Hanzal Nazeer, Liaquat Ali and Salman Shaukat ran security firm E Security Limited which was based at Cariocca Business Park in Manchester.
In July 2011, the company applied for membership of the Security Industry Authority’s Approved Contractor Scheme.
SIA enquires revealed that the men provided false information to the SIA about the company’s trading status, its employees, and its contracts.
Shaukat, 33, of Barry Road, Manchester was the operations manager. Ali, 35, of Fox Road, Slough was its director. Nazeer, 33, of Selbourne Road, Luton owned the company – E Security Limited.
During the trial, the court heard that E Security Ltd’s application to be approved by the SIA contained documents that appeared to be forgeries. Ali and Nazeer used the names and SIA licence numbers of genuine licence holders who worked for other security suppliers.
The status of E Security’s contracts was also embellished, and the three men all contributed to maintaining the false trading position of the company through meetings with the SIA’s Quality Assurance Manager.
The court learned that buyers of security sometimes insist on companies holding ACS approval in the tender process for some contracts; therefore having ACS accreditation can put a supplier at a commercial advantage.
At Manchester Magistrates Court on Friday [12 Oct]:
• Shaukat was given a 12 months’ community order, 140 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £5,000 costs.
• Ali was given a 12 months’ community order, 140 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.
• Nazeer was given three months’ custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months, 140 hours unpaid work and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.
District Judge Paul Richardson agreed with the prosecution case, finding Shaukat guilty following earlier pleas from Ali and Nazeer. He described the scheme by the three as a “fraud”, saying that they had worked together to make the false information “look a good deal more believable”.
SIA Head of Investigation Nathan Salmon said: “I am pleased with the sentences passed in this case. The three defendants set out to deceive the SIA into granting ACS status to a business, which was largely fictitious. Without the false information, the defendants were unable to prove the credible trading status required to qualify for ACS approval. Our Quality Assurance Managers were able to spot the inconsistencies in their application and take the necessary action; the court penalties vindicate a prosecution in this matter.”
ACS Assistant Director Andrew Shephard added: “The outcome upholds the SIA’s efforts to ensure that the credibility of the SIA Approved Contractor Scheme is maintained. This case should act as a warning that being party to criminal offences may result in personal liability for such offences.”