A Bradford car dealer has been ordered to repay £66,917 after previously admitting that he fraudulently obtained a £50,000 Covid Bounce Back Loan.
The confiscation order against Javed Akhtar is a useful reminder that a criminal sentence does not necessarily bring the financial consequences of fraud to an end. Separate confiscation proceedings can be used to recover the benefit obtained through criminal conduct.
For company directors, the case also demonstrates how different consequences can arise from different aspects of their conduct. Akhtar had already received a suspended criminal sentence and was separately subject to a six-year director disqualification before the confiscation order was made.
What happened in the Bradford Bounce Back Loan fraud case?
Javed Akhtar was the director of Natasha Motors Ltd, a second-hand car business.
- According to the Insolvency Service report, Akhtar applied for the maximum £50,000 Bounce Back Loan in May 2020 and declared that the company’s turnover was £400,000. The Insolvency Service states that this declaration was false. During a later interview under caution, Akhtar gave differing figures of £200,000 and £300,000 for the company’s 2019 turnover.
- Akhtar admitted fraudulently applying for the £50,000 loan.
- Natasha Motors Ltd subsequently entered liquidation in April 2021. The Insolvency Service also reported that Akhtar failed to provide adequate accounting records to the liquidator.
In March 2026, he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and ordered to complete 250 hours of unpaid work.
That criminal sentence was not, however, the end of the matter.
Why was Javed Akhtar ordered to repay £66,917?
At Bradford Crown Court on 6 August 2026, Akhtar was made subject to a confiscation order requiring him to pay £66,917 within three months.
The original Bounce Back Loan was £50,000. The Insolvency Service explained that the higher confiscation figure included an uplift reflecting the change in the value of money since the loan was obtained in 2020.
Its financial investigation had identified assets including three cars and an investment in solar panels worth more than £150,000. The Insolvency Service concluded that Akhtar had sufficient assets to repay the Bounce Back Loan in full.
The court ordered payment within three months. The Insolvency Service reported that failure to pay could result in a further six months’ imprisonment and that the repayment obligation would remain.
This distinction is important. The £66,917 was not a fine. It was a confiscation order arising from proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
In broad terms, confiscation proceedings can require a person convicted of an offence to pay a sum representing the benefit obtained from criminal conduct. The purpose is therefore different from the criminal sentence imposed for the underlying offence.
Can money still be recovered after someone has been sentenced for fraud?
Yes. A criminal sentence and confiscation proceedings perform different functions.
In Akhtar’s case, the criminal proceedings had already resulted in a suspended prison sentence and unpaid work. The subsequent confiscation proceedings addressed the financial benefit obtained through the fraudulent Bounce Back Loan application.
Alexander Grierson, Head of Asset Recovery at the Insolvency Service, said the agency was pursuing confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act so that offenders could not retain the proceeds of fraud.
For directors facing allegations connected with Covid support schemes, it is therefore important to distinguish between the different forms of enforcement that may potentially arise.
An Insolvency Service investigation may concern the director’s fitness to manage companies. Criminal proceedings may address alleged offences. Separate civil or confiscation processes may deal with financial recovery. They are not interchangeable and the existence of one does not mean that another necessarily follows.
FWJ’s guidance on director disqualification and Bounce Back Loans explains how allegations concerning eligibility, applications and use of Bounce Back Loan funds can also lead to scrutiny of a director’s conduct.
How is asset recovery different from director disqualification?
Akhtar’s case demonstrates why these consequences need to be kept separate.
He was disqualified as a company director in August 2023 for six years, with the ban running until August 2029. The Insolvency Service expressly states that this disqualification arose because he failed to provide adequate accounting records.
It would therefore be incorrect to say that the August 2026 confiscation order caused his director disqualification.
Director disqualification concerns whether a person should be permitted to take part in the management of companies. The process can follow an investigation into conduct and, in the insolvency context, may involve the Insolvency Service examining whether a director’s behaviour makes them unfit to be concerned in company management. FWJ’s director disqualification guide explains the wider process and the consequences that can follow.
A confiscation order has a different purpose. It concerns the financial benefit obtained from criminal conduct.
The same underlying history can therefore expose a director to different legal processes, each with its own test and consequences.
This does not mean that every inaccurate Bounce Back Loan application amounts to fraud or that every director whose company received a Bounce Back Loan will face personal proceedings. The Akhtar case involved an admitted fraudulent application and a subsequent financial investigation identifying assets from which the money could be recovered.
What should directors know about company records and insolvency investigations?
One of the clearest lessons from the case concerns company records.
Akhtar’s six-year director disqualification arose from his failure to deliver adequate accounting records following the liquidation of Natasha Motors Ltd.
For directors, maintaining and preserving proper records can become particularly important once a company encounters financial difficulty. Decisions made years earlier may later need to be explained to a liquidator, the Insolvency Service or another investigating body.
Records concerning loan applications, turnover calculations, company expenditure and the use of borrowed funds can help establish what information was available and why decisions were made.
Directors who receive enquiries from the Insolvency Service should also avoid responding on assumptions where relevant documentation is available. Our guidance on dealing with early enquiries from the Insolvency Service explains why understanding the allegations and reviewing the underlying documents can be important before providing a substantive response.
The passage of time should not be treated as an indication that historic Covid support issues can no longer result in enforcement action. The Insolvency Service continues to publish director disqualification and enforcement outcomes involving Bounce Back Loans several years after the schemes themselves closed.
For directors who are concerned about an historic application or the way company funds were used, the appropriate starting point is to establish the facts and retain the relevant records. An investigation does not itself establish wrongdoing, and the legal consequences depend on the particular conduct alleged and the evidence available.
