Altin Laska, 26, and Jetmir Luli, 29, ran security company Night Owl (Exeter) Security Ltd and were sub-contracted to provide security guards to energy supplier EDF.
Following an investigation by the Security Industry Authority, the directors were asked to provide information about individuals they had supplied to EDF. Both Laska and Luli failed to provide all the information requested by the SIA.
Another individual, Ali Abdol Anvari, 50, was known by the SIA as a security director of another company, Night Owl, which is now dissolved.
Anvari was working in an advisory role for Night Owl (Exeter) Security Ltd and was deployed to work as a security guard. During the investigation Anvari admitted working without an SIA licence and to pretending to be Laska whilst on duty.
Laska, of Broad Park Road, Exmouth, was found guilty of supplying an unlicensed security operative and failing to provide information to the SIA, contrary to section 5 and 19 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Luli, of Hilary House, Exeter, was found guilty of the same offences.
Night Owl (Exeter) Security Ltd, of North Street, Exeter, was found guilty of supplying an unlicensed security operative contrary to section 5 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Anvari, of Princes Street, Exeter, was found guilty of false representation to make a gain for himself or another, contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
In convicting Laska and Luli, the Magistrate commented that the security directors “did not take all reasonable steps or fulfil duties of company directors” in ensuring SIA licensed staff were supplied.
Commenting on Anvari, the Magistrate commented that he acted “dishonestly for the benefit of Night Owl and been unwilling to admit your own identity”.
All three and the company will be sentenced in September.
SIA Investigations Manager, Nathan Salmon said: “Night Owl was closely guided by Mr Anvari, he appeared to take an active role in the direction and administration of the company. Mr Anvari had previously been a security company director and was very familiar with security industry regulation.
“However the business and its directors had disregard for basic safeguards to ensure their contracts were fulfilled with SIA licensed operatives.
“Laska and Luli did not demonstrate that they had serious interest in controlling their business and in court Laska described the legal fulfilment of their contract as “hassle”.
“This conviction highlights that security regulation exists in order to protect the public and ensure the effectiveness of security businesses.”