Share this content
0
2446

Fraud

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

We have a tenant in one of our commercial properties. His been there for 8 years. He has been running a Indian restaurant with a average turnover of £4-5k a week. We now find approximately every 14 months he opens a company and closes a company all of which claim to trade as the same on going business run in our tenanted property. Management and tenant has never changed. We now find that one of the management being a business partner to the tenant is a banned director, yet he has continued to run the financial affairs and management of the business. Non of the company’s or the trading business has submitted accounts, or completed a proper tax return or registered for vat.  We further believe that the accountants are assisting in various frauds as they have full knowledge of the company’s opening and closing , staff wages as well as things like civil penalties. The company’s are applying for voluntary strike off despite being up and running as income producing business for at least 14 month periods. The strike-offs invariably means creditors don’t get paid particularly as creditors are never notified of the company’s intentions. Has anyone got any advise and contribution to our concerns

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

to SUEBEN2003
27th Mar 2019 10:41

If you're going to complain about the Companies Act not being enforced then you ought to get your own facts and information correct, otherwise you will just make yourself look silly.

Thanks (4)
By DJKL
to SUEBEN2003
27th Mar 2019 10:58

"Within" not "for"

Thanks (1)
avatar
to DJKL
27th Mar 2019 11:08

Nuances of the law

Thanks (1)
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 08:45

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

Does anyone realise that a company can’t be struck -off if it’s been trading for 3 months or more

Rubbish!

If you're saying a company can't be struck off after it's been trading for three months, hardly any companies would ever be struck off.

Thanks (1)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 10:47

1004Circumstances in which application not to be made: activities of company

(1)An application under section 1003 (application for voluntary striking off) on behalf of a company must not be made if, at any time in the previous three months, the company has—

(a)changed its name,

(b)traded or otherwise carried on business,

(c)made a disposal for value of property or rights that, immediately before ceasing to trade or otherwise carry on business, it held for the purpose of disposal for gain in the normal course of trading or otherwise carrying on business, or

(d)engaged in any other activity, except one which is—

(i)necessary or expedient for the purpose of making an application under that section, or deciding whether to do so,

(ii)necessary or expedient for the purpose of concluding the affairs of the company,

(iii)necessary or expedient for the purpose of complying with any statutory requirement, or

(iv)specified by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

Thanks (0)
to SUEBEN2003
27th Mar 2019 10:53

Very good, but it's not what you said in your earlier post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you knew what you meant to say, but simply expressed it very poorly.

Thanks (5)
avatar
to Wilson Philips
27th Mar 2019 13:00

May be it was just your negative approach. Can you contribute something positive please

Thanks (0)
to SUEBEN2003
27th Mar 2019 13:26

You can't blame me (or anyone else) for your failure to articulate yourself properly.

I've already given you positive advice, reiterated by other contributors - speak to your solicitor, MP etc. Other than that, I really don't know what you are expecting of this forum. No-one is disagreeing with you that the system is woefully inadequate in many ways - but no-one here is going to be able to fix it or help you with any financial loss that you may have suffered. You need to speak to those that just might have some influence in the matter.

Alternatively you could - as some have suggested - just chalk the whole sorry affair down to an unfortunate episode and move on with your life. In my view, that would be a positive step indeed.

Thanks (1)
to SUEBEN2003
27th Mar 2019 16:34

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

May be it was just your negative approach. Can you contribute something positive please

I'm positive you'll never get the help you need with your bad attitude and wilful ignorance.

Nobody in the thread stole your boiler and we'd help if we could but nobody is a solicitor, or police officer, or any member of a number of other organisations who might be able to help you with the legal advice you need.

Once you've got your insurance sorted you can pop back in and we can advise on the tax treatment of your payout.

Thanks (2)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 10:54

What make was the boiler?

Thanks (7)
to memyself-eye
27th Mar 2019 11:24

It was Ideal (for the purposes of being taken around the corner).

Thanks (6)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 11:30

No good for me then as I already have an Ideal boiler!

Ah well....

Thanks (2)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 11:42

There are not many options open for you to try and at least achieve a measure of satisfaction.
You could try and file a report with the National Crime Agency reporting all the alleged salient facts about the company and people running it.
Perhaps via e:mail (for evidence purposes) inform Companies House, HMRC (Corporation Tax), your MP & police commissioner of what you know.
Finally report the accountants to their governing body details of which should be on their website.
If not inform HMRC .
After all that get on with your life.
For different reasons I have not nor would ever do business with restaurants, taxi drivers, second hand car dealers etc.
Caveat emptor ! .

Thanks (4)
avatar
to meadowsaw227
27th Mar 2019 17:51

Thank you
This situation is warped.
National crime agency are not at all interested in this type of crime.
The Police have a view that it’s up to the victims ie vat income tax etc that are the only people who can make a complaint as it them who have suffered a loss. And even then they say there is a debate as to civil issues.
Companies house say that they don’t have the financial capability to investigate and pursue all matters and have to be very selective.
MP ?
Police commissioner whilst seen to be engaging with the public does not see this as within his remit.
What I don’t understand is that The companies act clearly defines criminal penalties but yet the police are not interested.

Thanks (0)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 13:47

Please answer
1. Who are the tenants under the lease a person or one of their companies?
2.If a company is there a person guaranteeing the rent?
3. How much is outstanding as rent due?

Thanks (0)
avatar
to bernard michael
27th Mar 2019 16:50

Bernard.
1. A person
2. N/a
3. Moneys outstanding to us are around £30k

Thank you for asking

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 19:09

Well, pursue the individual through the courts if they held the lease.

Thanks (0)
avatar
27th Mar 2019 18:18

Surely, take us out of the frame. What these people are doing is gross multiple fraud and it’s wrong. Where is our support as citizens and our right to rely on the law which good people attempt to follow.
Ever think that all these lottos of various types pleading for hospital equipment etc etc need not need to pushed every day if the system got to grips with what’s going on. There we are back to accounting and the legitimate adherence to the rules by all. That’s me over and done.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 13:58

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

That’s me over and done.

IF ONLY

Thanks (3)
28th Mar 2019 08:48

Another satisfied customer. ©

Thanks (1)
avatar
to lionofludesch
28th Mar 2019 09:11

lionofludesch wrote:

Another satisfied customer. ©

What was s/he shopping for? ©

(I genuinely could not tell.)

Thanks (2)
to Tax Dragon
28th Mar 2019 09:57

Not sure but she was definitely in the wrong shop.

Thanks (1)
avatar
28th Mar 2019 09:33

Easy answer
Issue a 7 day letter followed by a Statutory Demand

Thanks (1)
avatar
28th Mar 2019 13:09

Ok please can I expand the discussion? .....please no comments re this is not the place.
The guy in charge of the opening and closing the company’s is a banned director. Ironically partly for employing illegal workers and civil penalty fines.
So stretching this......
The income from the business goes to the tenant for redistribution.
What’s been going on is staff and the above have made false declarations as to income. The banned director has in writing told me his declared wages on the application to bring his latest wife in to the country are three times higher than what they actually are. The “ company accountants “ have given him wage slips to prove it. All he has to do is pay the extra national insurance. But the insurance being for the company to pay never gets paid as the company gets struck -off. This situation has occurred with several staff in the business. Of late the recent company was set up and named after the disqualified directors baby. With his niece as sole director. She also has done the same to get her new husband in to the country. Magic ! How to beat the system... my question is can a disqualified director apply to bring his wife into the country from Bangladesh? This is the same guy that is controlling the latest company as well including control of the company bank accounts

Thanks (0)
avatar
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 16:23

[quote=SUEBEN2003]

''The guy in charge of the opening and closing the company’s is a banned director. Ironically partly for employing illegal workers and civil penalty fines.
So stretching this......
The income from the business goes to the tenant for redistribution''.

Then the income from that tenant is paid to you (or was for 8 years).

So it could be said that you have been receiving the proceeds of crime.

Thanks (1)
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 14:07

This is not the place. You need to find a legal forum.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Wilson Philips
28th Mar 2019 14:34

Wilson Philips wrote:

You need to find a legal forum.

In my experience, discussions like this don't happen in such places. And it's not just that the contributors are more moderate - it's that they are moderated.

Thanks (0)
to Tax Dragon
28th Mar 2019 14:43

I agree - but why should we have to put up with it just because no-one else will have them?

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Wilson Philips
28th Mar 2019 14:50

Because a) no one has set up a decent alternative forum that I know of (and Sift controls the terms of this one) and b) none of us is very good at letting these threads wither on the vine. Don't ask me why... although I note that, as I post, mine is the most recent contribution on here, making me part of the problem.

Thanks (1)
to SUEBEN2003
28th Mar 2019 14:19

Nice to know that the Government is so in control of immigration.

Thanks (0)
28th Mar 2019 13:45

a) Evict them from your property.
b) Do whatever you can to get any outstanding rent from them.
c) Apart from the above it's not really your problem if they are defrauding other creditors, HMRC etc - just file a money laundering report and keep a file of any evidence you have just in case someone takes any notice of your report, which in my experience is unlikely.

Thanks (2)
to Retired Dave
28th Mar 2019 13:54

Retired Dave wrote:

just file a money laundering report and keep a file of any evidence you have just in case someone takes any notice of your report, which in my experience is unlikely.


I do not think the OP is in the 'regulated sector' so he only needs to file a money laundering report if he would otherwise be at risk of committing one of the principal money laundering offences himself.
David
Thanks (0)
avatar
28th Mar 2019 13:49

Frankly I'm intrigued as to why you're bothered about anything other than getting the rent in . Follow what I suggested and be at peace with the world - let alone AWEB

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Tosie
28th Mar 2019 21:38

As accountants we are familiar with people setting up companies, not paying taxes and opening a new company the next day to continue the fraud. It would appear that the OP has not come across the situation before and cannot understand why nobody is interested. Maybe he/she is right and we should all be shouting from the rooftops and demanding that the government introduces legislation to stop these practices. Reality is that we all know what is going on but feel powerless to stop it.

Thanks (2)
to Tosie
02nd Apr 2019 10:52

A lot of truth there.

I'd add that some accountants (And I'm sure none on here) positively welcome this situation. More fees for them.

Thanks (0)
avatar
02nd Apr 2019 10:15

I note that the proverbial large pile of fraud tip-offs simply gathering dust without any action at all by the authorities is a very real thing per the following from the link below:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47781981

"One force filed 96% of the cases it received from a national intelligence bureau without further investigation, despite inspectors finding a good degree of evidence, including suspects, in some of the cases."

Yet the Government is happy to devote huge resources and hundreds of HMRC staff to persecute 10,000s of innocent law-abiding loan charge victims!

Surely it can't simply be because the latter are all easy targets and the fraudsters are too much trouble to chase?

Thanks (0)
By DJKL
to Justin Bryant
02nd Apr 2019 11:54

Low hanging fruit- return versus effort.

We need to introduce the DJKL Limited Company performance bond scheme- first company set up £x,000 bond needs paid, if corporate failures then required performance bond figure increases for subsequent companies.

This is done in conjunction with inventing a new cheaper corporate beastie which, whilst granting limited liability ,does not fully grant it re corporation tax, vat. PAYE/NI, directors to be personally liable for these debts up to the first £XXXX.

Companies are far too easy to create- I have one sitting about because on a whim I wanted to grab the name so set it up and bought the appropriate domain, it does nothing, likely never will do anything,but so long as it costs virtually nothing to keep a company operating people will acquire them like they acquire biros, without thinking.

Thanks (0)
to Justin Bryant
02nd Apr 2019 12:08

Justin Bryant wrote:
Yet the Government is happy to devote huge resources and hundreds of HMRC staff to persecute 10,000s of innocent law-abiding loan charge victims!

Since resources are finite, surely it makes sense to utilise them most effectively and to go after the easily identified targets first? The entire world is unfair but if "innocent" taxpayers wish to set themselves up as sitting ducks in entering into what are clearly too-good-to-be-true type arrangements then so be it.
Thanks (0)
avatar
to Wilson Philips
02nd Apr 2019 12:23

To be fair, Justin did say "victims". There are some who deserve sympathy. Others dont. C.f. https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/the-loan-charge

Thanks (0)
02nd Apr 2019 12:15

Every now and then I will be dealing with a defendant who is facing prosecution or has been prosecuted through the criminal courts who will say to me, "Look at X, he has done far worse things & not been prosecuted".
That, of course, may well be true. But it does nothing to help!
David

Thanks (0)
avatar
03rd Apr 2019 12:27

So. If a company has been struck off as a result of a false misrepresentation by a director should the application not be null and void and the company reinstated so creditors etc can do what they need to do ?

Thanks (0)
to SUEBEN2003
03rd Apr 2019 12:35

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

So. If a company has been struck off as a result of a false misrepresentation by a director should the application not be null and void and the company reinstated so creditors etc can do what they need to do ?

Are you still here ?

Probably. But, then, I'm not a lawyer and I still say you're asking the wrong people.

Thanks (1)
By DJKL
to SUEBEN2003
03rd Apr 2019 12:39

A company can be reinstated, but if there is no dosh in the company who is fronting the cash to do "what they need to do"

And there is the issue, loot a company to the hilt and which creditor is then prepared to put their hand in their own back pocket to pay the fees of say a liquidator, very few, hence why system is as it is.

Personally I would have performance bonds when creating companies and a far more robust DTI Insolvency Service (What I actually wanted to be in the early 1980s, an Examiner in the DTI, but the Civil Service post the entrance test/interview offered me HMRC so I went back to university instead)

How to fund- levy on companies, seems daft I can be asked to pay £200 odd each year to keep a car on the road yet to keep a company is only £13 per annum, and the bonus is robust policing would likely improve the tax take.

Thanks (0)
avatar
03rd Apr 2019 14:37

The creditors can apply for it to be restored if they want to spend the money

Thanks (0)
avatar
04th Apr 2019 21:55

That’s all well and good had the strike off been honest and procedural. But all their previous strike offs were fraudulent. So they should not stand. A strike off is a procedural matter which they did not comply with ! It should not stand.
What’s the point...... well they need to answer to their frauds. Company law describes that in the event of director fraud that that individual becomes liable personally and criminally liable as well. So by acting fraudulently this opens the doors to them being personally liable and they can no longer hide behind a COMPANY !

Thanks (0)
to SUEBEN2003
04th Apr 2019 22:06

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

That’s all well and good had the strike off been honest and procedural. But all their previous strike offs were fraudulent. So they should not stand. A strike off is a procedural matter which they did not comply with ! It should not stand.
What’s the point...... well they need to answer to their frauds. Company law describes that in the event of director fraud that that individual becomes liable personally and criminally liable as well. So by acting fraudulently this opens the doors to them being personally liable and they can no longer hide behind a COMPANY !

You're missing the point.

You can do this - but at your expense. No-one's going to do it for free. Stop posting on here and pop round to your local friendly solicitor.

Thanks (3)
avatar
to lionofludesch
04th Apr 2019 22:22

I do wonder how many times the same thing has to be said to the OP in this post alone, before it sinks in to their brain.

Daft thing is, in this case, the individual is on the hook for the bloody rent and not any of these supposedly dodgy limited companies.

It's a little bit suspect that in just over three weeks he/she has managed to get formal responses from all the enforcing bodies that they have no interest in persuing matters.

He/she clearly just want to waste time posting vitriol on here, wanting to have the final word, rather than seeking proper help.

Thanks (5)
avatar
to Cheshire
04th Apr 2019 22:25

Be better if you didn’t make assumptions....makes you look stupid and aggressive.
Your wrong in your assertions and attempts to make your misunderstanding and assumptions as fact.
If you have not got anything sensible to contribute just have an early night.
It’s mentally like yours that is permissive of what’s going on and all that’s wrong.
This country is going down the pan and one reason is fraud coupled with money laundering.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to SUEBEN2003
04th Apr 2019 22:56

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

Be better if you didn’t make assumptions....makes you look stupid and aggressive.
Your wrong in your assertions and attempts to make your misunderstanding and assumptions as fact.
If you have not got anything sensible to contribute just have an early night.
It’s mentally like yours that is permissive of what’s going on and all that’s wrong.
This country is going down the pan and one reason is fraud coupled with money laundering.

No assumptions being made by me. You said you only found out 3 weeks ago. Your words. The powers that be investigating any law breaking will not and do not respond formally that they are not acting that quickly on any kind of law breaking.

Although if you have approached them with the attitude you have approached matters on here then I'm not surprised you have been given short shrift by the authorities, just so they can see the back of you.

You've been told numerous times by numerous posters on here, who by the way have an entitlement to be on here, that you, who are not entitled to be on here as you are not an Accountant, that you are on the wrong forum and preaching to the converted. Yet you seem to think we are the enemy. Bloody rubbish!

Don't you mean mentality.

But you are yet again you the one making assumptions and yet again flinging around unfounded accusations. You have absolutely no idea about my ethics and what I have done in the past to fight money laundering and wrong doing. I would go so far as to say it's probably more than you as I don't spend hours whining about it, I act. Plus get results.

But then again I don't really give a damn what you think. You are wrong on so many levels. But you are like so many business owners on here who, when they don't like an answer or can't win an argument, start on the daft insults or just suggest that folk shut up and butt[***] out.

What the fuching hell are you expecting to achieve by posting on here?

You asked for advice, you got advice, yet still you are banging on. You are fast losing any sympathy for your plight, if there is indeed any left at all.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to SUEBEN2003
05th Apr 2019 10:18

SUEBEN2003 wrote:

Be better if you didn’t make assumptions....makes you look stupid and aggressive.
Your wrong in your assertions and attempts to make your misunderstanding and assumptions as fact.
If you have not got anything sensible to contribute just have an early night.
It’s mentally like yours that is permissive of what’s going on and all that’s wrong.
This country is going down the pan and one reason is fraud coupled with money laundering.

You need to look in the mirror love, get your facts right and stop making yourself look stupid.
Aggressive yet permissive! Interesting combination.
Carry on with your wilful ignorance of both the facts and ordering people not to speak unless they agree with you and just like many business owners before you, aggressively jumping on folk when they have said something that you don’t want to hear. Doesnt mean it doesn’t need saying.
You obviously meant to say ‘mentality’.
Also if anything its you’re wrong, at worse youre wrong. = You are. Not your wrong. Your = belonging to in simplistic infant school English.

Edit - I posted this one this morning because the response from last night disappeared for almost 12 hours!

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content