Law360: Investors seeking to enforce a fraud judgment against the founders of an AI-driven exercise bike company suffered a setback on 3 September 2025, when the High Court declined to finalise interim debt orders against the defendants’ personal pensions.

This Practice Note provides a broad overview of the circumstances in which it may be alleged that the claim is fraudulent or tainted by fraud. It covers the situation where although there was a genuine injury caused by the accident, the claimant is exaggerating the injury or losses suffered or the collision, which gave rise to the claim, involved such a low velocity impact that it could not have generated sufficient forces to have caused an injury. This Practice Note also includes definitions of fraud and malingering, the main types of fraudulent road traffic accident claims and credit hire fraud and practical guidance on how to deal with claims which may involve fraud. Definitions Fraud Defined in Derry v Peek as where it is shown that: 'a false representation has been made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.' Malingering Defined in DSM-IV V65.2 and the DSM-5 as: 'The intentional production of false or exaggerated physical or psychological signs or symptoms,

Corporate Crime analysis: This analysis considers an appeal against conviction in which the Court of Appeal addressed the relevance of the appellant’s religious beliefs to the knowledge and dishonesty components of section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 offence, and summarised the principles a trial judge should apply when considering whether to discharge a jury where prejudicial material has been admitted in consequence of an error by defence counsel. The court also heard a renewed application for leave to appeal against the size of the costs order imposed. The appeal was dismissed and the renewed application refused. Lady Carr CJ held that the trial judge had given adequate directions on the law and was right to tell the jury that neither religion, nor the appellant’s religious beliefs, were on trial. It was further held that the judge was right not to discharge the jury (although no such application had been made), and in respect of the renewed application, that there had been no procedural unfairness in the making of the costs order, nor was it manifestly excessive. Written by Richard Heller, barrister, and James Cox, pupil barrister, of 2 Hare Court, Chambers of Jonathan Laidlaw KC.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported that Rais Kayani, a fraudster who sought to exploit taxpayers through a coronavirus (COVID-19) support scheme, has pleaded guilty to a single count of entering into a money laundering arrangement at Southwark Crown Court. Following an investigation by the National Investigation Service (NATIS), it was found that Kayani's company, RAK Traders and Services Ltd, received £195,000 from three local authorities in St Helen’s, Thurrock and Rochdale, after Kayani defrauded these authorities through false applications to the Small Business Grant Fund. The CPS has said that it has already recovered £155,000 and will seek a confiscation order to obtain the remaining funds. Kayani has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid word and pay £6,000 in compensation.

Law360: A man who made almost £18,000 by operating as a 'ghost broker' and selling invalid car insurance policies on Instagram has been handed a suspended prison sentence of 24 months at a London court, City Police has said.

UK Finance has reported that Christopher Mambi, 22, from North London, who committed £116,382 of fraud between 17 October 2019 and 29 December 2019, has received a custodial sentence of two years and six months at Inner London Crown Court after pleading guilty to 22 counts of fraud. Mambi was initially given a 17-month suspended sentence for fraud in 2019. However, he continued to commit further offences by using fraudulent bank cards and providing false address and name details to commit fraud. The investigation into Mambi’s offences was conducted by the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit (DCPCU), a specialist police unit sponsored by the banking and finance industry that investigates the criminals responsible for fraud. Detective Sergeant Ben Hobbs investigated the case for the DCPCU and said ‘this sentencing is a warning to those who believe they can benefit financially from fraud that they will be caught and punished’.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has reported that Abdullah Allad, a high-net-worth fraudster, who skipped his trial and fled to Dubai, has been ordered to pay over £37m for theft of VAT from the government and playing a part in a conspiracy to use a network of companies and a large number of transactions to cover up the theft of VAT. Allad was convicted in his absence of conspiracy to cheat the government’s revenue and conspiracy to launder money in a prosecution conducted by the CPS Specialist Fraud Division. Allad will face ten years in prison should he fail to pay the £37,667,622. Specialist Prosecutor of CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, Manjula Nayee, said: ‘Despite Mr Allad being absent at the hearing, we felt it was important to go ahead to ensure the appropriate order was in place and could be enforced. Mr Allad has defrauded the taxpayer of over £37 million, monies that could be spent on the NHS and other vital public services.’

Law360, London: Insurer Allianz UK said on 22 September 2025 that fraudsters are inflating claims by exploiting a legal precedent left after a landmark UK court ruling on whiplash.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that a director of a company who had applied for two government-backed Bounce Back Loans for the maximum sum on each occasion, and far in excess of what was permitted with regard to the company’s turnover, was guilty of fraudulent trading, extending the circumstances in which the court will make such a finding. Further, the court held that sums which had been paid from the company’s account to a third party letting agent (which was the landlord under a lease agreement) for the lease on the director’s personal residential property ought to be repaid by the letting agent, notwithstanding that the letting agent had given consideration by letting the property. The court noted in particular that this was proper where the letting agent had notice that the paying party was the company rather than the director. Written by Bertie Beor-Roberts, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Any organisation can be the victim of fraud, regardless of size, sector, location or any other characteristic. It can be committed by external people, but it can also be committed from the inside, by staff or others working with us. Under the failure to prevent fraud offence, introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, an organisation may be criminally liable where an employee, agent, subsidiary, or other ‘associated person’, commits a fraud intending to benefit the organisation (or in certain circumstances, its customer) and the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place. This document forms part of our procedures to prevent persons associated with our organisation from committing fraud offences. Our employees and agents are our first

Offence of fraudulent evasion of VAT It is an offence under section 72(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) if any person is knowingly concerned in the taking of steps with a view to the fraudulent evasion of Value Added Tax (VAT) by themselves or any other person. The offence is triable either way. This offence is sometimes referred to as VAT fraud. There is also a lesser offence under the VATA 1994, s 72(10) which provides that it is an offence if any person: • acquires possession of, deals with any goods or accepts the supply of any services, and • has reason to believe that VAT on the supply of the goods or services, or on the importation of the goods, has been or will be evaded This lesser offence is summary only with a maximum penalty of £20,000 or three times the amount of the VAT, whichever is the greater. Note that, as of IP completion day, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 made provision for the UK to cease

Offences of fraudulent evasion of duty—the smuggling offences A person commits an offence under section 170(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA 1979) if, with the intent to defraud Her Majesty of any duty payable on the goods or to evade any such prohibition or restriction with respect to the goods, they: • knowingly acquire possession of goods which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or Queen's warehouse (CEMA 1979, s 170(1)(a)(i)) • knowingly acquire possession of duty chargeable goods (eg alcohol or cigarettes etc) upon which duty has not been paid (CEMA 1979, s 170(1)(a)(ii)) • knowingly acquire possession of imported or exported goods which are prohibited or restricted (eg drugs, firearms etc) (CEMA 1979, s 170(1)(a)(iii)), or • are knowingly concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing any such goods (CEMA 1979, s 170(1)(b)) CEMA 1979, s 170(2) creates a much wider offence of being in any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or any attempt at evasion of: • any duty chargeable on goods • any restricted or