Labour MP Perran Moon has been suspended pending an investigation into questions surrounding a reported £50,000 Bounce Back Loan taken out by his company, Autoswot Ltd, and its subsequent application for voluntary strike-off.
Moon, MP for Camborne and Redruth, referred himself to the party and was suspended on 20 October. The allegations concern an attempt to close the company while its Bounce Back Loan had not been fully repaid. No finding of wrongdoing has been made.
Perran Moon’s company applied for voluntary strike-off
Companies House records show that Autoswot Ltd, company number 12056775, applied for voluntary strike-off on 4 November 2022. A Gazette notice followed on 15 November, but the process was suspended on 24 November. The public filing history does not identify who objected or the grounds for doing so.
The company remains registered with an active proposal to strike off. Its latest filed accounts cover the year to June 2021. Accounts to October 2022, due in July 2023, remain overdue, alongside its confirmation statement.
The filed accounts show net liabilities of approximately £169,800 at June 2021, compared with £152,000 at June 2020, and an average of two employees. Its liabilities therefore exceeded its assets in both reporting periods, with the deficit increasing by approximately £17,800.
Those figures indicate that the company was already in a weak financial position before it ceased trading in late 2022. They do not, by themselves, establish that its Bounce Back Loan was obtained or used improperly.
Moon says the automotive training business took out the loan to meet staffing and essential business costs during the pandemic. He says repayments began, but external market pressures forced the company to cease trading. He maintains that he acted with integrity and sought professional advice about the company’s obligations.
Creditors can oppose voluntary dissolution
Directors applying for voluntary strike-off must send a copy of the application to existing and likely creditors—including banks, suppliers and HMRC—within seven days. Failure to notify the relevant parties is an offence.
The application does not require an undertaking that there are no creditors. Creditors can object to the proposed strike-off and seek to keep the company on the register so that recovery action can continue. These safeguards depend on creditors being notified or otherwise discovering the application before dissolution takes place.
In Autoswot’s case, the public filing history does not establish whether creditors were properly notified or whether the suspension resulted from an objection concerning its Bounce Back Loan.
Government process blocks dissolution where Covid loans remain unpaid
The Dissolution Objections Process (DOP) identifies companies seeking dissolution while government-backed Covid loans remain outstanding.
The Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner’s December 2025 report explains that the Department for Business and Trade, Companies House and the Public Sector Fraud Authority developed the process together. It covers both voluntary strike-off applications and strike-offs initiated by Companies House.
At the time of that report, around 250,000 companies with outstanding Covid loans had been prevented from dissolving. Approximately 180,000 remained blocked, while around 70,000 had repaid their loans or withdrawn from dissolution.
An objection does not establish fraud. The report also highlighted limited investigation capacity, leaving some businesses that had failed for genuine commercial reasons unable to dissolve.
The government has since accepted a recommendation to review outstanding cases, distinguish genuine commercial failures from suspected loan abuse and pursue appropriate enforcement. A parliamentary answer in May 2026 confirmed continuing coordination between government departments and Companies House over raising and withdrawing objections.
Conservative government changed the law on dissolved companies
Blocking dissolution addresses companies still on the register. Separate legislation tackles the conduct of directors whose companies have already been dissolved.
Voluntary dissolution could allow dishonest directors to leave debts behind while avoiding the scrutiny associated with formal insolvency. Previously, investigating former directors under the director disqualification regime generally required the company to be restored to the register first, adding cost, delay and court proceedings.
The Conservative government changed the law through the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021.
The Act removed the requirement to restore a company before investigating its former directors under that regime. Its powers apply retrospectively, allowing conduct predating the legislation to be examined and, where appropriate, disqualification action to follow.
The proposal had originally been consulted on in 2018. Pandemic loan abuse gave it renewed urgency: the Insolvency Service explained that the government revisited the measure in early 2021 as part of efforts to recover funds or penalise those who had defrauded Covid support schemes.
Both the legislation and government action to block strike-offs involving outstanding Bounce Back Loans predate Labour taking office in July 2024. Such blocking activity was being reported during 2021, although the precise launch date of the formal DOP has not been established here.
Investigations can lead to prosecution and imprisonment
The consequences can extend beyond a director’s ban.
The Insolvency Service’s powers to investigate former directors of dissolved companies are not restricted to Covid loans. They can also cover suspected fraud, removal of assets, repeated use of companies to evade creditors and other serious misconduct.
Compensation can be sought where a disqualified director’s conduct caused direct losses to creditors. Where possible criminal offences emerge, cases can be referred for criminal investigation and potential prosecution under the relevant legislation.
The 2021 Act extended the civil investigation and disqualification regime. Fraud prosecutions proceed under criminal law, rather than under a new retrospective fraud offence created by that Act.
Dissolving a company does not prevent a director from facing criminal investigation, prosecution or imprisonment where fraud is established.
In one documented case, restaurant owner Syed Hussain fraudulently obtained a £50,000 Bounce Back Loan and dissolved his company on the day the funds arrived. He was jailed for 18 months in August 2023 after admitting fraud by false representation and a Companies Act offence. A subsequent court order required him to repay more than £36,000.
NPD comment
The distinction between a business genuinely failing and a director deliberately abusing the dissolution process matters.
A company’s inability to repay a Bounce Back Loan does not, by itself, establish fraud. However, directors who deliberately obtained public money dishonestly or used dissolution to conceal misconduct should face investigation, recovery action and prosecution where the evidence justifies it.
The government has demonstrated that it can identify outstanding Covid loans and block proposed dissolutions. It should also explain how companies already dissolved before those checks were operating have been assessed, how many cases have been identified and what action has followed.
Comparing company numbers against loan records can identify cases requiring review. Establishing fraud requires further investigation, but limited investigation resources should not prevent the initial identification of dissolved borrowers with outstanding loans.
The Autoswot case remains unresolved. Its attempted strike-off, outstanding filing obligations and the explanation for the unpaid loan require clear answers. Moon’s party investigation should not be confused with a finding of fraud or a confirmed criminal investigation.
Q. Does an unpaid Bounce Back Loan make a director personally liable?
A. No, not automatically. A limited company’s inability to repay does not, by itself, make its directors personally responsible. However, fraud or other misconduct can remove the protection of limited liability, resulting in directors being held personally financially liable.
Q. What action can be taken against directors found to have dishonestly obtained a COVID loan?
A. Directors can face criminal prosecution for fraud and, if convicted, imprisonment. They can also be disqualified from acting as a company director for up to 15 years.
Financial action can include compensation orders, civil recovery proceedings and, following a criminal conviction, confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
NPD & Company is a specialist commercial debt recovery and credit investigation company. If you have an outstanding debt, concerns about a customer or an existing credit problem, call us on 020 8665 6666 or email info@npdandco.com to discuss the matter in the strictest confidence.
