Client Login

Beautician gave �10k of Bounce Back Loan to sister

Abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme is continuing to land people in court as the Insolvency Service tightens its net around those who have misused the cash designed to help businesses during the pandemic lockdowns.

Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for exploitation of the initiative, which was introduced to support businesses during Covid-related trading restrictions.

In each of the five separate cases, the Bounce Back Loans were either wrongfully obtained through overstating their businesses turnover, or on behalf of a company that had already ceased trading prior to the pandemic, or were simply misused for personal use rather than legitimate business spending.

Charlene Wilson was a self-employed beauty therapist based in Jarrow. She received a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating her turnover and spent around £15,000 on personal expenses. She has accepted bankruptcy restrictions for eight years.

Georgiana Cercel ran a beauty business from her home in Lincoln while studying full-time. She received a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating her business turnover, and gave £10,000 to her sister. She is subject to bankruptcy restrictions for 10 years.

Florin Bodale worked as a building contractor through his company Varga Construction. He obtained a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating his turnover, although he told investigators he believed he had been asked for total turnover for the previous three years. However, this amount would still have been less than half the turnover he stated. He has accepted a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Sarah Sweeting ran a farm shop home delivery service from October 2020. She obtained a £22,000 Bounce Back Loan despite not being eligible as businesses had to have been trading prior to March 2020. Of the £22,000, she transferred around £14,000 to her husband. She is subject to a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Abbas Moradmand ran a tyre business from 2018 to 2019 after which point he worked as a taxi driver. After a short closure the business reopened and continues to trade under new ownership. However, Moradmand secured a Bounce Back Loan of £26,894 to which he was not entitled as it was based on an application on behalf of his former tyre business. He has accepted a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Their bankruptcy restrictions mean none of the above individuals are able to borrow more than £500 without disclosing their bankrupt status. They also cannot act as a company director without permission from the court.

In each of the above cases the local Official Receiver is working on potential recovery action.

 

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.

“This is taxpayers’ money they have abused and we will not hesitate to impose bankruptcy restrictions in these circumstances.”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 at 12:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Abuse of the Bounce Back Loan scheme is continuing to land people in court as the Insolvency Service tightens its net around those who have misused the cash designed to help businesses during the pandemic lockdowns.

Five individuals have separately been made subject to bankruptcy restrictions totalling 48 years for exploitation of the initiative, which was introduced to support businesses during Covid-related trading restrictions.

In each of the five separate cases, the Bounce Back Loans were either wrongfully obtained through overstating their businesses turnover, or on behalf of a company that had already ceased trading prior to the pandemic, or were simply misused for personal use rather than legitimate business spending.

Charlene Wilson was a self-employed beauty therapist based in Jarrow. She received a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating her turnover and spent around £15,000 on personal expenses. She has accepted bankruptcy restrictions for eight years.

Georgiana Cercel ran a beauty business from her home in Lincoln while studying full-time. She received a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating her business turnover, and gave £10,000 to her sister. She is subject to bankruptcy restrictions for 10 years.

Florin Bodale worked as a building contractor through his company Varga Construction. He obtained a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan by overstating his turnover, although he told investigators he believed he had been asked for total turnover for the previous three years. However, this amount would still have been less than half the turnover he stated. He has accepted a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Sarah Sweeting ran a farm shop home delivery service from October 2020. She obtained a £22,000 Bounce Back Loan despite not being eligible as businesses had to have been trading prior to March 2020. Of the £22,000, she transferred around £14,000 to her husband. She is subject to a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Abbas Moradmand ran a tyre business from 2018 to 2019 after which point he worked as a taxi driver. After a short closure the business reopened and continues to trade under new ownership. However, Moradmand secured a Bounce Back Loan of £26,894 to which he was not entitled as it was based on an application on behalf of his former tyre business. He has accepted a 10-year bankruptcy restrictions undertaking.

Their bankruptcy restrictions mean none of the above individuals are able to borrow more than £500 without disclosing their bankrupt status. They also cannot act as a company director without permission from the court.

In each of the above cases the local Official Receiver is working on potential recovery action.

 

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.

“This is taxpayers’ money they have abused and we will not hesitate to impose bankruptcy restrictions in these circumstances.”

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 16th, 2022 at 12:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  • Pages

    • Client Login
    • Home
  • Archives

    • August 2024
    • July 2024
    • June 2024
    • May 2024
    • April 2024
    • March 2024
    • February 2024
    • January 2024
    • December 2023
    • November 2023
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • August 2023
    • July 2023
    • June 2023
    • May 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • November 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • October 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
  • Categories

    • Uncategorized (1,766)

SEND ME A MESSAGE:

    LATEST BLOG

    • Effects of the US presidential election August 28, 2024
    • Further drop in interest rates August 27, 2024
    • Rachel Reeves announcements since the election August 22, 2024