Insolvency Practitioners Duties Regarding Bounce Back Loan Abuse!
- Thread starter UK Contractor Accountant
- Start date
- Original Poster
- #162
11 year ban for this one - fancied a bit of a gamble with taxpayers money by investing in cryptocurrency!
Financial consultant from Chigwell, Essex, has been banned for 11 years after abusing £45,000 Bounce Back Loan to invest in cryptocurrencies.
On the application, E D stated her company had been trading when it was dormant, while also exaggerating a £200,000 turnover when accounts for the year ending September 2019 revealed turnover was closer to £19,000.
However, at the time E D applied for a bounce back loan on 17 August 2020, her company was not trading and dormant accounts were filed for the year ending September 2020.
Further enquiries found that E D's company received a £45,000 Bounce Back Loan of which she transferred £40,000 into her personal account, which she invested in cryptocurrency. Of the remaining loan, £2,000 was paid to E D as a director’s loan and £3,000 used as an advance payment towards her company’s liquidation.
Financial consultant from Chigwell, Essex, has been banned for 11 years after abusing £45,000 Bounce Back Loan to invest in cryptocurrencies.
On the application, E D stated her company had been trading when it was dormant, while also exaggerating a £200,000 turnover when accounts for the year ending September 2019 revealed turnover was closer to £19,000.
However, at the time E D applied for a bounce back loan on 17 August 2020, her company was not trading and dormant accounts were filed for the year ending September 2020.
Further enquiries found that E D's company received a £45,000 Bounce Back Loan of which she transferred £40,000 into her personal account, which she invested in cryptocurrency. Of the remaining loan, £2,000 was paid to E D as a director’s loan and £3,000 used as an advance payment towards her company’s liquidation.
Upvote
0
Well, if she had invested in Bitcoin immediately, she would have tripled her money at this point!
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #166
Abdulrazag Zagroba, 54, from Manchester, appeared at Manchester Crown Court on Friday 24 June 2022 where he was sentenced to 24 months before Recorder Hudson.
This was the first successful criminal prosecution of a bounce bank loan fraudster for the Insolvency Service, which also saw Abdulrazag Zagroba disqualified from acting as a director for 7 years.
The court heard that Zagroba was sole director of Amigo Pizza (Manchester) Ltd, incorporated in January 2020. The company operated a pizza takeaway business in the Stretford area of Manchester until it was dissolved in October the same year.
Zagroba’s application to dissolve the company was originally signed on 17 June 2020 but less than two weeks later, he applied for a Bounce Back Loan of £20,000.
Zagroba did not disclose to the bank that the company was already in the process of being dissolved and he signed the loan declaration stating the company would be able to make repayments. By the time the loan was due to be repaid in June 2021, the company had already been dissolved.
The terms of the Bounce Back Loan were clear that funds could only be used for business purposes and not personal use.
However, when interviewed under caution by Insolvency Service investigators, Zagroba admitted to having no intention of using the Bounce Back Loan for the business.
Zagroba claimed that he arranged for friends to travel with around £14,000 in cash to give to his family abroad. He used the remaining £6,000 to buy a car and insurance.
He pleaded guilty to charges of fraudulently claiming Covid-19 financial support to which he was not entitled contrary to the Companies Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006 at Manchester City Magistrate’s Court on 9 May.
This was the first successful criminal prosecution of a bounce bank loan fraudster for the Insolvency Service, which also saw Abdulrazag Zagroba disqualified from acting as a director for 7 years.
The court heard that Zagroba was sole director of Amigo Pizza (Manchester) Ltd, incorporated in January 2020. The company operated a pizza takeaway business in the Stretford area of Manchester until it was dissolved in October the same year.
Zagroba’s application to dissolve the company was originally signed on 17 June 2020 but less than two weeks later, he applied for a Bounce Back Loan of £20,000.
Zagroba did not disclose to the bank that the company was already in the process of being dissolved and he signed the loan declaration stating the company would be able to make repayments. By the time the loan was due to be repaid in June 2021, the company had already been dissolved.
The terms of the Bounce Back Loan were clear that funds could only be used for business purposes and not personal use.
However, when interviewed under caution by Insolvency Service investigators, Zagroba admitted to having no intention of using the Bounce Back Loan for the business.
Zagroba claimed that he arranged for friends to travel with around £14,000 in cash to give to his family abroad. He used the remaining £6,000 to buy a car and insurance.
He pleaded guilty to charges of fraudulently claiming Covid-19 financial support to which he was not entitled contrary to the Companies Act 2006 and the Fraud Act 2006 at Manchester City Magistrate’s Court on 9 May.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #171
11 years Disqualification for this one- 6 years seem to be the standard disqualification for BBL abuse but as he abused 2 BBL's he got a 1 year discount as should have been 12 years - result!
On 4 May 2020, Mr R, on behalf for "CSML" applied for and subsequently received a Government backed Bounce Back Loan totalling £50,000 (" BBL 1").
On 20 May 2020, Mr R, on behalf for CSML, applied for and subsequently received a further Government backed Bounce Back Loan totalling £50,000 ("BBL 2") despite having already applied for and received BBL 1.
Further, the funds advanced were not used in their entirety for the economic benefit of CSML's business, but were used to make payments to Mr R and to a company connected to him and of which he is sole director and shareholder.
In that: BBL 1 On 4 May 2020, Mr R made an application on behalf of CSML for a bounce back loan. On 11 May 2020, the sum of £50,000 was paid into CSML's bank account. The balance on the account prior to receipt of the BBL was overdrawn in the sum of £21,972.33. BBL 2 On 20 May 2020, Mr R made a further application on behalf of CSML for a bounce back loan.
On 22 May 2020, the sum of £50,000 was paid into the CSML's other bank account. The balance on the account prior to receipt of the BBL 2 was £3,505.85. When making the application for BBL 2, Mr R falsely declared that the BBL 2 application was CSML's only application for a Bounce Back Loan.
Net payments in the sum of £52,520.56 were paid to a company connected to Mr R between receipt of the first BBL on 11 May 2020 and 15 December 2020 of which £28,027.67 was funded by BBL 1.
On the 26 May 2020, the sum of £28,000 was transferred from CSML's other bank account which had been credited with BBL 2 to an account understood to be held in the name of Mr R personally. As at the date of liquidation, both BBL 1 and BBL 2 remained outstanding in full.
On 4 May 2020, Mr R, on behalf for "CSML" applied for and subsequently received a Government backed Bounce Back Loan totalling £50,000 (" BBL 1").
On 20 May 2020, Mr R, on behalf for CSML, applied for and subsequently received a further Government backed Bounce Back Loan totalling £50,000 ("BBL 2") despite having already applied for and received BBL 1.
Further, the funds advanced were not used in their entirety for the economic benefit of CSML's business, but were used to make payments to Mr R and to a company connected to him and of which he is sole director and shareholder.
In that: BBL 1 On 4 May 2020, Mr R made an application on behalf of CSML for a bounce back loan. On 11 May 2020, the sum of £50,000 was paid into CSML's bank account. The balance on the account prior to receipt of the BBL was overdrawn in the sum of £21,972.33. BBL 2 On 20 May 2020, Mr R made a further application on behalf of CSML for a bounce back loan.
On 22 May 2020, the sum of £50,000 was paid into the CSML's other bank account. The balance on the account prior to receipt of the BBL 2 was £3,505.85. When making the application for BBL 2, Mr R falsely declared that the BBL 2 application was CSML's only application for a Bounce Back Loan.
Net payments in the sum of £52,520.56 were paid to a company connected to Mr R between receipt of the first BBL on 11 May 2020 and 15 December 2020 of which £28,027.67 was funded by BBL 1.
On the 26 May 2020, the sum of £28,000 was transferred from CSML's other bank account which had been credited with BBL 2 to an account understood to be held in the name of Mr R personally. As at the date of liquidation, both BBL 1 and BBL 2 remained outstanding in full.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #173
Seem you only get 4 year ban if you swipe BBL money for a house deposit - it'normall;y 6 years if used for luxury cars, drugs, jewellery etc. Silver linings hey!
On 10 July 2020 the Company received a BBL of £30,000 and upon receipt of the £30,000 BBL, it was all transferred to the Company’s savings account. On 21 September 2020 £20,000 was transferred to pay the deposit on a new home for Mr G. During the same period, HMRC received total payments of £3,431 for Corporation Tax. At liquidation the Company owed HMRC £74,881 in relation to Corporation Tax accumulating since October 2017, £34,170 in relation to VAT and £30,000 in relation to the BBL. Non-government creditors totalled £1,095.
On 10 July 2020 the Company received a BBL of £30,000 and upon receipt of the £30,000 BBL, it was all transferred to the Company’s savings account. On 21 September 2020 £20,000 was transferred to pay the deposit on a new home for Mr G. During the same period, HMRC received total payments of £3,431 for Corporation Tax. At liquidation the Company owed HMRC £74,881 in relation to Corporation Tax accumulating since October 2017, £34,170 in relation to VAT and £30,000 in relation to the BBL. Non-government creditors totalled £1,095.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #174
FCA Summary of findings o their multi-firm review assessing how retail banks treat their SME customers who are in collections and recoveries including BBL's.
SMEs are a vital part of the UK economy and have tackled significant challenges during the last few years, both with the adverse impacts of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and the current cost of living crisis. As part of our ongoing commitment to ensure SME customers are treated fairly, we undertook a multi-firm project to review the treatment of SME customers’ when they get into difficulty with their borrowing.
During our review we found repeated instances of poor customer outcomes and failures to treat customers fairly.
Several themes appear to drive poor customer outcomes:
SMEs are a vital part of the UK economy and have tackled significant challenges during the last few years, both with the adverse impacts of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and the current cost of living crisis. As part of our ongoing commitment to ensure SME customers are treated fairly, we undertook a multi-firm project to review the treatment of SME customers’ when they get into difficulty with their borrowing.
During our review we found repeated instances of poor customer outcomes and failures to treat customers fairly.
Several themes appear to drive poor customer outcomes:
- Gaps in policies and procedures.
- Staff training that did not adequately cover conduct requirements.
- Manual interventions within systems which appeared to make delivering fair customer outcomes more difficult.
- Absence of outcomes testing or QA that considered whether customers had received fair outcomes from the end-to-end treatment they received.
- In many cases record keeping was poor, such that some could not provide complete customer files and it was not possible to determine if the customer had received a fair outcome based on the records.
- We saw instances of customers providing information indicating characteristics of vulnerability that were not considered or suitably responded to.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #175
Seems Barclays are asking some their BBL clients to provide information to verify the turnover declaration made on the BBL application online form and advising them they may share information supplied on the orginal form with HMRC.
HMRC argue that there was such as system in place albeit not sat the start when the BBL scheme was launched - INTERESTING!
"Hannah Bernard, of Barclays, told MPs that, instead, her Bank had to rely on self-attestation by businesses applying for bounceback loans.
The scheme necessitated a lot of self-attestation, particularly the businesses’ turnover. Ideally we would have wanted an HMRC data feed so we could have checked the turnover they were stating,” Ms Bernard told the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
In response to a question from the PA news agency, HMRC said that it had set up a system that would allow banks to verify a company’s turnover. This system was not active until months after the loan scheme was launched in May 2020.
“HMRC set up the Bounce Bank Loan Verification Service in January 2021 to allow banks to check applicant information against HMRC data,” a spokesperson said.
“All banks offering BBLs (bounce back loans) were encouraged to use the HMRC service.”
HMRC argue that there was such as system in place albeit not sat the start when the BBL scheme was launched - INTERESTING!
"Hannah Bernard, of Barclays, told MPs that, instead, her Bank had to rely on self-attestation by businesses applying for bounceback loans.
The scheme necessitated a lot of self-attestation, particularly the businesses’ turnover. Ideally we would have wanted an HMRC data feed so we could have checked the turnover they were stating,” Ms Bernard told the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
In response to a question from the PA news agency, HMRC said that it had set up a system that would allow banks to verify a company’s turnover. This system was not active until months after the loan scheme was launched in May 2020.
“HMRC set up the Bounce Bank Loan Verification Service in January 2021 to allow banks to check applicant information against HMRC data,” a spokesperson said.
“All banks offering BBLs (bounce back loans) were encouraged to use the HMRC service.”
Upvote
0
This most recent one peaked my interest....
"The Insolvency Service is considering recovery of the bounce back loan funds by using legal powers to seek Compensation Orders against the directors where appropriate."
When the new powers were announced granting The Insolvency Service powers to investigate directors of dissolved companies, I was intrigued how they would go about seeking financial recovery of misused BBLs. Now we know.
www.gov.uk
"The Insolvency Service is considering recovery of the bounce back loan funds by using legal powers to seek Compensation Orders against the directors where appropriate."
When the new powers were announced granting The Insolvency Service powers to investigate directors of dissolved companies, I was intrigued how they would go about seeking financial recovery of misused BBLs. Now we know.
Directors banned for abusing dissolution process
First four directors disqualified under new powers to tackle directors from dissolving companies and walking away without paying their debts.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #181
Government BBL Guarantees settled as of March 22 - Metro Bank doing well!
BBLS: Lender breakdown of facilities drawn and settled
BBLS: Lender breakdown of facilities drawn and settled
Lender name | Original facility amount (£) | Volume | Settled (£)* | Settled Volume |
| Barclays | 10,786,518,165 | 344,091 | 87,966,990 | 2,694 |
| NatWest | 8,924,313,437 | 292,061 | - | - |
| Lloyds Bank | 8,540,712,481 | 282,554 | - | - |
| HSBC UK | 7,252,789,250 | 236,616 | - | - |
| Santander UK | 4,291,110,000 | 159,046 | 627,192 | 14 |
| Starling Bank | 1,605,680,051 | 53,895 | 61,392,136 | 1,693 |
| Metro Bank | 1,438,316,479 | 38,502 | 122,090,983 | 3,015 |
| Bank of Scotland | 1,046,601,691 | 34,790 | - | - |
| Clydesdale Bank | 1,009,334,000 | 34,712 | 44,035,911 | 1,553 |
| TSB | 625,943,837 | 24,722 | 10,068,300 | 333 |
| The Co-operative Bank | 285,532,598 | 11,018 | 1,469,301 | 48 |
| Danske Bank (UK) | 279,180,963 | 8,581 | 1,431,473 | 50 |
| Bank of Ireland | 247,520,921 | 7,356 | 880,460 | 24 |
| AIB | 172,821,478 | 5,337 | 402,804 | 12 |
| Tide | 59,972,500 | 1,826 | 14,960,183 | 473 |
| Funding Circle | 35,410,025 | 1,078 | 1,213,639 | 33 |
| Capital on Tap | 19,200,378 | 661 | 4,700,235 | 154 |
| Arbuthnot Latham | 13,725,162 | 308 | 50,000 | 1 |
| Conister | 10,418,281 | 275 | - | - |
| Paragon Bank | 5,982,553 | 139 | 150,397 | 4 |
| GC Business Finance | 5,812,831 | 245 | 149,199 | 4 |
| Skipton Business Finance | 3,640,750 | 82 | 140,293 | 4 |
| Investec | 3,295,938 | 77 | - | - |
| Close Brothers | 2,261,011 | 102 | 137,283 | 7 |
Total | 46,666,094,779 | 1,538,074 | 351,866,778 | 10,116 |
Upvote
0
That would be my guess. Of all the people I've talked to about their BBLs, I have yet to speak to someone who has come to any form of settlement agreement with the lender.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #184
*Settled - once the guarantee claim is processed and payment is released, the facility is marked as settled on the British Business Bank portal. Some lenders may be more advanced than others in their Claims and Recoveries processes which could lead to figures being distorted. Lenders may submit guarantee claims quarterly in line with the terms of the guarantee.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #187
Metro Bank has been the largest beneficiary of these loan guarantees, claiming £122m for just over 3,000 loans that have soured, representing around 7.8 per cent of the loans it issued.
"The British Business Bank (BBB) has emphasised that these are early figures and may be distorted given the difference between different lenders’ claims and recoveries processes," a spokesperson for Metro Bank
"The classification of these loans as defaults and not fraudulent has also been confirmed by the BBB. As such, it is too soon to draw conclusions from them. As more data is reported over time, we expect Metro Bank to move more broadly in line with our peers."
Meanwhile, digital lenders Tide and Capital On Tap performed poorest when it comes to the percentage of loans ending in a taxpayer payout.
Over 25 per cent of Tide’s 1,826 Bounce Back Loans resulted in a payout (473 loans worth £14.9m), while just over 23 per cent of Capital On Tap’s 661 loans resulted in a payout (154 loans worth £4.7m).
"The British Business Bank (BBB) has emphasised that these are early figures and may be distorted given the difference between different lenders’ claims and recoveries processes," a spokesperson for Metro Bank
"The classification of these loans as defaults and not fraudulent has also been confirmed by the BBB. As such, it is too soon to draw conclusions from them. As more data is reported over time, we expect Metro Bank to move more broadly in line with our peers."
Meanwhile, digital lenders Tide and Capital On Tap performed poorest when it comes to the percentage of loans ending in a taxpayer payout.
Over 25 per cent of Tide’s 1,826 Bounce Back Loans resulted in a payout (473 loans worth £14.9m), while just over 23 per cent of Capital On Tap’s 661 loans resulted in a payout (154 loans worth £4.7m).
Upvote
0
Here's another interesting one...
"Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years as the Insolvency Service continues to identify and tackle abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme."
www.gov.uk
I recall earlier in this thread some of us were discussing bankruptcy and BBLs. In all 5 cases, these were debtor petitions (i.e. the individuals volunteered themselves for bankruptcy). So far I have still not come across any instances where the BBL lender or British Business Bank are petitioning for a sole trader's bankruptcy.
Has anyone come across any cases yet where a BBL lender is pursuing bankruptcy? @Lisa Thomas @Gavin Bates @Elliot Green @Chris Parkman @Frank Wessely ?
"Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years as the Insolvency Service continues to identify and tackle abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme."
Further bankruptcy restrictions for Bounce Back Loan abuse
Bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for five individuals who took Covid-19 financial support to which they were not entitled.
I recall earlier in this thread some of us were discussing bankruptcy and BBLs. In all 5 cases, these were debtor petitions (i.e. the individuals volunteered themselves for bankruptcy). So far I have still not come across any instances where the BBL lender or British Business Bank are petitioning for a sole trader's bankruptcy.
Has anyone come across any cases yet where a BBL lender is pursuing bankruptcy? @Lisa Thomas @Gavin Bates @Elliot Green @Chris Parkman @Frank Wessely ?
Upvote
0
Who knows? If any of them have assets, there may be something actionable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
I can't see many lenders petitioning for a bankruptcy very often. The commercial reality and probably needing to prove fraud make it unlikely.Here's another interesting one...
"Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years as the Insolvency Service continues to identify and tackle abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme."
Further bankruptcy restrictions for Bounce Back Loan abuse
Bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for five individuals who took Covid-19 financial support to which they were not entitled.
I recall earlier in this thread some of us were discussing bankruptcy and BBLs. In all 5 cases, these were debtor petitions (i.e. the individuals volunteered themselves for bankruptcy). So far I have still not come across any instances where the BBL lender or British Business Bank are petitioning for a sole trader's bankruptcy.
Has anyone come across any cases yet where a BBL lender is pursuing bankruptcy? @Lisa Thomas @Gavin Bates @Elliot Green @Chris Parkman @Frank Wessely ?
Upvote
0
Here's another interesting one...
"Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years as the Insolvency Service continues to identify and tackle abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme."
Further bankruptcy restrictions for Bounce Back Loan abuse
Bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for five individuals who took Covid-19 financial support to which they were not entitled.
I recall earlier in this thread some of us were discussing bankruptcy and BBLs. In all 5 cases, these were debtor petitions (i.e. the individuals volunteered themselves for bankruptcy). So far I have still not come across any instances where the BBL lender or British Business Bank are petitioning for a sole trader's bankruptcy.
Has anyone come across any cases yet where a BBL lender is pursuing bankruptcy? @Lisa Thomas @Gavin Bates @Elliot Green @Chris Parkman @Frank Wessely ?
Not yet...
Upvote
0
Here's another interesting one...
"Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years as the Insolvency Service continues to identify and tackle abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme."
Further bankruptcy restrictions for Bounce Back Loan abuse
Bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for five individuals who took Covid-19 financial support to which they were not entitled.
I recall earlier in this thread some of us were discussing bankruptcy and BBLs. In all 5 cases, these were debtor petitions (i.e. the individuals volunteered themselves for bankruptcy). So far I have still not come across any instances where the BBL lender or British Business Bank are petitioning for a sole trader's bankruptcy.
Has anyone come across any cases yet where a BBL lender is pursuing bankruptcy? @Lisa Thomas @Gavin Bates @Elliot Green @Chris Parkman @Frank Wessely ?
I haven’t seen any instances of Banks or the BBB petitioning for bankruptcy or anything else.
What I am increasingly seeing though are cases where high street Banks are persuading directors to pay back BBLs personally notwithstanding that the monies were used appropriately for business purposes. When I advise them that they don’t have to do this, they are often shocked.
This may have been highlighted earlier in the thread but felt it worth mentioning.
Thanks.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #197
Lord Agnew was right - lack of Action on BBL Fraud!
"The National Investigation Service (Natis), a Kent-based body little-known even in anti-corruption circles, was given the massive job of investigating bounce back loan fraud in the summer of 2020.
However, buried in a National Audit Office report published in December was the revelation that the government rejected Natis’s request for £39m over three years, instead giving it only £6m.
The decision was baffling, said the NAO, given the government’s own statement that for each £1 invested, Natis would recover £8 for the taxpayer. “The Treasury wouldn’t cough up any more money for it,” a person involved in funding conversations said.
Natis is thought to be drowning under huge caseloads. It received more than 2,100 intelligence reports by October 2021, but only had capacity to pursue a maximum of 50 cases a year.
Synectics Solutions, a fraud data company, was granted access to loan application information for two unnamed major bounce back lending banks. It found 45% of applications were for businesses that showed no evidence of trading at all, before or after March 2020. In 6% of cases there was evidence that raised “concerns the money may be siphoned off to the other companies”.
"The National Investigation Service (Natis), a Kent-based body little-known even in anti-corruption circles, was given the massive job of investigating bounce back loan fraud in the summer of 2020.
However, buried in a National Audit Office report published in December was the revelation that the government rejected Natis’s request for £39m over three years, instead giving it only £6m.
The decision was baffling, said the NAO, given the government’s own statement that for each £1 invested, Natis would recover £8 for the taxpayer. “The Treasury wouldn’t cough up any more money for it,” a person involved in funding conversations said.
Natis is thought to be drowning under huge caseloads. It received more than 2,100 intelligence reports by October 2021, but only had capacity to pursue a maximum of 50 cases a year.
Synectics Solutions, a fraud data company, was granted access to loan application information for two unnamed major bounce back lending banks. It found 45% of applications were for businesses that showed no evidence of trading at all, before or after March 2020. In 6% of cases there was evidence that raised “concerns the money may be siphoned off to the other companies”.
Upvote
0
Maybe I'm being simplistic here, but perhaps a good first step would be to run all Ltd Co BBLs against Companies House or HMRC records to see when their last active filed accounts were, and then demand and/or prosecute any loans made to companies that didn't file active accounts for 2020?
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #200
12 Year ban for this Director - fair play, went all out and milked all the COVID support funding schemes. BBL, furlough & Council Grants the lot.
Mr Y F (“Mr F) made false declarations in obtaining, and thereafter misused, Covid support funding provided to TR Limited (“The Company”) through a Government backed Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”), Local Council Support Grant, and HMRC Job Retention Support Grant, together totalling £117,218.21.
In that: BBL On 12 May 2020 the Company obtained a Government backed Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”) totalling £50,000, overstating it’s turnover therein, and did not use the moneys obtained in their entirety for the economic benefit of the business, contrary to the terms of the BBL. Misapplication/false declarations •
Mr Y F (“Mr F) made false declarations in obtaining, and thereafter misused, Covid support funding provided to TR Limited (“The Company”) through a Government backed Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”), Local Council Support Grant, and HMRC Job Retention Support Grant, together totalling £117,218.21.
In that: BBL On 12 May 2020 the Company obtained a Government backed Bounce Back Loan (“BBL”) totalling £50,000, overstating it’s turnover therein, and did not use the moneys obtained in their entirety for the economic benefit of the business, contrary to the terms of the BBL. Misapplication/false declarations •
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
The Most Dangerous Moment in Business Is When Everything Is Going WellThey Saw It Coming. They Did Nothing. The Lessons Every Business Owner...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
AI and Your Business: Useful Tool, Not a Magic WandThere is no shortage of noise around artificial intelligence right now...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Companies House WebFiling security incident: what happened, what to check, and what to do nextCompanies House has confirmed that its WebFiling service suffered a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Spring Budget 2026: A Quiet Update for UK BusinessesChancellor Rachel Reeves delivered the UK’s Spring Statement on 3 March...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Practical Ways to Make Your Small Business More Resilient (Especially When the Unexpected Happens)Running a business means juggling plenty of things you can plan for and...- UKBF Editor
- Updated: