{"id":13058,"date":"2024-01-14T09:12:06","date_gmt":"2024-01-14T09:12:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxpolicy.org.uk\/?p=13058"},"modified":"2024-01-14T20:38:06","modified_gmt":"2024-01-14T20:38:06","slug":"25more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heacham.neidles.com\/2024\/01\/14\/25more\/","title":{"rendered":"Douglas Barrowman: 25 more companies with unlawfully hidden ownership"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
We previously reported that Douglas Barrowman’s companies had unlawfully hidden <\/b>their ownership of PPE Medpro<\/a> and <\/b>the companies holding Barrowman’s Belgravia house<\/a>. We can now identify 25 additional companies where Barrowman’s group has unlawfully failed to disclose the ownership, <\/b><\/em>abetted by what appears to be a rogue company verification agent<\/em><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Update: the total is actually now 27, thanks to a tip received shortly after we first published)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n There are two separate regimes under which companies are required to report their true owner. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The details of the rules are a little different, but the principle is the same. Companies have to identify their actual human owners – they’re only permitted to identify companies as their PSCs\/beneficial owners if those companies report their owners (preventing multiple duplicated filings).1<\/a><\/sup>There are certain other cases where a PSC\/beneficial owner can be a company which are not relevant here – there is helpful guidance in paragraph 2.2 here<\/a> for PSCs, and paragraph 4.1 here<\/a> for beneficial owners.<\/span> So, for example, if I own UK company A which owns UK company B, then company B will declare that company A is the PSC, and company A will declare that I am the PSC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The evidence suggests that Barrowman’s group of companies completely ignores these rules. We can discard the possibility that they don’t understand them: Barrowman himself is a sophisticated businessman with years of experience<\/a> in business, funds and corporate finance, and he runs a group of companies that provide technical tax and legal services<\/a> to private offices<\/a>. Understanding rules like these should be part of their core expertise.<\/p>\n\n\n The FT reported in December 2022<\/a> that a company in Barrowman’s group, Chester Ventures, paid \u00a39.25m for a townhouse in Belgravia.2<\/a><\/sup>Not the house he and Michelle Mone lived in; another property said to have been acquired for development.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, foreign companies owning real estate have to register who their beneficial owners are. Here is the registration for Chester Ventures Limited<\/a> as at last week:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was wrong in several respects:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The “verification agent” responsible for checking the registration<\/a> for Chester Ventures was FCLS<\/a> – the same agent that missed evident errors<\/a> in the reporting for Barrowman’s house. This suggests that FCLS don’t in fact verify anything, even in an automated way – even a simple check would have revealed that Soldaldo PTC Limited doesn’t exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was amended last week, with Knox House Trustees (UK) Limited shown as the only PSC:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The registered PSC of Knox House Trustees (UK) Limited is Arthur Lancaster. Lancaster is an accountant who is\u00a0closely<\/a>\u00a0connected<\/a>\u00a0to Douglas Barrowman and the\u00a0Knox Group<\/a> – he was\u00a0recently described by a tax tribunal<\/a>\u00a0as \u201cseriously misleading\u201d, \u201cevasive\u201d and \u201clacking in candor\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lancaster is also listed as the PSC<\/a> for PPE Medpro – which Barrowman has now admitted<\/a> is really controlled by him. It looks like they’re pulling the same trick here – Lancaster is a “front man”.<\/p>\n\n\n Barrowman’s group is connected to an apartment in Chelsea, held by an Isle of Man company called Charleston Properties Limited.5<\/a><\/sup>It also holds two other smaller properties in the same building. Query if these properties are really owned by Barrowman or on behalf of a third party client, although the fact it has only one registered proprietor suggests it isn’t held on trust (i.e. because overreaching requires two trustees and therefore a single trustee cannot in practice deal in the land).<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n The land registry shows Charleston bought it in 2014 for \u00a35.8m:<\/p>\n\n\n\n However the Isle of Man registry shows that Charleston Properties Limited was dissolved in June 2021<\/a>:6<\/a><\/sup>If Charleston held as trustee then the terms of the trust should facilitate its replacement; if Charleston was not a trustee then the apartment may now be bona vacantia<\/em>, i.e. go to the Crown.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps for this reason, the company isn’t registered at Companies House at all.7<\/a><\/sup>There is another unrelated UK company called Charleston Properties Limited<\/a>, now dissolved<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n We were able to identify eleven further companies connected with Barrowman which hold UK real estate 8<\/a><\/sup>This is revealed by the connection to Knox or other known Barrowman entities. Likely there are more which we have missed<\/span>. They are required to be on the “register of overseas entities”, and declare their beneficial owner. However in each of these cases the declared beneficial owner appears to be false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of these may be beneficially owned by Knox’s clients, and not Barrowman himself – but in all these cases there has been a failure to comply with the laws requiring beneficial ownership disclosure. In each case the verification agent was FCLS (save R, where FCLS didn’t act).<\/p>\n\n\n There are a series of UK companies which are connected to Barrowman which have declared what appears to be a false “persons with significant control” to Companies House:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Also two more, courtesy of G (who alerted us shortly after we first published). it would be confusing to change the title of the article, but the total companies stands at 27 not 25<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are potentially criminal consequences for Barrowman, his companies and his staff.14<\/a><\/sup>And potentially Michelle Mone, if she is a PSC of the two Neo Space companies, although it is plausible that in her case this was an innocent error.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems clear that the section 32 offence has been committed – the filings were false, and it is hard to see how there could be a “reasonable excuse”. It is plausible that the offences were aggravated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also seems reasonably clear that Companies Act offences have been committed. The failures were, at a minimum, “reckless”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The obvious question is whether any prosecution will take place. <\/p>\n\n\n Regulations made under the Act<\/a> require that an agent (regulated under money laundering rules<\/a>) must verify beneficial ownership and submit details to Companies House within 14 days of registration, using this form<\/a>. They’re not just a post-box – they have a positive duty to verify, and can be liable if they get it wrong. The Law Society has published detailed guidance<\/a> for lawyers acting as verification agents, and the risk of liability lead the Law Society to caution against lawyers agreeing to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The section 32 offence of making a false or deceptive filing applies to verification agents as well as the companies\/directors involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n FCLS<\/a> are responsible for a series of false\/deceptive filings. The obviousness of the falsity means that we are doubtful there could have been a “reasonable excuse”. It therefore seems likely they are criminally liable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The register of overseas entities relies upon verification agents. The entire enterprise falls apart if there are rogue agents, making not even the most straightforward of checks. That appears to be what FCLS is doing. A prosecution would be in the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A more immediate concern is to stop FCLS. Companies House has the power to serve a notice revoking a company’s registration as a verification agent<\/a>. It should use it as soon as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n Because they are not enforced, and Barrowman and his team likely perceive the risk of material fines\/penalties, let alone prosecution, as non-existent. Barrowman and others will continue to behave like this until there are high profile prosecutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A law that is never enforced may as well not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thanks to V and P for their research on this, and to M for Companies Act and ROE advice. Thanks to G for spotting two more Barrowman connections shortly after we first published.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe law<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
1. The Belgravia townhouse<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
2. The dissolved company<\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
3. Eleven more offshore companies with false ROE registrations<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
4. Twelve more UK companies with false PSC registrations<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
\n
Criminal liability for Barrowman and his companies<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n
Criminal liability for the agent, FCLS<\/h2>\n\n\n
Why are the laws being ignored?<\/h2>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n