Sole trader dispatched almost 1M spam texts to hard-up Brits, says watchdog

Britain's data watchdog has fined a sole trader £200,000 for nearly a million spam texts targeting people in debt – almost 20 pence per message. Bharat Singh Chand sent 966,449 messages about debt solutions and energy saving grants from 383 mobile numbers between December 3, 2023, and July 3, 2024, according to the Information …

[Aladdin Sane]

Ban him from having anything more sophisticated than an old Nokia 3210.

[Anonymous Coward]

Luxury! From now on he's only allowed to communicate via semaphore.

When it's foggy outside.

[theblackhand]

He's accused of sending text messages - why would you give him an unbreakable texting machine?

[the spectacularly refined chap]

IIRC phones of that era generally had a 9600 baud serial link. That'll be enough for four texts per second. There are 86400 seconds in a day: wouldn't take too long to send another million SMSes.

[GNU Enjoyer]

That would be quite a cruel and unusual punishment

If the government was also going to later require that you can't work or receive welfare without a up to date demon rectangle.

[KittenHuffer]

What I would be more interested in .....

..... would be the story that they actually managed to get the money from this twunt.

It's all well and good making these announcements that someone has been fined for these types of actions. But as I understand it they only seem to get about 5% of the fines actually paid.

[Steve Foster]

Re: What I would be more interested in .....

This case might fall into the 5%, since for once there's no "corporate veil".

OTOH, there's personal bankruptcy as an option, though AIUI that's not trivial.

[Anonymice]

Re: What I would be more interested in .....

If, as the article states, the acts were carried out as a sole trader, then he is personally liable for all business debts.

Of the list of companies at the end of the article, only "Compensation Claims Direct" doesn't seem to be established with limited liability. If that's the case, then whether or not the full amount of the fine is paid, he's screwed & they'll be able to lay claim to his house and anything with his/his spouse's name on.

(Icon: No escape!)

[theblackhand]

Re: What I would be more interested in .....

Limited liability doesn't protect a company director if said director is breaking the law...

[Paul Herber]

"Those that replied in the affirmative..."

What sort of person does so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever met your fellow human beings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to avoid that as much as possible.

It's always flu season somewhere..

[Aladdin Sane]

Vulnerable people at the end of their tether.

[Harald]

Andy CURRY investigating Bharat Singh Chand - right person for the task... ;-)

[ComicalEngineer]

The problem is that despite thousands of complaints he was allowed to continue to continue his activities for so long using a network of dodgy business names.

In many cases the perpetrators of this sort of crime simply set up using a different company name and start all over again having taken all money out of the Limited Liability Company.

The authorities need to act faster (an under-resourced government department)

Companies House needs to stop serial scammers setting up new businesses

The authorities need to go after the perpetrators' personal assets.

And they need to remove body parts. Starting with fingers

.

[IGotOut]

As someone has already pointed out, Ltd companies are protected, not the directors. If they commit a criminal act, the are accountable.

Dissolving a company to avoid payment of fines is no longer a get out. If they do that, they can then face criminal prosecution. If that happens, well that's an entirely different thing.

[Dwarf]

20p

20p a message - yes, that will send a really strong message to the next generation spammers and scammers.

At least we know the value of our privacy now.

If it doesn't hurt, then people will keep doing it.