Takeaway owner banned for Covid-support fraud
The owner of a fried chicken takeaway has been served with a meaty seven-year ban on directing businesses after being found to have swindled £50,000 in Covid support scheme grants.
Replies (11)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Does the ban really work as punishment?
Will a friend/family member be found as a front for a reopened business?
Personally I would be happier if there was a stronger mechanism used to recover my money.
"Happier"? You're in very forgiving/laid-back mode today!
Not only should getting the money back be the numero uno objective (1. it's *our* money; and 2. it's the only form of penalty understood by those tempted) ... but the concept of disqualification is laughable (literally) to those not intent on obeying the law in the first place.
Not ours, mine.
As far as I am concerned the sums I pay in any tax cover everything that annoys me personally , be it that traffic warden who cannot smile, our MPs and other elected individuals or the ghastly cycle lane thingy they put in across Edinburgh right in front of my mother in laws house, which makes dropping a 90 odd year old individual at her front gate difficult.
I appreciate the rest of you chip in but notwithstanding I still see all waste of taxes as taking place with my personal money.
My use of "Happier" has the Edinburgh reserved understatement embedded within same, whilst the rest of Scotland may display something similar to the rage of the Scots in some of the battle scenes in Braveheart , I ,because I am from Edinburgh, can only at most tut and look on disapprovingly- think it is something in the water here.
I can tell your 'refainement' (my attempt at the Jean Brodie accent) ... so was only teasing about the understatement.
But I'm with you with regard to taking all public waste as a personal slight (with an attempted justification of the puritan stance that it's equally applicable to all)!
Hopefully this will be taken further and prosecuted as fraud. Disqualification from being a director is not enough.
It likely will not.
The cost of such a process will likely outweigh the perceived public benefit and the difficulty of getting convictions for anything beyond benefits fraud seems to be woeful. The thought process re pursuing a criminal case being the difficulty of the cases being understood and the high bar re reasonable doubt in such criminal cases.
We have one locally ( not our client) where according to the insolvency report leading to companies house ban the company was clearly not trading at the right time and cash was then taken out to buy a personal car (rumour is a porche) before company went into insolvency.
Seems very clearcut so if they don't pursue him personally for fraud that's another failure of the system.
This just demonstates that nothing much happens and confirms why crooks consider the risks trivial.
Ignore all compliance obligations and............nothing much happens.
It appears his customers were happy. Stupid of him.
https://www.google.com/search?q=New+York+Krispy+Fried+Chicken&rlz=1C5CHF...,,,
Stupid of him.