A Bradford used car dealer has been ordered to pay £66,917 after fraudulently obtaining a £50,000 Covid Bounce Back Loan for his company.
The case is a useful reminder that putting a company into liquidation does not necessarily bring later enforcement action against a director to an end. Where criminal conduct is established, separate recovery proceedings can follow against the individual even years after the company itself entered insolvency.
For directors concerned about historic Bounce Back Loan applications, however, an investigation does not itself establish fraud. The circumstances of the original application, the information available at the time and what happened to the money all need to be considered carefully.
What happened in the Javed Akhtar Bounce Back Loan case?
Javed Akhtar, 49, fraudulently applied for a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan in May 2020 on behalf of Natasha Motors Ltd, his Bradford used car business. The £50,000 represented the maximum loan available under the scheme.
- The application declared company turnover of £400,000. The Insolvency Service subsequently found that declaration to be false. During an interview under caution, Akhtar gave differing turnover figures of £200,000 and £300,000 for 2019 and said that the application form had been completed on his instruction by the company’s accountant.
- Natasha Motors Ltd entered liquidation in April 2021. Akhtar had previously admitted fraudulently applying for the loan and, in March 2026, received a 20-month prison sentence suspended for two years together with 250 hours of unpaid work.
The financial consequences did not end with that sentence.
At Bradford Crown Court on 6 August 2026, Akhtar was ordered to pay £66,917 under a confiscation order. He was given three months to pay. The Insolvency Service stated that failure to do so could result in six months’ imprisonment and would not remove the obligation to pay the money.
The case is another example of the continuing enforcement activity surrounding historic Bounce Back Loans. Our guide to director disqualification and Bounce Back Loans explains the separate director misconduct risks which can arise where eligibility, turnover figures or use of the funds are questioned.
Can a director be made to repay a fraudulent Bounce Back Loan after liquidation?
Yes, depending on the circumstances, but it is important to understand the legal route being used.
A limited company’s liquidation does not prevent criminal proceedings against an individual for fraud committed before the liquidation. Nor does it prevent the criminal courts from subsequently making a confiscation order following conviction.
That is what happened here. The £66,917 order against Akhtar was a criminal confiscation order, rather than simply an order requiring a director to assume the company’s unpaid Bounce Back Loan debt.
This distinction matters.
Ordinarily, a limited company is legally separate from its directors and company debts do not simply become personal debts because the company enters liquidation. Different rules apply where there has been fraud, a personal guarantee, a successful claim against a director or another legal basis for personal recovery.
A liquidator may separately investigate whether claims can be brought against former directors arising from the way the company was managed. These civil insolvency claims are different from a criminal confiscation order. Our guide to liquidator claims against directors explains some of the potential claims which can follow an insolvent company’s collapse.
The Akhtar case should therefore not be read as meaning that every director of a company with an unpaid Bounce Back Loan must repay it personally. The decisive feature here was the admitted fraud.
What is a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act?
A confiscation order is a criminal asset recovery mechanism used following conviction to deprive a defendant of the financial benefit obtained from criminal conduct.
- The Crown Prosecution Service explains that the Crown Court considers the benefit obtained through offending and the defendant’s available assets when determining the amount payable. A default prison sentence can also be fixed if the order is not paid, but serving that sentence does not ordinarily extinguish the money owed.
- Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides the confiscation framework for England and Wales. Current government guidance describes the central purpose as depriving defendants of the benefit of their criminal activity.
In Akhtar’s case, the original fraudulent Bounce Back Loan was £50,000, but the confiscation order was £66,917. The Insolvency Service reported that investigators identified three vehicles and a solar panel investment worth more than £150,000. It said these assets demonstrated that Akhtar had sufficient means to repay the loan in full, together with an uplift reflecting the change in the value of money since 2020.
It is therefore important not to describe £66,917 as the amount originally borrowed. The Bounce Back Loan was £50,000. The higher figure was the amount ordered to be paid under the subsequent confiscation proceedings.
Why did the director’s accounting records matter?
The Bounce Back Loan fraud was not the only director conduct issue identified by the Insolvency Service.
- When Natasha Motors Ltd entered liquidation in April 2021, Akhtar failed to provide adequate accounting records to the liquidator. That conduct subsequently resulted in a six-year director disqualification beginning in August 2023 and running until August 2029.
- Companies have a statutory obligation to maintain adequate accounting records. Section 386 of the Companies Act 2006 requires records which are sufficient to show and explain the company’s transactions and disclose its financial position with reasonable accuracy.
For directors, this becomes particularly important when a business enters financial difficulty. A liquidator needs reliable books and records to establish what assets and liabilities existed, how company money was used and whether transactions before insolvency require further investigation.
In Akhtar’s case, the failure to provide adequate accounting records was dealt with separately from the fraud concerning the Bounce Back Loan. We should not assume that one proved the other. However, the combination demonstrates why accurate records can become important when the Insolvency Service or a liquidator later examines a director’s conduct.
Our guidance on directors’ requirements to maintain accounting records considers how inadequate company records can contribute to a director disqualification investigation.
This also aligns with the wider search demand around directors’ responsibilities, company director responsibilities and the duties attaching to management of a limited company identified in the FWJ keyword research.
What should directors take from continuing Bounce Back Loan enforcement?
The central point is that the age of the loan does not necessarily prevent later scrutiny.
Akhtar obtained the Bounce Back Loan in May 2020. His company entered liquidation in April 2021. His director disqualification began in 2023, his criminal sentence was imposed in March 2026 and the confiscation order followed in August 2026.
The timeline demonstrates how director conduct can continue to have consequences well after the underlying company has stopped trading.
At the same time, directors facing an Insolvency Service enquiry should distinguish cases involving proven fraud from ordinary business failure or an arguable error in a historic application. An incorrect figure does not remove the need to examine what the director knew, why the figure was provided, the available financial information and the evidence supporting the application.
Directors should also retain and organise the records capable of explaining what happened. Bank statements, management accounts, correspondence with accountants, loan documents and records showing how company funds were used may become important evidence if questions are raised later.
The existing FWJ Director Disqualification Guide explains how Insolvency Service investigations develop and the types of conduct which can lead to proceedings.
Where a director is contacted about a Bounce Back Loan or historic company conduct, early advice can help identify exactly what is being alleged and what evidence is available in response. Francis Wilks & Jones advises directors on director disqualification, Bounce Back Loan investigations and related claims following company insolvency.
