Bounce Back Loan Director Disqualification Of 9 Years For £20,000 For ‘Undream House’

This case Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Ahmedivand [2025] EWHC 98 (Ch) involved a Bounce Back Loan of £20,000 which was more than what the company was entitled to based on its turnover of £80,000.

Prior to receipt of the Bounce Back Loan the company’s bank account had a nil balance. Upon receipt of the loan on 18 May 2020, the Director received it by transfer from the company to himself:

… The Company received a £20,000 BBL into its Barclays account with account number 33338231 (‘the Barclays Account’) on 18 May 2020. Prior to receipt of the BBL, the Barclays Account had a nil balance. The same day that the BBL was received, the Company made a £20,000 payment to “Mohammad” with the reference “Undream House“.

The company in liquidation’s professionally prepared accounts signed by the director indicate that for the calendar year 2019, it was less than £20,000. Receipts into the company bank account in the calendar year 2019 were £14,566.04. This overall led the Court to say the turnover at £80,000 had been overstated in the application form for the Bounce Back Loan. This was yet another overstated turnover bounce back loan case.

The Director said 40% of turnover was cash. The Court highlighted the matter of signed accounts to trump this point:

… the disparity between the claimed turnover and actual turnover (claimed turnover being at least four times actual turnover) is so significant in this case that it is simply impossible to explain away as a genuine but mistaken estimate.

…

The Company’s accounts and bank statements do not support such a forecast and no other explanation was put forward as to why the Company’s turnover could conceivably be expected to quadruple overnight at a time of national economic crisis. The Defendant’s attempt at paragraph 9 of his affidavit to rely on a total sum of £67,000 odd passing through the Company’s bank account over the period July 2019 to May 2020 was in my judgment an entirely opportunistic rearguard attempt to seize on a figure mentioned in the Claimant’s evidence, when in fact, that total sum of £67,000 odd included covid-19 related loans/grants (including the BBL), transfers from the Company’s directors, unpaid direct debits and a £15 refund: see generally [41] above.

…

…having considered the findings of misconduct and having weighed the foregoing factors and all relevant circumstances of this case with some care, the appropriate period of disqualification is nine years.