sanghera had the opportunity to be honest and disclose to his trustees that he benefited from a rental property. Instead, Sukhi Sanghera went to great lengths to conceal the property in Coventry through fraud and deception to avoid paying his creditors what they were owed.”

Sanghera was sentenced to eight-month prison sentences on all four charges under the Insolvency Act 1986. He will serve the sentences concurrently.

Wicks continued: “The courts have recognised the severity of Sukhi Sanghera’s actions and his custodial sentence demonstrates the risks people take if they don’t declare all their assets when in a bankruptcy process.”

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

 

 

Two companies wound up for very different scams

Fraudulent activity through limited companies takes on many guises. On 27th October, the Insolvency Service published details of two cases that have resulted in the companies involved being wound up by the Hight Court. The cases are very different. One saw the fraudulent company scam its suppliers by purchasing goods on credit without ever paying for them. The other was part of a global cryptocurrency investment scam.

Nobleread Ltd – credit scam

Nobleread Ltd, trading as NB Construction and NB Wholesale, created fake directors through identity theft and used those profiles to apply for credit with construction goods suppliers. From February to April 2021, the company ordered building materials, vacuum cleaners, boilers, microwaves and other goods using their credit facility with suppliers.

The goods were then sold on at a reduced price for cash, with the company’s representatives approaching people on construction sites and at builders’ merchants. The Insolvency Service reports that, “in most cases goods were shipped directly to site by the trade supplier.” NB Construction would then collect the cash payment in person. The company also had goods delivered to a warehouse in Essex under their NB Wholesale brand.

Nobleread Ltd’s suppliers were left more than £60,000 out of pocket, when the company failed to pay its debts.

Mark George, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said: “Nobleread has gone about its business in a reprehensible manner and those behind it have gone to great lengths to hide their identities. Suppliers should always do due diligence on companies before agreeing any credit facilities, and check the integrity of any trade references in particular.”

PGI Global UK Ltd – cryptocurrency scam

PGI Global UK Ltd is part of the Praetorian Group International Trading Inc., which has been subject to a seizure warrant in the US.

PGI appears to have been involved, mainly, in the sale and purchase of cryptocurrency. The company promised investors “returns of up to 200%, but these never materialised and “investors were unable to withdraw the funds they had invested.”

Between July 2020 and February 2021, the company received over £600,000 from investors. Outgoings from PGI’s accounts included nearly £200,000 paid to personal accounts and “a £10,000 payment to a luxury department store.”

The sole director of PGI Global UK Ltd refused to cooperate with the Insolvency Service’s investigation.

Mark George said: “Individuals and businesses that operate under the protections afforded by limited liability are, as a consequence, required to comply with the requirements of the Companies Act. This case highlights that where we have reasonable concerns about the trading practices of a company the court will take a dim view of any failure to co-operate with a statutory enquiry…”

In the public interest

Both companies were wound up by the High Court, with the court agreeing that closing down the companies was in the public interest. In the case of PGI Global UK Ltd, the court also cited the company’s “trading with a lack of commercial probity, and failure to comply with statutory obligations and lacking transparency.” Nobleread Ltd was described as following “objectionable trading practices.”

In both cases, the Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator and will look to recover funds for creditors.

Due diligence

Sadly, we saw an increase in scams at the height of the Covid pandemic, as fraudsters took advantage of others’ vulnerability. Many businesses and investors focused on survival or maximising investments, rather than completing due diligence exercises – and the fraudsters capitalised.

At ESA Risk, as part of our fraud consultancy, we can perform initial due diligence on suppliers / business partnerships / investment companies, or help to trace assets and funds if these have been fraudulently stolen.

Contact Ali Twidale – a Certified Fraud Examiner – at ali.twidale@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form to see how we can help you or your business.

Bounce Back Loans: October 2022 news roundup

As we’ve been reporting, the Insolvency Service’s recent press releases have been awash with director disqualifications and bankruptcy restrictions related to misuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS).

October was another busy month for such news. Here’s a roundup of what was announced.

Bounce Back Loan eligibility questions and unexplained transactions

Our first story actually broke on the last day of September.

Southampton-based director, Marian Daniel Clipici, has been banned from running companies for seven years for “failing to keep adequate accounts while his business was trading.”

The Romanian national appears to have been involved in a number of companies including a food shop and a construction business, Dahlial Limited. Dahlial Limited traded from November 2017 to September 2021, before going into liquidation, which led to an Insolvency Service investigation after the liquidator “identified a number of concerns”.

At the point where the company entered insolvency proceedings, Dahlial Limited owed £60,396, including more than £7,000 in unpaid tax and £40,000 against a Bounce Back Loan (BBL). Clipici’s lack of record keeping meant he was unable to prove that the company was eligible for the loan, nor could he explain satisfactorily that the loan funds were used to benefit the business. Clipici withdrew £30,000 from his business’s bank account in the four months following the Bounce Back Loan payment in May 2020, with no evidence that the money was used to pay “subcontractors and business expenses”, as he claimed.

As well as the BBL irregularities, “Clipici was unable to account for more than £530,000 paid into the business bank account” over a two-year period and for a similar amount of outgoings.

Lawrence Zussman, Deputy Head of Insolvent Investigation at the Insolvency Service, said: “Maintaining adequate company accounting records is a statutory requirement for all directors, and is vital to ensure company transactions are legitimate.”

In a similar case, Abul Kalam, from Birmingham, has been disqualified as a director for seven years, as he was unable to explain his Pembroke restaurant’s income and expenditure totalling more than £400,000.

The bank account for his company, Choose Chilli Ltd, showed income of £178,000 and outgoings of £241,000 between December 2019 and July 2021. Kalam was unable to produce “adequate invoices or records to verify the amounts”, with the large sums of money appearing particularly suspicious as the period included Covid restrictions and lockdowns which would have impacted his restaurant, Mehfil’s.

In addition to the £178,000 mentioned, Kalam successfully applied for a £25,000 Bounce Back Loan in 2020 and a £10,000 top-up in March 2021. The forty-eight-year-old was unable to demonstrate that the loan funds had been used to benefit his business. The loans were part of around £70,000 the company owed when it went into voluntary liquidation in July 2021.

Back to top

Overstated turnover

Businesses were able to borrow up to a quarter of their 2019 turnover (capped at £50,000) under the Bounce Back Loan Scheme.

Monica Coyle, from Kilmarnock, ran a health and wellbeing company – Positive Pulse Limited – during the Covid pandemic, offering “health checks to employees of businesses.” She received a £30,000 Bounce Back Loan after falsely declaring the company’s turnover as £130,000 in her application – a 2,500% increase on the true figure of £5,000.

Additionally, more than £26,000 of the loan was spent “on personal use.”

As a result, Coyle has received a ten-year ban from holding company directorships.

Insolvency Service Investigation Manager Steven McGinty said that Coyle “exploited the [Bounce Back Loan] scheme and took taxpayers’ money during the pandemic which she knew she was not entitled to.”

Similarly, Vicki Holland and Darren Trutt, from Harlow in Essex, have been disqualified for nine years and seven years respectively for overstating the turnover of their business, Crepe Heaven Ltd, when applying for a £20,000 Bounce Back Loan.

Holland claimed that the company’s turnover in 2019 was £100,000 – more than seven times the actual amount of £13,000.

As co-director, Trutt has been banned “for his part in allowing Crepe Heaven to overstate its turnover on the BBL application.”

Back to top

Twelve-year ban for director who bought house with loan funds

The longest ban on this month’s list is reserved for a property director who obtained three Bounce Back Loans and used the funds to purchase a house, which he then sold on, pocketing the cash from its sale. Brendan Gaughan has received a director disqualification of twelve years, as a result.

Gaughan was director of Gaughan Group Ltd, Gaughan Property Ltd and Rentl Property Ltd, all incorporated in February 2020. The companies did not start trading until April 2020, meaning they were ineligible to receive funds under the BBLS, which required companies to have been trading on 1st March 2020.

Despite that, Gaughan was able to take out Bounce Back Loans for each of his three companies. The three loans totalled £135,000.

The Glaswegian moved all the funds into one account and bought a property worth around £160,000 with the money. Less than a year later, in March 2021, he sold the same property for around £140,000, and transferred to his personal account £100,000 of the proceeds.

Steven McGinty, Investigation Manager at the Insolvency Service said: “Bounce Back Loans were made available for trading companies adversely affected by the pandemic. Brendan Gaughan should have known his companies weren’t entitled to the loans, yet he took them anyway and used the funds for personal gain.”

Back to top

Company wound up for Bounce Back Loan Scheme abuse

Finally this month, Keysholders Ltd has been wound up by the High Court for abuse of Covid-19 support schemes including Bounce Back Loans.

Applications were made on behalf of the company – not always successfully – to the Job Retention Scheme and the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme, as well as the BBLS.

The company did obtain a Bounce Back Loan of £40,000 in May 2020, having stated its 2019 turnover was more than three times the actual amount (£200,000 instead of £65,000). The firm had been dormant since March 2019, too, therefore it was ineligible for the scheme in the first place.

By August 2020, Keysholders’ 2019 turnover was further inflated to £550,000 (more than eight times the true figure) in the next – unsuccessful – application, this time to the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme for £250,000.

A few months later, the company obtained a grant of £20,000 through the Job Retention (‘furlough’) Scheme. Employment contracts show that the staff member this grant related to was employed after the date that would have made them eligible for the scheme, however.

The sole director when Keysholders Ltd was wound up in June 2022 (the case has only now been publicly reported by the Insolvency Service) was Olayinka Adediran.

The Official Receiver has been appointed Liquidator of the company.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

 

 

Creditor bankruptcy and liquidation petition deposits to rise from 1st November

From Tuesday 1st November 2022, the up-front payment needed to file a creditors’ bankruptcy petition or a company liquidation (winding-up) petition will increase.

The bankruptcy petition deposit will rise from £990 to £1,500, and the winding-up petition deposit will increase from £1,600 to £2,600.

This is the first change to fees since April 2016, with the Insolvency Service citing the drivers behind the increase as a “historically low level” of insolvency case numbers and “insufficient asset values to recover the administration costs” in the “majority” of other cases.

In announcing the fee rise, the Insolvency Service went on to say that “[t]he deposit increase will enable the Insolvency Service to continue to administer and investigate insolvencies effectively, maximising outcomes for creditors whilst mitigating the risk of cost recovery being passed on to the taxpayer.”

There will be no change to the deposit fee where an individual applies for their own bankruptcy.

According to the Insolvency Service, deposits go some way towards funding preliminary work undertaken by an Official Receiver on each case.

These increases are not insubstantial – around 50% for bankruptcy petitions and more than 60% for company winding-up petitions – and they are likely to lead to changes in the way that creditors assess their debt recovery options.

In particular, understanding the asset profile of a debtor – i.e. whether they own recoverable assets that can cover the value of the debt – will take on further importance, as will the value of the debt.

The debt thresholds for issuing petitions are relatively low. While petitions can be a useful tool in a creditor’s debt recovery strategy, those which develop into full insolvency proceedings bring various costs on top of the petition deposit. With the increased deposit, the total debt value needed to make insolvency proceedings worthwhile financially will increase also.

In view of the rising costs and clients not wanting to throw good money after bad, ESA Risk are often instructed to identify if the debtor or debtor company has any assets which the creditors will be able to make a recovery from. Depending upon the complexity of the matter, this may be a more cost-effective option than pushing a debtor into insolvency and winning a pyrrhic victory when there might be no assets.

Asset tracing services from ESA Risk

When it comes to tracing assets, we are the experts. ESA Risk’s team will deliver concise but comprehensive results which will enable you to make the decision on which way to proceed. With a network of trusted partners covering every part of the world, our investigation capability – and therefore yours – is truly international.

To instruct us on an investigation or for more information on our asset tracing services, contact Mike Wright, Risk Management & Investigations Consultant at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

Download our Asset Tracing brochure to read more:

Bankrupt who breached terms given suspended sentence

Daniel Ross Patchett has been sentenced to two hundred hours community service and twenty months imprisonment, suspended for eighteen months, for acting as a company director while subject to bankruptcy restrictions.

Thirty-four-year-old Patchett was an owner and director of DRP Distribution Ltd until his bankruptcy in February 2018. He subsequently resigned from his role in the business, leaving his wife as the company’s sole director.

However, an Insolvency Service investigation found that Patchett had “continued to act in the management of the company in 2018” by, for example, chasing unpaid invoices and corresponding with the company’s accountants. Some of DRP Distribution’s suppliers were under the impression that Patchett was still a director of the company.

During his bankruptcy, Patchett received more than £30,000 from the business and withdrew in cash £28,000 from the company’s bank account.

In addition, he concealed his income to avoid paying his creditors – quickly ceasing agreed monthly payments of £400 after telling the Official Receiver that he could pay only “a token gesture amount” as he had stopped working at DRP Distribution.

Patchett was sentenced on 28th September 2022 by Her Honour Judge Sjölin Knight at Lincoln Crown Court. His sentence comprised twelve months for offences under section 356 of the Insolvency Act (regarding false statements) and eight months for offences under section 11 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act, which states that:

“It is an offence for a person who is an undischarged bankrupt to act as director of, or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of, a company, except with the leave of the court.”

DRP Distribution was an order fulfilment company, active from 2016 to 2019, providing various services for third parties who sold products through online platforms.

“Daniel Patchett was fully aware both of his responsibility not to act as a director of a limited company given he was bankrupt, and also of his duty to disclose all assets and details of his income to the Official Receiver”, said Julie Barnes, Chief Investigator for the Insolvency Service.

“He chose to flagrantly disregard these obligations for his own personal gain, leaving creditors out of pocket. We will always prosecute such cases to protect the business community and the public from financial harm.”

Patchett, of Market Raisin in Lincolnshire, told the court “he had been suffering from gambling addiction.” He pleaded guilty of acting in the management of a company whilst an undischarged bankrupt.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

What are the risks of litigation when a company has gone insolvent?

By guest author John Munnery of UK Liquidators.

Soaring energy costs, supply chain disruption, and labour shortages, are all combining to create a challenging trading environment for some.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that insolvency numbers are rising, but further problems can materialise on a personal level for directors if their company fails. Litigation is a real threat in this situation, even though the corporate structure provides legal separation from the business.

So why might litigation occur when a company has gone insolvent?

Misfeasance

The liquidator may file a court claim against a director for misfeasance if certain financial dealings become apparent during their investigations. In addition to the office-holder, claims for misfeasance can also be brought by third parties, such as creditors and shareholders.

Instances of misfeasance can include, but are not limited to:

Breaching fiduciary duty

Part of a director’s fiduciary duty is to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence, so if they act negligently or to the detriment of company creditors, they could face litigation and considerable financial loss on a personal level.

Concealing assets

Hiding assets deprives creditors of repayment by reducing the total available assets for sale by the liquidator. Unsecured creditors typically receive very little in cases of corporate liquidation, and if assets are removed their returns are diminished unnecessarily.

Taking an excessive salary

As directors have a legal duty to know their company’s financial position, taking an excessive salary during times of business decline could result in litigation. If a claim is filed, the court will assess the level of salaries taken by directors and could demand repayment of monies to the company for the benefit of its creditors.

Antecedent transactions

Litigation is also a risk for directors if a liquidator discovers transactions have been made that worsened the position of creditors, or contributed to the company’s downfall.

Preference payments

Repaying a creditor in full whilst failing to pay others, or paying off a loan solely because it has a personal guarantee attached, could be regarded as a preference payment as it places other creditors at a disadvantage.

Transactions at an undervalue

If a director sells a business asset at below its true value, they diminish the financial returns for company creditors. The office-holder may submit a claim to court with a view to reversing the transaction in order to boost creditor returns.

Wrongful trading

When company directors carry on trading in the knowledge that their company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent, they could worsen the position of creditors and subsequently face litigation for wrongful trading.

Directors should take every step possible to minimise creditor losses, including seeking professional insolvency help and ceasing trade so that no further liabilities are incurred by the business.

If the claim is upheld, a director will be directed to pay monies back to the company. The sum required is entirely at the court’s discretion, but could cover the amount of additional loss suffered by the creditors.

Fraudulent trading

Instances of fraudulent trading may be uncovered during the office-holder’s investigations if directors have intentionally set out to defraud company creditors. Cases can include deliberately taking payment from customers in the knowledge that orders will not be fulfilled, or accepting credit from suppliers with no intention of paying them.

The liquidator always interviews directors as part of their investigation, and will take the matter further if fraud becomes evident.

A change of focus in insolvency

The focus for directors of an insolvent company must fall on their creditors, rather than on the company and its shareholders. If directors fail to prioritise creditor interests, the risks of litigation are considerable.

Office-holders can look back two years or more for instances of misconduct or fraud. If creditor returns are found to have been diminished by director actions, whether deliberately or unwittingly, the courts can inflict severe sanctions, including fines and disqualification for up to 15 years.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact us at advice@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure.

This article was written by guest author John Munnery of UK Liquidators.

Bounce Back Loans: August 2022 news roundup

As we’ve been reporting, the Insolvency Service’s recent press releases have been awash with director disqualifications and bankruptcy restrictions related to misuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme.

August was a particularly prolific month for such news. Here’s a roundup of what was announced.

Five cases end in bankruptcy restrictions

On 5th August, the Insolvency Service detailed cases against five individuals, all made subject to bankruptcy restrictions due to their abuse of the Covid support scheme. Charlene Wilson accepted an eight-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking, with each of the other four cases resulting in bankruptcy restrictions for ten years.

Wilson falsely inflated her turnover in her Bounce Back Loan (BBL) application in order to obtain the maximum £50,000 loan. The self-employed beauty therapist then went on to use £15,000 of the loan on personal expenses.

Similarly, another beauty business owner, Georgiana Cercel, overstated her turnover, received a £50,000 BBL, and gave her sister one fifth of the loan monies.

Despite eligibility criteria stating businesses must have been trading before March 2020, Sarah Sweeting successfully applied for a £22,000 BBL for her farm shop home delivery service which started in October 2020. She subsequently transferred the majority of the loan (£14,000) to her husband.

Abbas Moradmand secured a £26,894 BBL by applying on behalf of a company he was no longer involved with. He ran a tyre business from 2018 to 2019, but the company was under new ownership and Moradmand was working as a taxi driver at the time of his application to the scheme.

Finally, Florin Bodale took out a £50,000 loan after artificially inflating the turnover of his company Varga Construction. When questioned by investigators, he told them he thought the application asked for the company’s combined turnover for the last three years. However, the figure he stated was still more than double Varga Construction’s three-year turnover.

About the five cases, Kevin Read, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said:

In all of these cases it was obvious, or it should have been obvious, that they either misused the Bounce Back Loan for personal benefit, took a larger loan than they were eligible for, or weren’t eligible for a Bounce Back Loan at all.”

CVL triggers Insolvency Service investigation

Tia-Bella Limited, a balloon and gifts retailer in Wolverhampton, entered into creditors voluntary liquidation (CVL) in July 2021, leading to “further enquiries from the Insolvency Service.” The investigation uncovered that one of the directors, Rebecca Simmons of Walsall, had overstated the company’s turnover to obtain a £45,000 Bounce Back Loan.

In fact, Tia-Bella was not eligible for the minimum BBL amount of £2,000, even, as the company’s turnover was £1,300 – not the £180,000 claimed by Simmons.

Investigators were “unable to confirm whether the…loan benefited the business or not”, but their enquiries showed that Simmons paid out a £10,000 directors’ loan, £10,000 on a company car, and £10,000 in “repayments of deposits incurred before the pandemic” in the space of two months after acquiring the BBL.

“Bounce back loans were issued by the government to help viable businesses during the pandemic. Not only did Rebecca Simmons grossly exaggerate the company’s turnover to secure a loan she shouldn’t have got a single penny of, Rebecca Simmons went onto use the funds on activities she couldn’t even justify as benefitting Tia-Bella.”

– Lawrence Zussman, Deputy Head of Insolvent Investigations

Simmons has been disqualified from running companies for nine years, effective from 25th August 2022.

Tia-Bella’s liquidator, Bhardwaj insolvency practitioners, is said to be “considering the bounce back loan and recovery of funds.”

Two companies closed down amid potential scam

At the end of last week, the Insolvency Service announced that two companies – Micasa WW Ltd and Remultex Ltd – had been wound up in court following an investigation into suspicious transactions potentially related to a cryptocurrency scam.

Due to “the lack of accounting records” kept by Micasa, it wasn’t possible to confirm its involvement in a scam. However, a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan which the company likely wasn’t entitled to was uncovered.

“Nearly all the BBL was transferred to Remultex Ltd”, which also received a £30,000 loan, again, when the company was likely ineligible for the scheme.

Remultex was sent payments from three other companies, too – around £250,000 in total, which was then withdrawn in cash, with no adequate records kept.

Director disqualified for wrongly claiming £200,000

And finally, Rotherham-based Stephen Burke has been banned for eleven years after obtaining Bounce Back Loans for his four construction companies on false pretences. One of the companies was dormant and Burke hugely overstated the turnover of the others.

Yorkshire Plant Hire and Sales Limited, Woodhouse Civil Engineering Limited and Richmond Brokers Limited had “turnover ranging from just £635 to £3,400”, but Burke listed turnover for each company as between £200,000 and £320,000.

The sixty-three-year-old spent the majority of the loan funds (£174,000) “repaying a personal loan to his former partner”.

Burke’s abuse of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme was uncovered when he attempted to dissolve his companies in February of last year, with the businesses instead placed in liquidation due to the unsettled loans,

Rob Clarke, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service said:

“Stephen Burke not only sought to defraud the Bounce Back Loan scheme for personal gain, but then sought to cover his tracks by dissolving the companies he’d used. This abhorrent conduct has rightly resulted in a lengthy ban, removing his ability to trade with the benefit of limited liability until 2033.”

Burke’s disqualification is effective from 4th August 2022.

The companies’ liquidator, Yorkshire-based DSI Business Recovery, “has begun recovery action.”

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure:

 

 

Bankruptcy restrictions for abuse of Bounce Back Loan Scheme

An unemployed man from Leamington Spa has been given ten-year bankruptcy restrictions for securing a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan for his business that had never traded.

Zahoor Ahmed Chaudry applied for the loan in June 2020, despite his company being ineligible under the scheme. Moreover, in his application, he fabricated a £200,000 turnover, so he could be given the maximum loan available (£50,000).

Chaudry, 49, filed for bankruptcy in December last year, leading the Insolvency Service to investigate his financial conduct. He initially claimed “that his recently deceased wife had taken control of his bank account and spent the money without his knowledge.”

Investigators found that Chaudry used £40,000 of the loan to pay a law firm, for which he then “provided a glowing review on their website”. Chaudry also denied posting the review.

Kevin Read, Official Receiver at the Insolvency Service, said: “those like Zahoor Chaudhry who have cynically abused the scheme should expect to be caught and punished.”

A ten-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking from Chaudry was accepted by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, effective from 20th June 2022.

Bankruptcy restrictions undertakings have the same effects as orders, but are settled outside of court. The restrictions include needing to disclose your status when applying for £500 or more of credit and a ban from holding company directorships without the court’s permission.

On a positive note, the Official Receiver expects to recover some or all of the money, having instructed lawyers on the matter.

Insolvency and debt investigations

Seeing the whole picture in insolvency and debt cases is key to maximising returns to creditors. For more information on how ESA Risk can help to identify hidden assets or locate targets who have gone to ground, contact Mike Wright, Investigations and Risk Management Consultant, at mike.wright@esarisk.com, on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or via our contact form.

You can also learn more from our Insolvency & Debt Investigations brochure.

Deep dive for the answers you need
Or contact us on +44 (0)343 515 8686 or at advice@esarisk.com.

Deep dive for the
answers you need

Lawyers, accountants, advisors, investors, senior
management. You name them, we help them find the answers
they need. Ready to discover how we can help you?