The Insolvency Service has confirmed that two companies have been wound up following investigations into abuse of the UK company register.
The case is significant because it shows how Companies House, the Insolvency Service and the High Court are being used to address corporate misuse where companies appear to provide a false UK business presence, fail to comply with anti-money laundering obligations or undermine trust in the register.
The two companies were wound up at the High Court in London on 2 June 2026. According to GOV.UK, they had registered more than 4,300 UK companies for predominantly China-based clients. The Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of both companies.
For directors, company formation agents and trust or company service providers, the message is clear. Register-related services are lawful where properly operated, but they must be supported by accurate information, proper compliance and evidence that required checks have been carried out.
Why were the two companies wound up by the High Court?
The Insolvency Service said the two companies were involved in registering UK companies for overseas clients, providing registered office addresses and acting as company secretaries.
- The source confirms that the companies charged overseas clients for those services.
- It is lawful for a business to act as a broker for company registration and to provide UK registered office addresses through Companies House.
- However, a firm carrying out that work must register with HMRC as a trust or company service provider.
In this case, GOV.UK states that one company’s application was not approved by HMRC and the other failed to register. The Insolvency Service also found no evidence that required anti-money laundering checks had been carried out.
The two companies were wound up after referrals from Companies House to the Insolvency Service. The referral itself is important because it shows closer cooperation between agencies responsible for corporate transparency, register integrity and insolvency enforcement.
What does the case show about abuse of the Companies House register?
The case shows that misuse of the Companies House register is no longer being treated as a purely administrative issue.
- Companies House is often relied on by banks, suppliers, creditors, investors and enforcement agencies.
- If companies are registered with inaccurate or misleading information, or if registered office services are used to create a false impression of a UK presence, that can affect commercial trust and increase the risk of fraud or money laundering.
The GOV.UK release states that the two companies registered more than 4,300 UK companies for predominantly China-based clients.
- One company provided a registered office address to at least 2,597 client companies.
- The other acted as company secretary to a further 1,746 companies and appeared to be using a Fleet Street address without the landlord’s knowledge or consent.
- A single apartment in London was also used as the registered office for 2,873 companies.
Those facts explain why the case attracted public-interest action. The concern was not simply that many companies had been registered. The concern was the combination of scale, lack of UK presence, regulatory non-compliance, unexplained control and missing anti-money laundering evidence.
Why do anti-money laundering checks matter for company formation services?
Company formation services can be used legitimately. They help businesses incorporate, maintain company records, provide registered office facilities and deal with statutory filings.
However, those services also carry risk. A company can be misused to open bank accounts, create false credibility, move money, conceal ownership or support dishonest trading. That is why trust or company service providers are subject to anti-money laundering controls.
Where a provider cannot show that required checks were carried out, regulators and enforcement agencies may ask difficult questions.
- Who were the clients?
- Who controlled the companies?
- Where did the money come from?
- Why were funds paid into personal or third-party bank accounts?
- Were beneficial owners properly identified?
In this case, the Insolvency Service investigation found that client fees were being paid into personal or third-party bank accounts in China. It also stated that both companies appeared in reality to have been under the control of a single individual whose identity was not disclosed on the Companies House register.
That type of finding can create serious downstream risk, including public-interest winding up, liquidator investigation, Companies House enforcement and potential scrutiny of connected companies.
How does public-interest winding up protect the company register?
Public-interest winding up allows the court to wind up a company where it is considered just and equitable to do so in the public interest.
The procedure is often used where there are concerns about
- serious misconduct,
- fraud,
- scams,
- dishonest practice,
- corporate abuse or misuse of companies in a way that harms the public, creditors or the integrity of the market.
In register abuse cases, the public interest may lie in stopping a business model that undermines trust in the UK corporate system. A company may not need to have a conventional unpaid trade creditor for public-interest action to be appropriate. The broader concern may be that the company is being used, or enabling others to be used, in a way that damages confidence in the register.
The GOV.UK release links this enforcement activity to powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which have strengthened the tools available to tackle corporate abuse and improve the reliability of information on the register.
For businesses under investigation, this means the issue may move beyond routine compliance. Once the Insolvency Service or Companies House becomes involved, directors and controllers should expect questions about governance, record-keeping, ownership, control, AML procedures and the commercial purpose of the company’s activities.
What should company service providers and directors learn from this case?
The central lesson is that company register compliance is now a substantive risk issue, not just a filing obligation.
- Company service providers should be able to show that they are properly registered with HMRC where required, that they understand who their clients are, that anti-money laundering checks have been completed and that the addresses or roles they provide are used lawfully and transparently.
- Directors should also understand that the registered position at Companies House may not be the end of the enquiry. Investigators may look at who really controlled the company, where instructions came from, where fees were paid and whether the public register accurately reflected the underlying reality.
Most company formation and registered office arrangements are entirely legitimate. The risk arises where the service provider cannot evidence compliance, where the company has no real UK presence, or where the structure appears designed to obscure ownership or control.
For businesses facing questions from Companies House, HMRC or the Insolvency Service, early advice can help clarify the position, preserve records and respond in a way that protects the company and its directors. Francis Wilks & Jones advises on public-interest winding up petitions, Companies House investigations, director conduct issues and insolvency-related enforcement.
