Giving bankrupts a bad name.

Whirlee

A four-time bankrupt, Darran Anthony Matthews, was last week sentenced to 24 weeks imprisonment by Southampton Magistrates’ Court following an investigation and prosecution by the Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Matthews, a farmer of Sherbourne in Dorset, who had already had his discharge from bankruptcy suspended indefinitely, was found guilty on four counts of obtaining credit without disclosing his bankrupt status.
In spite of a bankruptcy order against him in 2009, Mr Matthews obtained credit of almost £12,500 from four creditors without letting them know that he was a bankrupt, as he was required to do. The further debt incurred by Mr Matthews was in addition to the deficiency of nearly £22,500 in his bankruptcy. Mr Matthews has failed to pay any of these creditors.
In court, Mr Matthews pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining credit without disclosing relevant information, contrary to s.360 of the Insolvency Act 1986. He was given a six-month sentence for each charge. The sentences are to run concurrently (i.e. at the same time).
Since he had been made bankrupt on three occasions prior to his latest bankruptcy, Mr Matthews must have been aware of the restrictions applicable to him as a bankrupt. In addition, these restrictions were reiterated to him by the Official Receiver in July 2009, prior to the suspension of his discharge from bankruptcy.
Commenting on the case Stephen Speed, Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service said:
“People struggling with debt who want to benefit from the debt relief arrangements offered by the insolvency regime must also be prepared to abide by the restrictions that come with that relief. Those who flout the terms of their bankruptcy orders must be prepared to face the consequences of such a decision, as Mr Matthews has found to his cost”.
Commenting on the case, Liam Mannall, an investigator with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said:
“Mr Matthews’ sentence sends a clear message to bankrupts who fail to keep to the terms of their bankruptcy order. We can and will investigate bankrupts, and where appropriate, take action when we find evidence of them deliberately acting to the determent of their creditors”.
Mr Matthews’ discharge from bankruptcy remains suspended indefinitely.

nomoreboomandbust

What I don't understand is how he obtained credit in the first place, surely his credit rating must have been 0. Even if he stated he was earning 100k a year, would anyone have given him any credit, I really don't understand it.

kepar

They may have been friends / associates who he sold a story too and not professional institutions.

Whirlee

They were all small local businesses. I guess they don't routinely run credit checks.

nomoreboomandbust

You'd think being local businesses they would know a bit about his history then

Whirlee

Plenty of people manage to keep the fact that they're bankrupt a secret.

dojoman

This guy is not just a BR, he is a serial BR and a total conman as well.

alastairq

all of which only goes to demonstrate, bankruptcy is a serious business, taken seriously by the vast majority.....and not entered into lightly.


so, we have seen recently a balancing of the books, eh?

A bankrupt getting punished for flouting the law...and DCAs getting equally punished for flouting regulations.

Whirlee

Another bankrupt who tried to abuse the system gets in trouble.

Only right, they give ordinary bankrupt's an undeserved reputation.

Director of Home improvement company sentenced


A bankrupt and former director of a home improvement company, Peter Stephen Matthews of Suffolk, was this week sentenced to 3 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months plus a Community Order with a requirement to complete 180 hours unpaid work, by Cambridge Crown Court following an investigation and prosecution by The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. He was also ordered to pay £5,000 in compensation.

Matthews, who is already subject to a five-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Undertaking, was sentenced after pleading guilty to the removal of property after an order or judgement for money had been obtained, which remained unsatisfied at the date of bankruptcy. Specifically, he spent money that should have been paid to his creditors, on a new car and on family holidays, among other things.
Mr Matthews was the director of Heathcroft Homes Improvements Ltd ('Heathcroft'), through which he worked as a fitter.
The court heard that, upon the winding-up of Heathcroft in 2009, Mr Matthews became liable for the company's debts as a result of personal guarantees he had given to trade creditors. However, despite being served with a court judgement relating to these debts, he failed to pay these creditors following the sale of his family home. Instead, he transferred the funds to his partner and the funds were never recovered.
The court heard that Matthews spent some of the funds on advance rent and general living expenses for his family.
The court was shown bank statements revealing that Mr Matthews bought a car for £5,500 and paid £3,000 for a holidays for various family members. The bank accounts also revealed numerous transactions between Matthews' account and a new business, H I Solutions, owned by his partner, through which he continued to provide his services as a window fitter. Funds were not used to satisfy either Matthews' trade or personal creditors.
As a consequence of his actions, Mr Matthews' creditors have lost out to the tune of almost £24,000.
Commenting on the case, Stephen Speed, Chief Executive of The Insolvency Service said:
"People genuinely struggling with debt who want to benefit from the debt relief arrangements offered by the insolvency regime must be prepared to declare all of their assets or face the penalty imposed on them. It is for the Official Receiver to decide which assets should be sold for the benefit of the creditors and which may be retained by the debtor."
Commenting on the case, Ian West, an investigator with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said:
"Mr Matthews' sentence sends a clear message to bankrupts who fail to keep to the terms of their bankruptcy order. We can and will investigate bankrupts, and where appropriate, take action when we find evidence of them deliberately acting to the detriment of their creditors".

NeverAgain_2

Slightly weedy sentence.

The guy's nicked off with at least £24K, but only has to repay £5K, and spend a few hours litter picking.

Going through the court process thinking: 'I might go to prison' will have been stressful, but right now he will be resting easy on the patio.

Whirlee

True, the courts can only look at your current means and if you're not earning much they can't take much. No solace knowing that he already enjoyed spending it all.