An investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) found that a family obtained £150,000 through fraudulent Bounce Back Loan (BBL) applications, using the money to fund house renovations, credit card debt and school fees.

Kashid Rashid, his wife, Noreen Malik, his nephew, Rehaan Mohammed and his brother, Rizwan Haider, ran several businesses.

However, none of these businesses had an annual turnover of anywhere near the £200,000 required to qualify for the maximum loan, which was intended to help businesses stay afloat during the Covid‑19 pandemic.

They used three of these businesses to apply successfully for BBLs, stating that they had been adversely affected by the pandemic and claiming inflated annual turnovers to qualify for the maximum loan.

Once they received the money, they sent it to other family members and businesses they controlled or used it to pay for a lavish lifestyle of house renovations, private school fees and new vehicles.

The NCA investigation found further fraud, as officers discovered that Rashid was claiming Universal Credit under an alias after he failed to disclose that he had a child and had never lived at the address he provided.

It also found that he had previous fraud convictions in the US and Romania.

Sentencing him to six-and-a-half years in prison in February this year, the Judge said that the family had “deliberately exploited a government scheme which was set up to assist a national crisis”, describing their offending as “a systematic and repeated assault on the banks and the Bounce Back scheme”.

Roger Isaacs, Forensics Partner at Milsted Langdon, commented: “The authorities are continuing to take a firm approach where there is evidence that the Bounce Back Loan scheme was deliberately used for personal benefit.

“The full financial trail of these cases tends to tell its own story when investigators reconstruct the flow of money across personal accounts, connected businesses and family members. It can show whether the borrower ever genuinely intended to use the loan to support trading activity or instead used the business as a vehicle to exploit government‑backed schemes.

“When someone quickly absorbs the money into private spending, it becomes much harder to argue that the scheme’s purpose is being met.

“That said, not every investigation points to dishonesty. There are situations where business owners acted in good faith based on their understanding of the rules at the time, and their defence will depend on whether they can properly evidence the application figures and their subsequent use of the funds.”

Sources: National Crime Agency