Fines for directors who claimed pandemic support fraudulently

-

Directors of dissolved companies are being warned they could be disqualified or ordered to pay large amounts of compensation if they fraudulently spent financial support they received during the pandemic. 

New legislation will come into force next month (February) that can also be applied retrospectively. It gives the Insolvency Service the power to look into the activity of all companies that received financial assistance during the pandemic and were then dissolved. 

Directors of these companies will face investigation and action could be taken to disqualify them from being a director of any limited company in the future. Courts will also have the power to order directors to pay compensation to the unpaid creditors of the company. 

The national law firm, Stephensons, is now urging directors to think carefully and ensure that they take proper legal advice before taking steps to close a company. 

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

There have been a number of high profile cases where directors have claimed bounce back loans and then wrongly transferred the money out of the company before dissolving it. Other cases saw bounce back loans claimed fraudulently based on false or misleading information. 

As the extent of the abuse financial support became clear, the Government introduced additional measures to give the Insolvency Service even more power to investigate and take action. 

The Insolvency Service has already begun investigating these cases and bringing Director’s Disqualification proceedings when necessary. 

Julie Hunter, Senior Associate in the Commercial Litigation team at Stephensons Solicitors LLP, said: “Financial support handed out  during the pandemic has been a lifeline for many during an incredibly difficult time for businesses. However, this does not mean that some people did not look to take advantage of this support for their own gain. 

“Alongside this, I’m sure there will be some who have innocently dissolved a company after receiving support who may now see themselves facing questions from the Insolvency Service. I’d urge any former or current director considering dissolution or liquidation to do so carefully and to make sure they take legal advice on their personal legal position, as well as that of the company, before taking any steps to close the business.”

Dissolution is a means of bringing a company to an end without first going through a formal solvent or insolvent liquidation process. 

In effect it will mean that the normal investigations, which take place on liquidation, regarding the distribution of profits, assets and payments to directors from company funds will not take place. Instead the company is dissolved without further enquiry into its financial circumstances.

Latest news

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

Leila McKenzie Delis : The missing inclusion markers HR teams need to consider

Business leaders and HR teams must step up today, recognise the importance of Diversity and Inclusion and take action to better our workplaces, says Leila Mckenzie Delis.

Hannah Robbins: To what extent are your off the record discussions with employees protected?

Off the record discussions or protected conversations have played a significant role in employer-employee exit negotiations since they became inadmissible in unfair dismissal proceedings on the 29th July 2013, but not every conversation is automatically protected. To what extent can employers genuinely have an off the record discussion?
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you