Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Toothless Insolvency Service

including wills and probate
Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1384 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Toothless Insolvency Service

#485475

Postby Clitheroekid » March 9th, 2022, 8:33 pm

I was reading this article before, and was once again left fuming at the complacency of the Insolvency Service - https://www.thecaterer.com/news/glasgow ... -back-loan

This guy managed to hide £650k in income, and spent £760k with no record of where it went. He got a £50k bounceback loan a few weeks before the company was put into liquidation, "But only seven days later, Bajrami caused the company to transfer £90,000 to an unknown account, which included the £50,000 bounce back loan."

An "unknown account"? WHY is it unknown? Why didn't the IS trace it and at least make an attempt at recovery?

Instead, his penalty for this daylight robbery of the good old UK taxpayers is not being allowed to be a company director for 8 years.

Big bloody deal. I've dealt with all too many people like him, and he won't give a monkey's. He'll just set up another junk food shop operated under the name of one of his mates, and no doubt another few hundred grand will be used to line his pockets.

But what annoys me most is the smug and self-satisfied quote from the IS: "lir Bajrami has paid the price for his failure to account for that money, and has been removed from the corporate arena by the courts for a substantial amount of time."

The fact that the taxpayer and other creditors have been robbed of hundreds of thousands of pounds is presumably of no consequence. People like Bajrami need to be prosecuted and sent to prison if this type of fraud is ever going to be reined back, not given a tap on the wrist.

[/rant mode]! ;)

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485498

Postby UncleEbenezer » March 10th, 2022, 12:31 am

I have today passed on my copy of the latest Private Eye, so I can't check the story. But it featured someone with a lot of newly-minted companies with £50k loans, and a history of similar activities so long that the Eye had previously reported on him.;

Maybe another Eye reader still has it, or recollects the story?

stevensfo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3435
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
Has thanked: 3805 times
Been thanked: 1397 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485515

Postby stevensfo » March 10th, 2022, 7:25 am

Clitheroekid wrote:I was reading this article before, and was once again left fuming at the complacency of the Insolvency Service - https://www.thecaterer.com/news/glasgow ... -back-loan

This guy managed to hide £650k in income, and spent £760k with no record of where it went. He got a £50k bounceback loan a few weeks before the company was put into liquidation, "But only seven days later, Bajrami caused the company to transfer £90,000 to an unknown account, which included the £50,000 bounce back loan."

An "unknown account"? WHY is it unknown? Why didn't the IS trace it and at least make an attempt at recovery?

Instead, his penalty for this daylight robbery of the good old UK taxpayers is not being allowed to be a company director for 8 years.

Big bloody deal. I've dealt with all too many people like him, and he won't give a monkey's. He'll just set up another junk food shop operated under the name of one of his mates, and no doubt another few hundred grand will be used to line his pockets.

But what annoys me most is the smug and self-satisfied quote from the IS: "lir Bajrami has paid the price for his failure to account for that money, and has been removed from the corporate arena by the courts for a substantial amount of time."

The fact that the taxpayer and other creditors have been robbed of hundreds of thousands of pounds is presumably of no consequence. People like Bajrami need to be prosecuted and sent to prison if this type of fraud is ever going to be reined back, not given a tap on the wrist.

[/rant mode]! ;)


But only seven days later, Bajrami caused the company to transfer £90,000 to an unknown account

Whereas only a few weeks ago, I wanted urgently to send £300 from my Revolut account to my son's Revolut account to help him out at uni, and had my account blocked, while they asked for proof of I.D., something they already possessed.

Seems there's one law for people like Bajrami, another for us plebs!

In this day and age, how can a bank transfer that much money to an 'unknown' account???

Steve

PS I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read ages ago how you can own and control a company without actually being a 'director'. Isn't that how these offshore companies are able to buy property in London while keeping the real owner anonymous?

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7084
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1637 times
Been thanked: 3791 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485517

Postby Mike4 » March 10th, 2022, 7:58 am

Clitheroekid wrote:
An "unknown account"? WHY is it unknown? Why didn't the IS trace it and at least make an attempt at recovery?


This has the whiff of plain old corruption to my nose.

The account is not 'unknown' at all I'd suggest, and someone within the IS has been 'influenced' to ensure no-one looks for it.

That 'someone' might even be the 'unknown account' holder, a person more cynical than me might be inclined to suspect.

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1384 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485612

Postby Clitheroekid » March 10th, 2022, 2:50 pm

stevensfo wrote:PS I may be wrong, but I'm sure I read ages ago how you can own and control a company without actually being a 'director'. Isn't that how these offshore companies are able to buy property in London while keeping the real owner anonymous?

It's absurdly easy to disguise the true ownership of a company. Incredibly, Companies House makes NO checks on people who apply to be registered as directors, so you could just invent a name and they'd register you quite happily.

And every dodgy operator uses an accommodation address supplied by company registration agents. In fact, some of them are so commonly used that my heart sinks when I recognise them - 20/22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU is one that I've seen dozens of times, and it must be home to thousands of companies. Some of them are no doubt legitimate, but the reason my heart sinks is that every company I've ever been involved with that uses that address has been dodgy.

It's also very common for people like Bajrami - including disqualified directors - to operate through nominee directors and shareholders. The directors listed are people who hire their services for a modest annual fee to bent company owners, and many give addresses abroad - Latvia being very popular for some reason - no doubt to frustrate enquiries / law enforcement.

Likewise, the shares will be registered in the name of the same person or someone similar, or, where there's more money involved, they will be registered to a company in somewhere like the BVI or the Seychelles - sunny places full of shady people - where companies can hide beneficial ownership quite legitimately.

In theory there is a register of `People with Significant Control' at Companies House, which is supposed to reveal the beneficial owners of the shares, but this is easily ignored, as so far as I'm aware Companies House takes no active steps to check the information provided, and I'm not aware of any prosecutions that have been brought.

The ease with which false identities can be used to run criminal / fraudulent / corrupt enterprises through limited companies in the UK is frankly a disgrace. It helps explain why London has become widely known amongst money launderers as Londromat, and the Government has been oddly reluctant to clamp down - I'm sure it has nothing to do with the hefty contributions received by the Conservative Party from the numerous people and financial institutions who have a very substantial interest in maintaining secrecy! ;)

DrFfybes
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3731
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
Has thanked: 1171 times
Been thanked: 1964 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485623

Postby DrFfybes » March 10th, 2022, 3:52 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Clitheroekid wrote:
An "unknown account"? WHY is it unknown? Why didn't the IS trace it and at least make an attempt at recovery?


This has the whiff of plain old corruption to my nose.

The account is not 'unknown' at all I'd suggest, and someone within the IS has been 'influenced' to ensure no-one looks for it.

That 'someone' might even be the 'unknown account' holder, a person more cynical than me might be inclined to suspect.


So Mike, you're a businessman.

How would you find out the dientity of the person at the Inselvency service who was going to be assigned to your case in 6-12 months' time when they investigate the £90k you're about to squirrel away?

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10689
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1458 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485628

Postby UncleEbenezer » March 10th, 2022, 3:55 pm

DrFfybes wrote:How would you find out the dientity of the person at the Inselvency service who was going to be assigned to your case in 6-12 months' time when they investigate the £90k you're about to squirrel away?

Hypothetically speaking, mightn't that be a pretty similar case to the kind of thing a Good Lawyer will do when they have a word with the court's administration to ensure they get the Right Judge for a case?

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3242 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485672

Postby didds » March 10th, 2022, 6:47 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:I have today passed on my copy of the latest Private Eye, so I can't check the story. But it featured someone with a lot of newly-minted companies with £50k loans, and a history of similar activities so long that the Eye had previously reported on him.;

Maybe another Eye reader still has it, or recollects the story?



i recall that too now that you mention it but a very very quick skim read looking for the trigger of 50K or 50,000 doesnt elicit anything in eyes

1567 18 Feb - 3 March
1568 4 Mar - 17 March

but I do recall something like UE's description

didds
Lemon Half
Posts: 5243
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
Has thanked: 3242 times
Been thanked: 1018 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485674

Postby didds » March 10th, 2022, 6:58 pm

Found it! Eye 1568, p40
"Bounce back loans
Kingdom of Cheats"

Article pertaining to a company which has allegedly (according to the Eye) acquired 21 companies from the owner's personal ownership, mostly dormant off the shelf ones. Many were used to obtain loans of 50K which the Eye suggests "almost certainly" are bounce back loans, and many of those had/have never actually traded.

I underline these are the Eye's allegations, and I merely repeat a very generalised summary here following a request to do so above.

didds

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2856
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 1384 times
Been thanked: 3771 times

Re: Toothless Insolvency Service

#485712

Postby Clitheroekid » March 11th, 2022, 12:58 am

didds wrote:Found it! Eye 1568, p40
"Bounce back loans
Kingdom of Cheats"

Article pertaining to a company which has allegedly (according to the Eye) acquired 21 companies from the owner's personal ownership, mostly dormant off the shelf ones. Many were used to obtain loans of 50K which the Eye suggests "almost certainly" are bounce back loans, and many of those had/have never actually traded.

And this is a link to the article, which vividly illustrates the problem - https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections. ... issue=1309


Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dba99 and 11 guests