A West Midlands financial director has been jailed after he used company credit cards to book luxury holidays to Florida and cruises.

David Carr, 34, from Bidford-on-Avon in Warwickshire, pleaded guilty in June to three counts of fraud.

Between April 2014 and August 2022, he abused his position of trust to steal £300,000 to fund a lifestyle he couldn’t afford and eventually caused the Bromsgrove IT company, where he was the financial director, to go into administration.

As well as trips to Disney World, he also bought high value items such as computers, high-tech gadgets and designer exercise bikes.

An investigation into Carr’s fraudulent gains started in August 2022 leading to his arrested in October 2022, and him being charged in July 2023.

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2025/08/02/west-midlands-financial-director-jailed-after-using-company-credit-cards-to-fund-luxury-lifestyle-and-disney-world-holiday/

Five companies were closed after submitting false accounts claiming fictitious turnovers and profits without evidence of legitimate business activity

In a significant crackdown on corporate fraud, the Insolvency Service has shut down five companies that filed false accounts indicating substantial financial success. Automarket Europe Limited, Integra Group Limited, Maxell Limited, Montana & Montana Limited, and Supermarket Plus Ltd, all linked through shared office addresses in South London and Croydon, falsely claimed to have turnovers exceeding £642 million while lacking any genuine business operations. These companies not only misrepresented their financial standings but also falsely cited reputable accountants as auditors, further complicating the integrity of their submissions.

Investigations by the Insolvency Service were initiated following referrals from Companies House, part of the ongoing enforcement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 aimed at enhancing corporate accountability. The Act has granted Companies House the authority to eliminate any false or misleading information present in company registers, thereby bolstering the collaboration between agencies to deter the misuse of UK corporate structures.

The five offending companies found themselves in the High Court in Manchester, where they were wound up on 31 July. Dave Magrath, Director of Investigation and Enforcement Services at the Insolvency Service, articulated concerns surrounding the potential exploitation of their inaccurate accounts, remarking that "there was a genuine risk that these wildly inaccurate accounts could have been used to mislead potential customers and suppliers." He emphasised the necessity of preserving the integrity of the Companies House register, noting that "UK businesses rely on this information to make informed decisions about who they trade with, lend to, and invest in."

Each of the companies submitted accounts containing glaring discrepancies, including implausible jumps in reported assets without any explanatory context. For instance, Automarket Europe Limited declared a staggering turnover of £327 million alongside profits of £198 million for the year 2022, while claiming that its assets surged from £629,220 in 2021 to £84 million the following year. Integra Group Limited and Maxell Limited presented similarly outrageous claims, with the latter reporting a purported turnover of £440 million and £229 million in profits, along with assets purportedly expanding from £618,496 to £422 million in a single year.

https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjarticle/five-companies-shut-down-for-fraud?category=News

Problems with disclosure have haunted the Serious Fraud Office in recent years.

Disclosure is the obligation on a prosecutor to identify and provide to the defence material that either supports the defence case or undermines that of the prosecution.

An essential building block of disclosure is reviewing and then describing the material collected during an investigation — either individually or in batches, depending on what it is — on a list. This permits the prosecutor to decide from the description which material satisfies the test for disclosure.

There is no doubt that the burden of conducting disclosure is an onerous one. An average SFO case has 5mn documents, with the largest having more than 48mn. The SFO estimated in 2024 that disclosure ate up around a quarter of its operational budget (which is smaller than its overall budget). But it is a vital part of a defendant’s right to a fair trial. When it goes wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic.

The collapse of high-profile SFO prosecutions in Serco and G4S and the overturned convictions in Unaoil led to two case specific reviews, one by Brian Altman KC and one by Sir David Calvert-Smith, whilst the third was the subject of an inspection by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate. All three described an organisation that was under resourced and which under prioritised disclosure.

Looking for solutions, the government commissioned Jonathan Fisher KC to conduct an independent review of the disclosure regime in all cases that involve large volumes of digital material, including but not limited to those handled by the SFO.

Suspected criminality involves £75 million invested into storage units.

The Serious Fraud Office has today charged multiple individuals with fraud related offences, following a complex investigation into the transfer of £75 million in pension funds into storage units based mainly in the North of England and Scotland.

Toby Whittaker, Stephen Michael Talbot, Stuart Grehan (also known as Stuart Chapman-Clark), Terence Wright and Emma Hawkins (also known as Emma Grehan) were charged with conspiracy to defraud. Stephen Michael Talbot was charged with money laundering. A sixth defendant has also been charged with money laundering. Additionally, Stephen Michael Talbot and Stuart Grehan were charged with Perjury Act offences.

Between 2011 and 2014, over 1,900 UK investors transferred their pensions into self-invested personal pensions to invest in storage units sold by UK storage company Store First.

Investors were promised a long-term leasehold on a unit and a return on their investment through renting the unit out.

The SFO allege that misrepresentations were made in the marketing of the product, including that investors would receive a guaranteed return and that units were ready for people to rent.

Alleged misrepresentations also include offering upfront cash incentives to investors without telling them they might be exposed to a tax liability for receiving money out of their pension.

A new era in corporate fraud enforcement is here.

Nicholas Ephgrave QPM, Director of the Serious Fraud Office (UK) (SFO), has unveiled a bold, proactive strategy to tackle corporate crime. With record-breaking performance already under his belt, Ephgrave is driving:

• Faster investigations: average charge time slashed from 4.3 years to under 2.

• Smarter tech: AI tools delivering 40% efficiency gains in live cases.

• Bigger teams: SFO staff expanding to nearly 700 by next year.

•  Global collaboration: new international anti-corruption taskforce launched.

• Tougher laws: leveraging new powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, including the upcoming Failure to Prevent Fraud offence.

Ephgrave’s vision? A sharper, faster SFO that doesn’t just react—but hunts for cases, educates businesses, and prevents fraud before it happens.

https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2025/jul-2025/sfo-chief-heralds-more-dynamic-era-of-fighting-fraud

Fraud is no longer a distant threat — it's a boardroom issue.

UK businesses are facing a surge in fraud-related risks, from cybercrime to internal misconduct. As Andrew Herring of Pinsent Masons rightly points out, the cost of inaction is rising — not just financially, but reputationally.

Why act now?

• Fraud is evolving faster than many businesses can respond.

• Regulatory scrutiny is intensifying.

• Stakeholders expect transparency and resilience.

What can businesses do?

• Embed anti-fraud controls into governance frameworks.

• Empower whistleblowers and protect them.

• Invest in training, tech, and culture that prioritises integrity.

As someone passionate about business ethics and corporate responsibility, I believe it's time we move from reactive to proactive. Fraud prevention isn’t just a compliance issue — it’s a strategic imperative.

https://www.insidermedia.com/blogs/midlands/counting-the-cost-of-fraud-why-uk-businesses-must-act-now

The Insolvency Service has launched its Investigations and Enforcement Strategy 2026–2031, marking a bold shift in its role and remit.

Historically focused on insolvency offences, the Service is now stepping up to become a central force in the fight against economic crime — empowered by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

By 2031, the vision is clear:

Be the UK’s leading authority on corporate and insolvency enforcement.

Pursue directors who fail in their duties — swiftly and decisively.

Enforce the Companies Act and tackle misuse of corporate structures.

Lead criminal investigations into illicit use of UK property and non-compliance with the Register of Overseas Entities.

Notably, the strategy makes explicit reference to criminal sanctions — a strong signal that the UK is serious about holding bad actors to account.

This is a significant moment for corporate governance, compliance, and ethical leadership. The message is clear: transparency, accountability, and enforcement are no longer optional.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/insolvency-service-launches-5-year-investigation-and-enforcement-strategy/investigations-and-enforcement-strategy-2026-to-2031

We have published guidance to help colleagues in the counter fraud community and healthcare sector to understand the impact of the new offence of failure to prevent fraud that comes into effect on 1 September 2025.

The failure to prevent offence under the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023 holds organisations criminally liable for fraud committed by employees, or other associated persons, which may benefit the organisation and the organisation lacks reasonable fraud procedures. NHS bodies are likely to come under the scope of this act.

The comprehensive guidance will be useful to all professionals in the healthcare sector especially those with responsibility for management, finance, risk, governance and compliance providing direction on how to implement or improve fraud prevention procedures.

It provides advice on the following areas:

• The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023
• The failure to prevent fraud offence
• Reasonable fraud prevention procedures
• Associates of a large organisation
• Statutory guidance and references to NHSCFA
• Impact on NHS Bodies
• Next steps – how to comply
• Similarities and differences to other failure to prevent offences

Alex Rothwell, Chief Executive says,

“The new offence represents a significant step toward improving fraud prevention across the NHS driving a cultural change in fraud prevention. We hope that this guidance helps organisations to reduce financial loss and reputational damage. This strengthens our collective fight against fraud, bribery, and corruption in the NHS.”

The guidance available in our 'Failure to Prevent Fraud Offence' section supplements the Home Office guidance on failure to prevent fraud and should be used alongside it.

Zholia Alemi, who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for forging her medical qualifications, has been ordered to pay back £406,624 to the NHS or face an extra two and a half years in jail.

The order was granted today (4 June 2025) at Manchester Crown Court and the figure represents all her known assets. Alemi has been given three months to repay the full amount.

NHS Counter Fraud Authority (NHSCFA) financial investigators used their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) to request a confiscation order against Alemi. The courts will now begin recovering the money and funds returned to the various NHS trusts she defrauded.

Alemi had posed as a qualified psychiatrist and worked for the NHS for 22 years. She was found to have fraudulently obtained in excess of £1 million from a number of UK health bodies.

In 2023, Alemi stood trial at Manchester Crown Court and was found guilty of 20 offences, including fraud and forgery.

Alemi had provided the General Medical Council (GMC) with forged documents to obtain her UK doctor registration in 1995. These included a degree certificate from the University of Auckland and a letter written by the faculty registrar confirming her qualifications.

Her deception became known after a local journalist made enquiries about her qualifications with the university. He was following up on a court case in 2016 that led to her being successfully prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for faking the will of a ‘patient’ in an attempt to inherit £1.3 million from the victim.

Cumbria Police, with support from the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, subsequently carried out an investigation which revealed that Alemi had forged her registration documents.

The traditional divide between civil and criminal enforcement is blurring, particularly in complex fraud cases. With public agencies overwhelmed and sophisticated fraud on the rise, commercial litigators are increasingly turning to criminal law tools to secure redress, recover assets, and apply pressure.

The growth of private prosecutions, the strategic use of freezing orders, and the overlapping reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) are creating a hybrid approach to litigation that many commercial clients can no longer afford to ignore.

Decline of Public Enforcement and the Rise of the Private Prosecution

The growing use of private prosecutions does not represent a shift in legal principle, but rather a practical response to systemic delays and constraints in the criminal justice system.

The CPS and police across England and Wales are under significant and sustained pressure. Years of underfunding, staffing shortages, and rising case complexity, particularly in areas such as financial crime, cyber fraud, and crypto asset-related offences, have left many investigators and prosecutors overwhelmed. Even when serious frauds are reported with a clear evidential foundation, it is increasingly common for victims to be told that it is a civil matter, or that any decision to prosecute may take several years.

The courts are also under strain. Backlogs in the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts are now well-documented, with delays of 18 - 24 months not uncommon, even in serious cases. Public enforcement bodies are, by necessity, forced to prioritise cases involving violence, public safety, or matters of political urgency. For many commercial victims, particularly those in the private sector, this can result in the feeling of an absence of justice.

In such circumstances, the legal system provides a route forward. Under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (the “Act”), individuals and corporate entities may bring a private criminal prosecution in respect of wrongdoing. This can offer a valuable mechanism for holding fraudsters and other offenders to account, particularly where the evidential standard is met, and public authorities are overstretched and unable to act.

However, it is important to emphasise that private prosecutions do not operate in a vacuum. Under section 6(2) of the Act, the CPS retains the power to take over any private prosecution at any time. It may choose to continue, discontinue, or assume control of the case. The CPS will also intervene where it considers a prosecution to be abusive, vexatious, or improperly motivated.

In short, private prosecutions are not a means of circumventing public oversight. When properly brought, they are an important and valuable route to access the criminal justice system, but they must be pursued with integrity, evidential rigour, and in the public interest. Important risks remain. The Full Code Test must be satisfied, meaning there must be a realistic prospect of conviction, and it must also be in the public interest to prosecute.

Prosecutors bringing private cases are also subject to the same disclosure obligations as public authorities, including the duty to disclose material that may assist the defence or undermine the prosecution. Where a prosecution is improperly motivated or conducted unfairly, there is a real risk of proceedings being stayed for abuse of process or giving rise to a claim for malicious prosecution. Careful case preparation and oversight are essential to mitigate those risks.