Giving bankrupts a bad name.

Whirlee

A bankrupt property developer, who hid the funds that would have been the main asset in his bankruptcy was today sentenced to an 18-month jail term following investigations by The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Giles Nicholas Gilbey, a 47 year old builder and property developer from Peterborough pleaded guilty before Northampton Crown Court to removing £143,000 from his estate. The amount, Mr Gilbey’s share of the sale of his family home, was removed in cash. He then failed to give a satisfactory explanation of what happened to the money to the Official Receiver even though he was legally required to do so.
In the prosecution brought by The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Mr Gilbey did not contest two charges of removing property and one of failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for a loss.
Mr Gilbey, who had been pursued for unpaid debts for a number of years before he was made bankrupt, was well aware that any profits from the sale of his property should have been paid to his creditors. As a result Mr Gilbey was sentenced to serve six months imprisonment for each of the three charges, which will run concurrently. He will therefore serve a total of 18 months in prison.
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."
Adding his comments, Ian West, a Deputy Chief Investigation Officer with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said:
“Mr Gilbey’s prison sentence sends a clear message to bankrupts who attempt to put their financial assets beyond the reach of their creditors. The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business will investigate and take robust action when we find evidence of funds being hidden to the detriment of creditors.”

and

A bankrupt from Herefordshire, who sold the main asset in his bankruptcy, narrowly escaped jail last week after pleading guilty to disposing of a car and refusing to cooperate with the Official Receiver.

The prosecution by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on behalf of The Insolvency Service was heard at South Worcestershire Magistrates’ Court. At the hearing Christopher Graham Miller, aged 64 of Leominster, Herefordshire admitted that despite being made aware of his responsibilities as a bankrupt, he sold an Audi motor vehicle, which was the main asset in his bankruptcy, and initially refused to divulge what happened to the £5,500 proceeds. And, that he did so less than two weeks after being declared bankrupt in December 2009.
As a bankrupt Mr Miller was aware that it is for the Official Receiver to decide which assets may be kept and which must be sold for the benefit of creditors.
Although Mr Miller subsequently informed the Official Receiver about the sale of the car, he initially refused to explain what the profits were spent on. He later told the Official Receiver he used £5,000 to pay an undisclosed creditor and the rest went on household bills.
Mr Miller, who is already subject to a seven-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order was given a six-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay £1,500 compensation to his trustee, the Official Receiver.
In sentencing, the court rejected Mr Miller’s explanation of why he was unable to give a name or provide any contact details for his previously undeclared creditor.
In addition to the suspended sentence the court imposed Mr Miller with an 8 pm to 6 am curfew.
Commenting on Mr Miller’s sentence Liz Thomas, Official Receiver on behalf 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 or try to put assets beyond the reach of their creditors must be prepared to face the consequences of such a decision, as Mr Miller has found to his cost.”

debtinfo

I find this second one very interesting. People often assume that that people only get prosecuted over huge sums of money, this one shows that they can be prosecuted for much less and that it is the intent that really matters

Whirlee

Yes it looks like it was important that it was his only real asset.

ceebeeby

Lol - I'm guessing whirlee that you're on a personal crusade to name and shame fraudulent bankrupter's!!

For a newbie you seem to have great interest in this single subject! BTW - your title is a bit misleading is it not - surely all bankrupt people have a 'bad name' in the most literal sense!

alastairq

I don't in any way find the above examples as 'giving Bankrupt people a bad name.'

At least, any more so than motorcyclists in general getting a bad name....?

Or, MP's getting 'tarred with the same brush?'


The above examples simply hilight individuals who flouted the Law....and were brought to account.

What the above examples do demonstrate..[and should heartily silence the trolls?]...is that Bankruptcy, like any other legal process, whether financial or not.....carries duties and responsibilities on the part of the petitioner ....so is hardly an 'abdication of responsibility' on the part of that BR individual.


The last example should also answer a few threads posted recently, concerning payments made [to family members ,etc] post-BR?

Whirlee

You're right law and order is kind of my thing and I have a particular interest in bankruptcy.

I know a few people who have had to go bankrupt, because of unexpected events in their lives, the recession etc. In fact, if my bank hadn't given me a payment holiday last year I would have been very close myself.

Bankruptcy exists to give those sort of people a fresh start and I find it frustrating that so many people view bankruptcy as some sort of sham, because of the people who go bankrupt and then drive around in a flash car or go on holiday. You know those people who put everything in their wife's name before running out on all their trade creditors.

I think there's no harm in sharing that those people are likely to get caught, prosecuted and sent to prison and that the rest of bankrupts are probably just people having a hard time.

alastairq

Bankruptcy exists to give those sort of people a fresh start

It may seem like it to the person petitioning for bankruptcy....but BR actually exists, to allow creditors the opportunity to get debts owed, settled with equanimity...by the division of assets, under the control of the Receiver.

The Court literally takes away any input from the debtor.


Starting afresh is simply the by-product of Bankruptcy.


What folk seem to be confused about, is how Bankruptcy actually comes about...in legal terms.

Petitioning for BR doesn't mean that the individual has no money, necessarily.


It simply means, debts cannot be met, due to insolvency.


We will not see any let-up in the adverse attitudes towards BR until other truly understand what this means.


We are judged on perceptions, not facts.


Imagine how divorced people might feel if society simply presumed that, as individuals, they had simply been messing around with others?

As for flash cars?

Work out, how many 'flash cars' are actually bought and paid for, in toto?

Or....in reality at the expense of the tax payer? [ie written off against tax, which is, money that could have been taken into the Exchequer to offset the Country's economic situation?....perhaps we wouldn't have the dire pensions situation today, if companies were not allowed to have BMW's?]

nomoreboomandbust

Whirlee wrote: »

A bankrupt property developer, who hid the funds that would have been the main asset in his bankruptcy was today sentenced to an 18-month jail term following investigations by The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Giles Nicholas Gilbey, a 47 year old builder and property developer from Peterborough pleaded guilty before Northampton Crown Court to removing £143,000 from his estate. The amount, Mr Gilbey’s share of the sale of his family home, was removed in cash. He then failed to give a satisfactory explanation of what happened to the money to the Official Receiver even though he was legally required to do so.
In the prosecution brought by The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Mr Gilbey did not contest two charges of removing property and one of failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for a loss.
Mr Gilbey, who had been pursued for unpaid debts for a number of years before he was made bankrupt, was well aware that any profits from the sale of his property should have been paid to his creditors. As a result Mr Gilbey was sentenced to serve six months imprisonment for each of the three charges, which will run concurrently. He will therefore serve a total of 18 months in prison.
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."
Adding his comments, Ian West, a Deputy Chief Investigation Officer with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said:
“Mr Gilbey’s prison sentence sends a clear message to bankrupts who attempt to put their financial assets beyond the reach of their creditors. The Insolvency Service and the Department for Business will investigate and take robust action when we find evidence of funds being hidden to the detriment of creditors.”

It would be interesting to see what was the actual amount dissipated, presumably the whole £143,000, it doesn't state if any of the amount was recovered or what was the compensation.

Presumably that explains the "tough" sentence compared to other examples shown

timpavitt

Surely if the sentences are concurrent he will only serve 6 months.

Not bad for £143000

nomoreboomandbust

timpavitt wrote: »

Surely if the sentences are concurrent he will only serve 6 months.

Not bad for £143000

Thanks for bringing that one up, I thought that too but din't want to look foolish

As you say, not bad for 143 k, probably stashed away somewhere, on the assumption that it has all been dissipated, surely some it must be recoverable, it can't all be under his mattress