Pembrokeshire company director sentenced for fraud during Covid
Mr Zahid Afzal of Haverfordwest fraudulently claimed extra Covid bounce back loans for his phone sales and merchandise companies.
When appearing at Swansea Crown Court on Thursday, June 12, Mr Afzal was sentenced for three counts of fraud by false representation and was handed a two-year suspended sentence, and 300 hours of unpaid work.
Insolvency Service Chief Investigator David Snasdell said: 'It is clear from our investigations that Zahid Afzal felt he could continue to apply time and time again for loans he was not entitled to.
'Not satisfied with the substantial funds he had legitimately received, he went on to lie on applications and exaggerate his companies' turnovers.
'His sentencing should serve as a reminder to those contemplating fraudulently pocketing taxpayers' money to think again.'
The director of Phone Bits Ltd and Phones Onn Ltd had already received Covid loans for both companies legitimately – totalling £52,500 – when he applied for three more.
The 37-year-old, from Haverfordwest, falsely claimed the applications were the first he had made and exaggerated the turnover of each company.
He then received three additional loans of £50,000 each – one for Phone Bits Ltd and two for Phones Onn Ltd – between May and November 2020.
The Insolvency Service investigation did not find any wrongdoing with the use of his initial loans for Phones Onn Ltd (£20,000) and Phone Bits (£32,500), which he was entitled to and were used entirely for business purposes.
But he moved most of the £150,000 he received from his second round of loans to personal accounts despite stating they were for business purposes.
The Bounce Back loan scheme helped small and medium-sized businesses to borrow between £2,000 and £50,000, at a low interest rate, guaranteed by the Government.
The loans were made on the condition that they were not to be used for personal purposes, but could be used, for example, to purchase a company asset such as a vehicle, if it would provide an economic benefit to the business.
The money lent to a company had to be paid back, over six or 10 years, with payments starting 12 months after the company received the loan.
The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
4 hours ago
- Scotsman
West Lothian Council agrees to outdoor drinking licences for Livingston pubs
Two popular Livingston pubs have won extensions to their licence to allow outdoor drinking. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The agreement of West Lothian Licensing Board will formalise outdoor drinking at one of the oldest pubs, dating back to the 1760s, as well as one from the development of Livingston as a new town in the 1960s. An agent for the Livingston Inn in Livingston Village's Main Street told the Board that the inn was said to have been visited by 'a certain Rabbie Burns.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The pub currently has outdoor tables front and back. The pub applied for licence variation to formalise occasional licences to use a grassed area behind the pub as a beer garden. Police had no objections and the licence was granted with the usual conditions including limits on outdoor music and no serving beyond 9pm. The Livingston Inn applied for licence variation to formalise occasional licences to use a grassed area behind the pub as a beer garden. | Google Maps The Tower Bar in Craigshill was built in 1968. It has recently developed as popular community hub supporting the people of Craigshill since the Covid lockdown. The owners Fiona McLeod and Frank McAlister applied for variations to their existing licence and an extension to beer garden licence with permit to use outside space until 11pm. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad An agent said the application was largely 'a tidy up' of the existing licence. The Tower has recently undergone renovation and provides a popular restaurant as well as community space. However Police Scotland objected to a beer garden licence extending until 11pm fearing noise disturbance for neighbours and the potential for alcohol related disruption. A police licensing sergeant insisted the force: 'considered the premises to be well-run and an asset to the community' Council Safer Neighbourhood Officers had been called in May following complaints about disturbance from a party in the beer garden at the time it was operating on occasional licences. After going into private session councillors proposed that the variations be allowed on the conditions that standard conditions on outdoor space be applied including the 9pm finish to serving in the beer garden and an additional conditions governing the use of amplified music or live performance beyond 7pm. This was accepted by the agent and owners.
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Nine key questions could decide fate of beef Wellington mushroom 'poisoner'
Erin Patterson has been accused of intentionally poisoning several family members and her eight-day cross-examination in the murder trial has come to an end The world has been gripped by the murder trial of an Australian woman that came after several people died after eating a homemade beef Wellington that is said to have contained poisonous death cap mushrooms. Erin Patterson denies intentionally poisoning three relatives and attempting to kill a fourth by serving them a meal containing toxic death cap mushrooms at her home in Victoria on July 29, 2023. Prosecutors have alleged she deliberately included the poisonous mushrooms in the meal, but her defence insists it was a tragic accident - saying Patterson may have accidentally included mushrooms she had foraged herself. Within a week of the meal, three of the guests had died and the fourth was in hospital. Patterson, 50, was questioned by police shortly after the deaths and she was arrested around a month later. Her alleged victims were her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, both aged 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66. Ian Wilkinson, the uncle of Patterson's estranged husband, also fell seriously ill but survived after weeks of treatment. These are the nine key questions that could determine how the jury vote. Where were the toxic mushrooms from? Both the prosecution and defence have accepted the potentially deadly death cap mushrooms were in the beef wellington. During the initial police investigation, Patterson denied being a forager and her children told cops they had never seen her pick mushrooms. This completely shifted in the witness box as Patterson claimed that was untrue and said she had picked wild mushrooms since the 2020 Covid lockdown. Her lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, asked if she accepted that the beef Wellington pastries she had served to her lunch guests in 2023 contained death caps. "Now I think there was a possibility there were foraged ones in there," she replied. How did the mushrooms get into the dish? Prosecutor Nanette Rogers told the court how Patterson had posted in Facebook groups about using a food dehydrator to reduce the size of mushrooms to use in cooking. Patterson posted that she had been "hiding powdered mushrooms in everything". The jury was also shown a CCTV photo showing Erin Patterson at her local tip on August 2 - days after the fatal meal. Among the things she was seen disposing of was a large black box. When inspected a couple of days later, a staff member found a black Sunbeam dehydrator, Nanette Rogers says. Fingerprints were found on the dehydrator and compared to Ms Patterson's, Dr Rogers says - and they matched. It also tested positive for death cap mushrooms, the jury was told. Did she secretly hate her in-laws? Prosecutors have not identified a "particular" motive in this case but the court heard about issues Patterson faced with her ex-husband Simon's family. The couple were married in 2007 and separated in 2015 but initially had a close relationship even after they split. This changed in 2022 when Simon described himself as "single" on a tax return and affected her ability to claim tax breaks. Patterson asked her in-laws to get involved and they were reluctant to, which led to arguments between them. She posted a series of raging posts on Facebook around that time including: "I'm sick of this s**t. I want nothing to do with them. I thought his parents would want him to do the right thing, but it seems their concern about… not wanting to get involved in their son's personal matters, are overriding that. So f**k them." How was the meal served? The court was told the four guests were handed their meal on a grey plates while Patterson had hers on an orange plate. The suspect has denied these claims and told the court she did not own any grey dishes. She told the court the meal was served up on a mixture of black and white plates. Despite this, footage from a police search of her home appeared to show two grey plates next to the dishwasher. Did she vomit after the meal? Patterson told the court she had bulimia and ate several slices of an orange cake her 70-year-old in-law brought for dessert. She told the court: "I kept cleaning up the kitchen and putting everything away and, um, I had a piece of cake and then I had another piece of cake. And then another." She told the court she ate all of the cake and "felt sick. I felt over-full. So I went to the toilets and brought it up again". Was she genuinely sick? Patterson said she was hit with diarrhoea after the meal and suffered with it for a week. She went to a local hospital and complained of "gastro". Despite this, medical professionals did not believed her symptoms were as bad as what her four guests experienced. The court heard from nurse Cindy Munro who said Patterson "didn't look unwell" when compared to the guests. Doctor Varuna Ruggoo said tests for her liver function came back with normal results. Why did she throw the dehydrator away? The day after Patterson left hospital she went to a rubbish tip and was seen on CCTV throwing the Sunbeam dehydrator out. When asked about the device she claimed she tried to get rid of the dehydrator because she "panicked" after a conversation with her ex-husband a few days earlier. She claimed he asked her: "Is that what you used to poison my parents?" She said: "I was scared of the conversation that might flow about the meal and the dehydrator and I was scared that they [child protection] would blame me for it." Despite this, the ex-husband claimed he did not remember saying that to her. Why did she lie about having cancer? Patterson invited her in-laws for the meal on a false pretence of receiving a cancer diagnosis, as prosecutors said it was highly unusual for Patterson to hold social gatherings. She had told Gail a few weeks earlier that she found a lump on her elbow. At the dinner she suggested she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The mother of two later admitted she never had cancer, but had been worried enough by symptoms to seek tests. She then said she had been dealing with "self-esteem" issues and was embarrassed to tell her family that. How will the jury decide this case? Patterson has held that the other parties in this case, like her ex-husband, medical professionals and Facebook friends, have been wrong in their accounts. Her eight-day cross-examination has come to an end and she still pleads not guilty. Now the case is in the hands of the jury who will return their verdict.
Daily Record
9 hours ago
- Daily Record
Two popular Livingston pubs win extensions to their licence to allow outdoor drinking
The agreement of West Lothian Licensing Board will formalise outdoor drinking at one of the oldest pubs, dating back to the 1760s, as well as one from the development of Livingston as a new town in the 1960s. Two popular Livingston pubs have won extensions to their licence to allow outdoor drinking. The agreement of West Lothian Licensing Board will formalise outdoor drinking at one of the oldest pubs, dating back to the 1760s, as well as one from the development of Livingston as a new town in the 1960s. An agent for the Livingston Inn in Livingston Village's Main Street told the Board that the inn was said to have been visited by 'a certain Rabbie Burns.' The pub currently has outdoor tables front and back. The pub applied for licence variation to formalise occasional licences to use a grassed area behind the pub as a beer garden. Police had no objections and the licence was granted with the usual conditions including limits on outdoor music and no serving beyond 9pm. The Tower Bar in Craigshill was built in 1968. It has recently developed as popular community hub supporting the people of Craigshill since the Covid lockdown. The owners Fiona McLeod and Frank McAlister applied for variations to their existing licence and an extension to beer garden licence with permit to use outside space until 11pm. An agent said the application was largely 'a tidy up' of the existing licence. The Tower has recently undergone renovation and provides a popular restaurant as well as community space. However Police Scotland objected to a beer garden licence extending until 11pm fearing noise disturbance for neighbours and the potential for alcohol related disruption. A police licensing sergeant insisted the force: 'considered the premises to be well-run and an asset to the community' Council Safer Neighbourhood Officers had been called in May following complaints about disturbance from a party in the beer garden at the time it was operating on occasional licences. After going into private session councillors proposed that the variations be allowed on the conditions that standard conditions on outdoor space be applied including the 9pm finish to serving in the beer garden and an additional conditions governing the use of amplified music or live performance beyond 7pm. This was accepted by the agent and owners.
