UK firm bombarded debt-ridden people with 5.5M texts

"Am I confident on the data set? As long as I'm doing the cases, I don't really give a f*** if it's old as long as it's making money." According to the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), this was part of a message sent by the director of a company fined for targeting financially vulnerable people with unlawful texts …

[James 51]

With regards to the fake threats, I don't how they avoided extortion or fraud charges. Until there are serious penalites, the fines are just the cost of doing business.

[Headley_Grange]

They should make him post hand-written apologies to everyone he texted.

[EricM]

Agree

But from Jail ...

Honestly: 300k "fine"? That's probably just a fraction of what the company earned from that scheme.

Add 2 zeroes and jail this A-hole. I think we need to punish financial fraud, especially against the vulnerable, no longer as "white collar" crime, that is somehow better than normal crime. It's extortion, it's crime. Plain and simple. Punish it accordingly.

[An_Old_Dog]

I don't how they avoided extortion or fraud charges.

The likely did so via bribes, also put down to the cost of doing business.

[Daniel Pfeffer]

The CEO and the company should be charged with demanding money under menaces, in addition to the fraud charge. That might actually earn him a custodial sentence.

[Terry 6]

Not even that.

They'll open up under another name (KRB?) within hours. Probably in the same place with the same staff and a different name on the list of directors. And dissolve the prior company with all its debts.

Because UK law doesn’t go after the directors, unless actual fraud is demonstrated.

[David Hicklin]

> the fines are just the cost of doing business.

And if too much they close the company and start another

[Paul Herber]

"within 30 days"

Mmmm, scares me. Teeth? Gummed to death.

[Aladdin Sane]

Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

Acting Without Authority:

Under Section 63(6) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, knowingly or recklessly purporting to act as an enforcement agent without a valid certificate is a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine.

Impersonation of Court Officers:

Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, impersonating a designated court officer or performing actions falsely suggesting such powers carries a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks in England and Wales, 12 months in Scotland, and 6 months in Northern Ireland.

Fraud by False Representation:

Under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, scammers who use a fake identity to fabricate debts and trigger panic payments are guilty of fraud. This carries severe criminal penalties, including long-term imprisonment.

[AtomicDog]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

We really could do with some kind of fast-track justice for cases where people have clearly and obviously acted like completely antisocial c**ts for their own personal gain.

More and more people are acting like complete c**ts because they see others get away with it over and over again. It's time for a serious clamp down.

Also, any kind of fraud conviction should bar you from ever being a company director ever again, and Companies House should take their reforms a step further and require biometrics from directors so they can guard against non-existent directors and people who use aliases as a means to get around existing bans. It's far too easy for people to set up limited companies today that they then use as a shield for all manner of shenanigans.

[Paul Herber]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

And how about directors not having to live in the UK, and other companies being company directors?

It's shenanigans all the way down.

[H in The Hague]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

"And how about directors not having to live in the UK"

That used to be an issue but now you you have to prove your identity: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/verifying-your-identity-for-companies-house

If you're in the UK system you can use GOV.UK One Login, otherwise you go through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider.

[Paul Herber]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

But when all the shenanigans are done and dusted a director with no UK assets sitting on the beach in <insert country name with no extradition treaty here> ....

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

They can be moved to sitting in a cell in Wakefield or wherever.

[AtomicDog]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

And what's to bet one or more of these "Authorised Corporate Service Provider" entities will also end up being totally bent, and continue to facilitate shenanigans.

Bent people will be more than happy to pay for false validation so they can keep getting away with rinsing people and making far more profit; and the ACSPs will probably get away with little more than a slap on the wrist and a fine. At which point they'll wind up the company and not pay it...!

[xyz123]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

Ban them from being a Director, and if they try to bypass the ban, start with a MINIMUM 20year jail sentence with no possibility of parole.

Try a third time (even from prison via a 3rd party) and you get 50years, no electronics (not even TV), no visitors.

[retiredFool]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

Unfortunately just the regular one rule for the well off and another for the poor. The poor had the crap scared out of them, possibly even a suicide or two, and well these aholes, I doubt 300k was even a light slap. Shut down the company, zero the stock, return any funds collected from corp assets to the poor who got the texts. And incarcerate the directors/ceo for a year. It would only take a couple examples before the C-suite got some empathy.

But I dream I know.

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

I read that as incinerate.

[keithpeter]

Re: Porbably outside the remit of ICO, but:

@Aladdin

The sample text message included in the OA was carefully worded so as not to suggest that it was being sent by the 'enforcement agent'. I'm not sure Police/CPS would be willing to prosecute on that basis.

I think there should be higher fines for this kind of stuff, a large percentage of turnover &c.

[cookiecutter]

completely pointless watchdog

shock! £300k? As ever the plebs count for nothing & the govt watchdog can pretend it's doing something.

This guy needs to not only be jailed but EVERY asset from his house to his car to his kids rattles need to be confiscated and used to compensate people. He should literally come out of jail penniless and homeless!

It AMAZES me that there are people in jail for smoking weed, yet assholes like this get away with a slap on the wrist! Same with Barrowman.."oh you're running a fraudulent tax scheme that many ppl on there don't even know they're on, but you've done some clever shenanigans so you get to keep £100 million, don't worry about the people who killed themselves & while you're at it, here's £250 million for PPE we can't use"

this bloody country!! Why are UK mobile numbers allowed to be used over the internet? I'm tired of south african firms trying to sell me telecoms solutions for a uk number!

as ever it's the same - you can be fraudulent as you like, you can cause as many people to mill themselves as you like and you can get away with a fine or a public shaming and carry on...

fucking place!

[DJO]

Re: completely pointless watchdog

£300k would be a reasonable penalty, if it was per infringement but as a total penalty it's a joke.

They need to stop pissing about and make the penalties ruinous for the most egregious offenders rather than as it is now, an inconvenient expence.

[heyrick]

Pointless

Because they faked being a bailiff to extort people into paying, this ought to have at least a fine of £250 per instance, with the company director held personally liable (so they don't just claim bankruptcy and do it again).

£300K is a joke. It's basically saying that if you think you can make more than that (and if they were paid 10p per text they did), then go right ahead and do it as you'll get a minor slap on the wrist and come out ahead...

[tmTM]

No rush eh?

Over 5 million texts sent, over several years. 60,000 complaints. The regulator finally gets off their arse to do something about it.

Slow clap

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Simple

ICO gets appropriate court order and sends real bailiff message to the company and the director.

Then, send the bailiffs in to recover the £300,000.

He's bound to have a few Rolexes and other bling items around the house and a few expensive cars on the driveway.

Can they take the shirt off his back and the trousers he was wearing? Maybe the bailiffs would oblige by tipping off the press/news media

[42656e4d203239]

Re: Simple

You do know that if its a limited company bailiffs can't go after the director... that's what a Ltd does for a company.

[DJO]

Re: Simple

Limited liability does not protect directors from criminal liability, only financial liability and not in all cases there either.

Economic Crime: Directors can face criminal prosecution for fraudulent trading, money laundering, or tax evasion.

Bribery & Corruption: Under the Bribery Act 2010, directors can be held criminally liable if a company offence is committed with their "consent or connivance".

Health, Safety, & Environment: Directors can face individual criminal prosecution for fatal accidents, corporate manslaughter, or severe environmental breaches if they are linked to personal neglect. (apparently it seems that water companies are exempt from this one).

Insolvency Law: Continuing to trade when knowing the company is insolvent (wrongful trading) can lead to disqualification, fines, and—in severe, fraudulent cases—criminal charges.

However the ICO would need to hand the prosecution over to the DPP and that is probably where it all falls apart.

[Chrissy]

'Oh no, please don't fine me probably 1% of the profit I made from this scam.... I may have to forego buying furry dice for the sportscar this enabled me to buy."

[just4this]

What am I missing here?

"It alleged that Ahmad had contacted a telecoms provider based in China and sought assurances from the telco that the mass text messages would be "completely untraceable."

Then they put their contact details in the messages?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: What am I missing here?

Yet again the solution to this is to set up an arrangement whereby the recipient reporting a spam call or text gets a credit to their account transfer charged to the sender/caller*. The telecom services would be able to add a fee to the amount being charged. If it passes through several service providers each adds their charge. Any service that fails to keep records of its sources gets to carry the can.

If HMG announced legislation for that it would be amazing how fast the industry would find it possible to solve the previously impossible task of stamping out spam via self-regulation. They'd know the cost of implementing the system would never be recovered because adding anything to the fractional price per spam would end the traffic immediately.

* Obviously need some statistical checks to filter out chancers reporting all calls etc.

[segfault188]

5.5M texts

UK firm bombarded debt-ridden people with 5.5M texts

I was in debt and got 5.5 Million texts but didn't realise that others had too. What a day that was, I kept deleting them but they kept on arriving.

Now I'm out of debt and have a 'gold' Trump Mobile cell phone, just to show that I've really made it in the world.

[mili]

300k ? yay - justice

I'm not sure what's more infuriating: the mailing or the fine - at least have some decency and use some feathers and tar for once, again.

[Sam Shore]

The director mention resigned in 2022, so it looks like he's left someone else's wife carrying the can.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/w3zN8TjUn9H4bAeznmcNlrBeg40/appointments

The company has been trading since 2021, and according to it's last filing, has just over £250 in assets. It had a single year of approx £15K income. I don't think the ICO is going to be getting any blood from this stone.

[xyz123]

needs to be £1 PER MESSAGE sent as a fine.

Breach the corporate veil, go after the guy directly. If he seeks to flee abroad, its time for Interpol.

[VoiceOfTruth]

Peanuts

This sort of thing will continue as long as the 'fine' is nothing more than a cost of doing business.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are contacted by a third party, or even the original lender, about a debt, whether it is real, mistaken, inflated with charges or entirely contrived, ask them to substantiate it.

That is all you need to say:

“Please provide me with the documentation and a complete accounting supporting this claim.”

Do not admit that the debt is yours, agree to make a payment or provide personal financial information until you have verified who they are, what the claim relates to and that they have the documentation to support it. Keep copies of every request and response.

If you know the debt is legitimate and that you owe the money, how you proceed once it has been properly substantiated is ultimately up to you.

I say this having worked in finance and having seen debts passed from company to company with little or no supporting documentation attached. If someone claims you owe them money, it is reasonable to require them to demonstrate the original debt, how the current balance was calculated and their authority to collect it.

No substantiation, no payment.

One important caveat: never ignore genuine court documents. If they file a claim, respond within the required deadline and require them to prove their case in court.

[Sproggit]

KRA Consultancy Ltd

This is just a guess on my part - but please see below for substantiation - that "KRA Consulting" looked very much like a 2-person operation run jointly by Khuram Ahmad and (Mrs) Bushra Yaqub. Their registered office appears to be a 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom terraced property in the Sparkhill area of Birmingham. The published accounts I was able to find - dated October 2024 - show the company to be a "micro business" with a turnover that, on the face of it, does not seem to make enough revenue to support the salary of even one person, let alone two.

There are many possible explanations for this:-

- With only 2 years of detail at Companies House, it's possible that the business was already in the process of winding up [though the prosecution suggests otherwise]

- The business model involved victims contacting the company and then being talked in to making partial payments to "stave off" a worse fate... and some of those payments may not be recorded via Companies House...

- The business was basically just a hybrid spam/textortion scheme looking to dupe people in to paying "something" and running along, scratching a very low income in the form of a part-time hobby for the two directors.

However, if the published accounts at Companies House are accurate, then a fine of £300,000 is either going to hopefully cripple these two directors financially, and/or serve as a useful warning to others.

The only concern is the unknown question - how much were they really making from this scheme. If it was just the couple of thousand pounds a year their filed accounts suggest, then a £300k fine will wipe them out. But if they directed a small number of payments to their "official" accounts and a larger number to an "unofficial" account - say an *overseas* account then [depending on how smart they are] they might still come out of this "ahead".

A quick check of Companies House shows that KRA Consultancy Limited - still active - lists 2 Officers and a single Resignation. The active Officers are Bushra Yaqub and Khuram Rezvan Ahmad.

A set of micro-accounts are also listed - dated 31st October 2024... which lists an average number of employees as being 3 people in 2023 and 2 in 2024.

The 2024 "numbers" are listed as:-

Fixed Assets: £384

Current Assets: £4,380

Creditors: amounts falling due within one year (£4,091)

Net Current Assets: £289

Total Net Assets: £673

Often when you read a set of accounts there will be a preliminary statement indicating that "all numbers are thousands", so that e.g. £384 as shown above would be £384,000. However, in this case that doesn't appear to be the case - it looks like three hundred and eighty four actual pounds.

The accounts were signed and submitted by "Mrs B. Yaqub, Director".

[ComicalEngineer]

Re: KRA Consultancy Ltd

Unfortunately, the current rules around micro company accounts don't give details of company turnover or "directors emoluments" which can include a variety of things such as out of pocket expenses, dividends etc.

It could be that money was being withdrawn from the company as soon as it was *earned* or rather extorted. This would give the impression that the company has minimal assets, which is a common ploy for dodgy limited company directors. Note that directors can get a combination of salary and dividends which makes it more complicated.

I know of one such company which (legally) earned about £100k per year and yet never had more than £1,000 in the bank on the accounts.

Unfortunately, Companies House is pretty useless at picking up fraudulent activities and dodgy directors.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: KRA Consultancy Ltd

They’re just lucky that the OTHER Kray Consultancy firm are no longer with us.

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Re: KRA Consultancy Ltd

I think they would have been a darn sight more reasonable to deal with at least for the debtors.....

As for the Directors, I suspect Ronnie & Reggie might have had a few words in their shell like.