Annual Report 2025 Case Studies

Section 151 of the 2014 Act requires all companies to display certain details on theirwebsites, including the name and legal form of the company, the place of registration of the company, the number under which it is registered, and the address of its registered office. The details must be displayed in a prominent and easily accessible place on the website for the benefit of members of the public who might wish to consider transacting business with the company.

The CEA received a complaint from a member of the public who had noted apparent deficiencies on a company’s website. A CEA case officer examined the matter andcontacted the company, which arranged for all necessary information to be added to the website thus bringing the company into compliance with the 2014 Act.

Section 50 of the 2014 Act requires all Irish companies to have a registered address in the State to which all official communication and notices under the 2014 Act may be addressed. Registered address details for all companies are required to be made available on the CRO’s website.

The CEA received a complaint that a company was using an incorrect Eircode in its address. The Eircode related to a property registered to the complainant. Following engagement with a CEA case officer, the company arranged for a Form B2 (Change of Registered Office) to be submitted to the CRO thereby rectifying the matter and correcting the address on the public record.

Section 360 of the 2014 Act allows small companies to avail of audit exemption. The qualifying conditions for a small company are satisfied if, in relation to a financial year it fulfils two or more of the following requirements:

• a turnover not exceeding €15 million,
• a Balance Sheet that does not exceed €7.5m, or
• the average number of employees does not exceed 50.

Notwithstanding the above, section 334 of the 2014 Act allows a member or membersholding at least 10% in aggregate of the voting rights in a company to serve a notice that those members do not wish the audit exemption to be available to the company in a financial year specified in the notice. Section 1218 applies section 334 on a modified basis to a CLG, allowing any member of a management company to serve notice on the company that the member does not wish the audit exemption to be available to the company in a financial year specified in the notice. Where a section 334 or 1218 Notice is served then, under section 361, audit exemption is not available.

The CEA received a complaint from a member of a management company who advised that, despite having served valid notices on the company under section 334 of the 2014 Act over a number of years, the company had failed to arrange for its financial statements to be audited. Following engagement with the CEA, the company arranged for the financial statements for all years for which a valid notice had been served to be audited. The company subsequently arranged for the audited financial statements to be filed with the CRO. This action served to vindicate the company’s members’ rights.

Subject to certain exceptions, section 175 of the 2014 Act requires a company to hold an AGM each year. AGMs must take place no more than 15 months apart. At an AGM, the financial statements and audit report (where applicable) are presented to the members/shareholders, who are afforded the opportunity to raise questions and seek clarifications. Additionally, director elections can take place and company resolutions can be voted upon.

A complaint was received from a member of the public alleging that a company had failed to hold an AGM and was late in filing statutory documents with the CRO.A CEA case officer contacted the company highlighting the requirement to hold AGMs in a timely manner. Following the CEA’s intervention, the AGM took place, thereby vindicating the company’s members’ rights. All relevant documentation was subsequently filed with the CRO

Under Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the 2014 Act, a company director is, subject to certain exceptions, prohibited from taking a loan from a company of which they are a director where that loan exceeds 10% of the company’s net relevant assets. Companies can use the Summary Approval Procedure (SAP) as a mechanism to lawfully permit directors’ loans to exceed the 10% restriction. The company must, however, pass a special resolution, a copy of which must be filed with the CRO within 21 days after the activity commences.

The CEA received an auditor’s indictable offence report indicating that a loan made to a director of the company exceeded the permitted 10% by a significant amount. The auditor’s report noted that the auditor had made the director and the company aware of the breach as well as their obligation to report the suspected breach to the CEA.

A CEA case officer sought independent verification that the director’s loan had been brought within permissible limits. Having received confirmation that the matter had been regularised, a warning letter issued to the company and its directors. The director was advised that any repetition would likely be dealt with differently.

Section 137 of the 2014 Act requires a company to have at least one European EconomicArea (EEA) resident director. Exemptions under the Act dispense with this requirement provided that a bond of €25,000 is in place with the CRO or the company obtains a section 140 certificate of real and continuous links from the CRO.

The CEA received a complaint that the sole director of a company did not reside within the EEA. A CEA officer contacted the company seeking documentary evidence that the director was in fact EEA resident. Following receipt of the necessary documentation, the case officer was satisfied that the director was properly resident. The case officer advised the complainant accordingly.

Section 50(3) of the 2014 Act allows a period of 14 days from the date of a change in a company’s registered office for the matter to be notified to the CRO. Failure to comply is a category 4 offence under the Act.

The CEA received a complaint from a former company employee and creditor advising that they were attempting to serve legal documents on a company but were unable to do so as all documents sent to the company’s registered office were being returned undelivered with a note that the addressee could not be located.

Upon review of the matter, the CEA case officer was satisfied that contact details for the director and company held by the CRO were inaccurate. The officer subsequently contacted the company via their agent. Following engagement with the company, a Form B2 was filed with the CRO bringing the registered office details up to date. The complainant was informed accordingly and was thereby facilitated in serving documents on the company.

Section 27 of the 2014 Act provides that neither a body that is not a company nor an individual shall carry on any trade, profession or business under a name which includes, as its last part, the word ‘Limited’ or the words ‘Company Limited by Shares’ or any abbreviations of any of the foregoing words. The purpose of this provision is to protect the public from the risks associated with mistakenly dealing with an entity that is not in fact a limited company.

The CEA received a complaint that an entity was using the term ‘Limited’ when not registered to do so.

Following engagement with the business, a CEA officer was satisfied that the misuse was unintentional. The business was in the process of incorporating and confirmed that it would cease using the name until the incorporation had been completed.

An individual can be disqualified from acting as a director either on foot of a disqualification order (section 842) or automatically following conviction on indictment for any offence under the 2014 Act or any offence involving fraud or dishonesty (section 839). Additionally, where an individual has been disqualified in another State and they, or the company of which they are a director, fail to notify the Registrar, they shall be deemed disqualified.

The CEA conducts routine checks of disqualified directors to ensure they have taken the necessary steps to resign as a company director and/or secretary.

An individual who was the subject of a disqualification order by the High Court under section 842 of the 2014 Act for a seven-year term was found to be listed as a director of a company. Following engagement with a CEA case officer, the other company officers filed for voluntary Strike-Off and the company is now dissolved.

A complaint was received regarding the conduct of a Mr. Marc Godart, a director of multiple residential letting, property management, and holding companies.

Some of these companies were the subject of a substantial number of adverse decisions where the conduct of both the companies and director affected multiple members of the public. These included adverse Residential Tenancies Board adjudications and Tribunal determinations, such as Modozie and Others v Green Label Short Lets Limited (0822-79062), which described the company as acting in a ‘coercive’ fashion including by cutting off all utilities and appliances to tenants.

The CEA was similarly aware of findings of the High Court which described critically the conduct of Mr. Godart in discharging his duties as a director, e.g., in Lizet Pena-Herrera v Green Label Short Lets Limited and Marc Godart ([2024] IEHC 425). The High Court found Mr. Godart acted in bad faith and with impropriety in signing a statutory declaration to find a false pretext to terminate a lease. The court found that there was consistent refusal to obey court orders directing a company to pay awards to this tenant.

Arising from these and other decisions, which described and criticised Mr. Godart’s conduct as a company director, the CEA considered it to be in the public interest to bring proceedings seeking to disqualify Marc Godart as a company director.

Mr. Godart was afforded the opportunity to accept a disqualification undertaking. Had the undertaking not been accepted, High Court action would have been initiated seeking 
his disqualification. Ultimately, Mr. Godart entered into a disqualification undertaking, thereby avoiding the CEA having to initiate High Court proceedings against him.

Having accepted a disqualification undertaking, Mr. Godart is prohibited from being involved in the affairs of any company for a period of 5 years. The CEA has subsequently confirmed Mr. Godart’s resignation as a director/secretary from all companies.

As detailed elsewhere herein, the liquidator of an insolvent company is obliged to provide a report in the prescribed form to the CEA under section 682(2) of the 2014 Act, which sets out the reasons for the insolvency of the company and the liquidator’s assessment of the conduct of its directors. Such reports assist the CEA in carrying out its supervisory functions.

A liquidator is required to file a first section 682 report within 6 months 
of appointment, and at intervals as directed by the CEA thereafter until the conclusion of the liquidation. Failure to submit the section 682 report on time is a Category 3 offence and, accordingly, exposes such a liquidator to potential criminal liability.

Mr. Cathal Roarty was appointed liquidator of three companies and was, accordingly, obliged to submit reports under section 682 to the CEA in respect of each company. Mr. Roarty failed to comply with that obligation. Despite repeated requests, which included warnings of the consequences of his failure to submit the reports, the reports were not submitted.

Notices pursuant to section 797 of the 2014 Act were issued to Mr. Roarty requiring him to file the reports within 14 days and advising him that failure to do so would result in the CEA applying to the High Court for Orders directing him to comply with his statutory obligations.The notices also indicated that the CEA would seek an Order that all costs 
of, and incidental to, the application would be borne by Mr. Roarty personally.

As Mr. Roarty failed to comply with the Notices issued by the CEA within the 14-day period, applications were made to the High Court pursuant to section 797 of the 2014 Act. In the interim, the outstanding section 682 Reports were submitted by Mr. Roarty. Counsel for the CEA requested the Court to strike out the matter with an Order for costs in favour of the CEA, costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement which the Court agreed to do.

Ms. Flavien Keily was appointed liquidator of four companies and was, accordingly, obliged to submit reports under section 682 to the CEA in respect of each company. Ms. Keily failed to comply with this obligation. Despite repeated requests, which included warnings of the consequences of her failure to submit the reports, the reports were not submitted.

Notices pursuant to section 797 of the 2014 Act were issued to Ms. Keily requiring her to file the reports within 14 days and advising her that failure to do so would result in the CEA applying to the High Court for Orders directing her to comply with her statutory obligations. The notices also indicated that the CEA would seek an Order that all costs of, and incidental to, the application would be borne by Ms. Keily personally.

As Ms. Keily failed to comply with the Notices issued by the CEA within the 14-day period, proceedings issued on 12 November 2025 with the matter being heard on 1 December 2025 by the High Court. In the interim all four outstanding section 682 reports were submitted by Ms. Keily. On that basis, the CEA requested the Court to strike out the matter with an Order for costs upon consent in favour of it against the liquidator personally to be adjudicated in default of agreement with the Court agreeing to make the Order.

The company was incorporated on 6 November 2019 for the purpose of conducting business as industrial cladding contractors. The company was placed into creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 19 December 2024. The deficit at the date of liquidation was €864,103. The directors of the company at the date of liquidation were Mr. Paul Lawlor and Mr. Gary Symes. 

The company grew very quickly, employing over 40 people within three years of incorporation. Turnover in 2020 was of the order of €395,000 and by the end of 2023 had risen to approximately €2.8 million. Due to unforeseen circumstances, oversight of the company’s operations was impacted and the company recorded a loss of approximately €97,000 in 2023.

In 2024 a key client removed the company from its sites. The company lost 14 staff members during 2024, including key personnel and it ceased trading on 12 November 2024. One of the directors had a loan account that exceeded 10% of the company’s net relevant assets in breach of section 239 of the 2014 Act. The company did not remit any monies for income tax purposes on the director’s loan. There was no evidence that benefit-in-kind was paid on this loan. The company was heavily reliant on short term financing, in some cases with punitive interest rates to fund the loan account. 

The company borrowed €95,000 from Linked Finance on 6 October 2023 on a 12-month term at an interest rate of 11.5%, at a time when one of the directors owed the company approximately €74,000 and related companies owed the company approximately €37,000.

Over a period of approximately two years, the company’s Revenue liabilities increased significantly, rising from about €38,000 to €427,000. During this time, payments were made to the director’s loan account in preference to meeting the company’s obligations to the Revenue Commissioners, contributing to the company’s financial difficulties.

The liquidator had concerns over two credit notes, the total value of which was over €39,000 which were issued by the company to a related company, Lawlor Sheet Metal Limited and another to Paul Lawlor t/a Lawlor Sheet Metal. The credit notes issued were offset against amounts owed to the company. The credit notes were raised on 1 November 2024, less than two weeks before the company ceased trading.

Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Symes allowed the company to continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent. They failed to monitor the company’s financial performance on a regular basis and there was no evidence of the preparation of monthly management accounts.

Relief was not granted in respect of either director. The CEA offered both directors the opportunity to submit to a Restriction Undertaking, which they accepted. Both Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Symes were restricted for a period of five years.

The company was incorporated 13 March 2017. At the date of liquidation, the company’s sole director was Mr. Jon Paul Egan. Its primary business was operating a hotel on a day-to-day basis.

The estimated deficit at the time of liquidation was €1,503,593 with Revenue debt of €1,168,217 and trade creditors of €335,376. The liquidator’s first report to the CEA stated that the director had acted honestly and responsibly. However, an examination of the report by the CEA gave rise to concerns. As there were significant amounts owed to the Revenue Commissioners, an analysis of the amounts owed to Revenue was requested through the statutory gateway which allows for exchange of information between the CEA and Revenue. 

It was apparent from the information received that the company’s tax liabilities continued to increase in the period after the Covid-19 restrictions, up to the date of commencement of the winding up. Relief at that time was granted to the liquidator to allow for him to further investigate the company’s history with Revenue. 

Following further investigations on foot of requests for information made by the CEA, the liquidator submitted a further report to the CEA. He found that the directors had failed to act honestly and responsibly, concluding that the company would not have provided such credit or funding to any party had they not been connected to the director, and that the position of creditors, particularly that of Revenue, had been prejudiced as a result of such action. The liquidator withdrew his previous request for relief and instead sought not to be relieved of the obligation to seek the restriction of the director. 

The CEA offered Mr. Egan an opportunity to submit to a voluntary restriction undertaking. This offer was accepted and he was restricted for a period of five years commencing on 4 June 2025.

Razneck Limited was incorporated in September 2010 and traded as ‘Mooch’, operating frozen yoghurt outlets in Dublin and surrounding areas. The company was owned and directed by Ms. Suzanne Kelly. The business expanded in its early years, requiring significant capital investment, and incurred losses during the initial period of trading.

From 2019 onwards, the company experienced increasing financial and operational difficulties, which were further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and additional supply and cost pressures arising from Brexit. The company ceased trading in October 2022.

At the date of liquidation, the company had no realisable assets and total liabilities of €320,888 (including €164,298 owed to the Revenue Commissioners) together with substantial rent arrears.

The joint liquidators initially sought relief from the obligation to restrict Ms. Kelly. However, in assessing the report, the CEA identified a number of matters of concern regarding the conduct of the director. These included the failure to file statutory returns since 2019, outstanding VAT returns, the absence of management accounts, and the failure to maintain adequate books and records. It was also noted from the liquidators’ report that the director had not sought professional advice or taken timely steps to place the company into liquidation when it became insolvent.

Having considered these matters, the CEA determined that a grant of relief was not appropriate. Following engagement with the CEA, the liquidators furnished a supplemental report recommending that the director be made subject to a restriction order pursuant to section 819 of the 2014 Act. Ms. Kelly subsequently agreed to accept a voluntary restriction undertaking for a period of five years.

The company was incorporated in June 2011 and ceased trading in June 2016. The company was involved in the procurement and provision of services and materials to retail facilities in Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands, and Ireland. The directors at the date of liquidation were Mr. Daimon Haywood and Ms. Victoria Haywood.

The company traded successfully in its initial years and, in 2015, the company sought to expand and diversify into a broader customer base.

The company suffered a significant loss when an unrelated company went into liquidation, leaving it with a deficit of approximately €157,000. The company also provided financial facilities to another trading partner in anticipation of substantial business developments, which failed to materialise. Business slowed dramatically during 2016. The impact of Brexit also resulted in the cancellation of a number of projects.

The company lent funds to Xpress Art Limited (XAL), the purpose of which was to allow XAL to expand, with the company getting the design contracts for each new outlet opened by XAL. XAL changed hands during 2016 and pulled back its expansion strategy, leaving a debt to the company of approximately €285,000.

The Revenue debt accrued in relation to claiming this relief was €37,732 plus some €11,300 in interest and penalties. The company’s name was published on the tax defaulters’ list in June 2017 for the amount of €55,088.

The company claimed section 486C start-up relief (Section 486C of the Taxes Consolidation Act (TCA) 1997 provides relief from corporation tax for new start-up companies in their early years of trading. The relief is granted by reducing the corporation tax payable on the profits of the new trade and chargeable gains on the disposal of any assets used for the purposes of the new trade) from the Revenue Commissioners, to which it was not entitled. This relief is connected to the amount of employer’s PRSI a company pays.  The company was not entitled to the relief because it never registered as an employer, did not have any employees, and did not pay any employer’s PRSI.

The liquidator was appointed in late 2016. The company was found by the liquidator to have failed to maintain proper books and records. The liquidator reported that not all payments went through the company bank accounts and that an inappropriate payment of €32,000 was made to the directors in late January 2020.

Relief was not given by the CEA and the liquidator was instructed to issue proceedings in the High Court to restrict both directors. In monitoring this requirement, the CEA noted that the liquidator had failed to initiate proceedings within the required timeframe and initiated follow-up action. It transpired that the directors had relocated to the UK and the liquidator was not able to make contact with them.

Following discussions between the CEA and the liquidator, the liquidator confirmed that contact had eventually been made with the directors. Both directors subsequently submitted to restriction undertakings.

The company was incorporated on 13 March 2020 and operated a convenience store. It ceased to trade in September 2023 and went into liquidation on 29 October 2024. Its sole director was Mr. Kamil Cieslak. The estimated deficit at the time of liquidation was €166,111, with no realisable assets. The liquidator requested full relief but then went on to qualify the request, stating that he believed that there “was a disregard for Revenue and Rates” and that he found it difficult to seek full relief.

It appeared the company was insolvent from its incorporation. The last set of accounts filed with the CRO show that the company was loss making in 2020 and 2021, with losses of €53,928 and €123,950 respectively. The Company did not receive TWSS (Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme) or other supports during the Covid period as it was not operational in the years before and therefore had no evidence of a decline in trading due to the public health restrictions.

Mr. Cieslak failed to prepare management accounts for 2022 and for the period up to the time the company went into liquidation. The company did file the 2023 annual return with accounts with the CRO, but they were not accepted and were returned to the presenter.

The Revenue Commissioners were owed significant sums of money and there was also an unfairly preferential payment made to the landlord at the expense of the other company creditors.

CRO records suggested that there was a second director who had resigned within the twelve month period prior to the company going into liquidation. The CEA enquired of the liquidator as to whether this person had, in the liquidator’s assessment, acted honestly and responsibly in relation to the affairs of the company. The liquidator confirmed that the person had discharged his duties and did not form part of his investigation as he had also tried to resign his directorship from an earlier date without success.

The CEA communicated its concerns to the liquidator in relation to his qualification of his request for full relief in his section 682 report. Following extensive engagement, the liquidator eventually revised his request and sought not to be relieved of the obligation to restrict the director. A restriction undertaking was offered to Mr. Cieslak, which was accepted.

The company was incorporated in December 2016 and put into creditors’ voluntary liquidation in August 2021. The company operated as a haulage company, with Mr. Kevin Smullen as the company’s sole director at the date of liquidation.

The estimated deficit at the date of liquidation was €6,956. The director failed to co-operate with the liquidator. The company did not maintain proper books and records, and those that were received by the liquidator were described as being of poor quality. The liquidator attempted to contact the director on multiple occasions to clarify queries regarding the books and records, intercompany balances, and the removal of funds since the company ceased trading and, in his opinion, received unnecessarily vague answers.

Reasonable records had been maintained up until 2019, however there were no record of contracts won or correspondence with Carnalway Freight Limited, a transportation company, that was incorporated in January 2015. The liquidator believed that this was a phoenix company given that both companies had common directors and shareholders, there were certain related party transactions, and both companies used the same fleet of vehicles.

Requests for certain records were ignored, which led the liquidator to believe that those records did not exist. The failure to maintain appropriate records resulted in a substantial uncertainty as to the assets and liabilities of the company and substantially impeded the orderly winding up of the company.

Mr. Smullen failed to wind up the company in a timely manner when he knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent. This was due to the company’s failure to obtain a sustainable insurance quote to allow the company to continue to trade into the future. An assessment has also been raised by the Revenue Commissioners in respect of disallowed VAT input credits.

The liquidator’s review of the company’s transactions highlighted certain transactions that preferred certain creditors over others. These payments related to Mr. Smullen’s remuneration and certain other expenses, some of which were made following the cessation of the company’s trading.

Relief was not granted and the CEA offered Mr. Smullen the opportunity to submit to a disqualification undertaking, which he accepted. He was disqualified for a period of five years.

The company was incorporated in May 2010 and operated as a quarry business. The sole director of the company was Mr. Billy O’Leary. The company successfully traded for a number of years but suffered losses from 2021 onwards. The company was put into creditors’ voluntary liquidation after the director was advised that the Revenue Commissioners intended to petition the High Court to have the company compulsorily wound up.

Planning permission for the quarry expired in 2014 with a change in regulations though the company continued to trade. On 27 November 2019 the company was named on the programme ‘RTÉ Investigates: Between a Rock and a Hard Place’ which examined how some quarry operators were allegedly circumventing regulations. Following this programme the company’s business dropped off.

Planning permission was sought from Wexford County Council to continue quarry works but was refused on grounds of public health risks and exacerbation of acid rock drainage contamination. An appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleánala, which was also refused. Mr. O’Leary sought a judicial review of An Bord’s decision, which was refused by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The costs of the appeals and the subsequent judicial review proceedings were detrimental to creditors. 

The liquidator was of the view that the company continued to trade when the director knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent. The deficit at the date of liquidation was €1,342,966. Certain creditors were preferred over others, with the company discharging debts to certain trade creditors to whom the director had given personal guarantees while ignoring the company’s liabilities to the Revenue Commissioners. The liquidator reported that taxes were not paid as they fell due and all communication from Revenue was ignored. 

Relief was not granted and CEA offered the director the opportunity to voluntarily submit to a disqualification undertaking. He accepted that offer and was disqualified for a period of five years.

Wirecard UK & Ireland Limited was part of the Wirecard Group of companies which included Wirecard Payments Solutions Holdings Limited and Herview Limited. Since 2015, the sole shareholder in the company was Wirecard Payments Solutions Holdings Limited, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wirecard AG.

The company provided financial services related to the processing of electronic transactions of credit and prepaid cards. The company’s insolvency was the result of a suspected largescale fraud perpetrated within the overall Wirecard AG Group. The fraud related to the fabrication of income and funds which artificially inflated the Group’s profits. This included a sum of €1.9 billion supposedly held in an escrow account, initially reported as missing but later found not to exist. An administrator was appointed in June 2020 to Wirecard AG and other Group companies, leading to the winding up and sale of Group businesses and withdrawal of support by the Wirecard AG Group. This made it impossible for Wirecard UK & Ireland to survive on its own.

The liquidators’ investigation into the affairs of the company and the reasons for its demise concluded that four of the six directors acted honestly and responsibly. The four directors took appropriate action by monitoring the company’s financial position, sought independent professional advice and co-operated fully with the liquidator. On that basis, the liquidators sought relief in respect of these individuals.

The liquidators recommended disqualification in relation to the two remaining directors, Mr. Jan Marsalak, CEO of the company and Mr. Markus-Konrad Fuchs, Sales Director. Mr. Marsalak was also the Chief Operating Officer of the Wirecard AG Group and Mr. Fuchs was Head of Sales and Acquiring for the Group. Having reviewed the liquidators’ reports and other information available to it, the CEA declined to exercise its discretion to offer the directors the opportunity to enter into undertakings due to the grave nature of the allegations. The liquidators were accordingly instructed to seek the disqualifications of Mr. Marsalak and Mr. Fuchs in the High Court.

Mr. Fuchs was disqualified for a period of nine years. As service could not be effected on Mr. Marsalak the case against him currently stands adjourned with liberty to re-enter.

The company was incorporated on 29 February 2016 and traded for a period of approximately 3 years. It operated in the business of providing water systems for hotels and restaurants. The directors at the time of appointment were Mr. Dermot O’Brien and Ms.Nollaig Baker.

It appears that, at a time when the company did not have sufficient funds to discharge its legitimate liabilities, both directors chose to use company funds for their own personal benefit. On 9 October 2019, Infinity Water Vending Limited (IWVL) was incorporated, whose sole director was Ms. Nollaig Baker. Mr. Dermot O’Brien was appointed as company secretary.  From June 2019 to March 2020, the company transferred a total sum of €32,019 to IWVL at a time when it was insolvent.

The company remained in persistent default of its Revenue obligations and effectively used money owed in respect of taxes as a line of credit. The Revenue Commissioners petitioned the High Court to wind up the company on 19 February 2020 and a liquidator was appointed.

During the course of the liquidator’s investigation, some of the company’s customersprovided him with copies of sales invoices issued by the company to them before and shortly after the date of his appointment. Ordinarily, customers paid these invoices by way of transfer to the company’s bank account. However, the liquidator was unable to identify receipts for payment of certain sales invoices issued by the company. Following the Order to wind up the company, Mr. O’Brien advised certain customers of the company that future payments were to be made to a new bank account. It transpired that this bank account belonged to IWVL.

The directors continued to incur significant credit on behalf of the company when they ought to have known that it would not be in a position to discharge the debts incurred. Further, the directors continued to use company funds to pay for personal expenses and withdrew sums from company accounts for non-company business.

The company commenced making pension payments for the benefit of both directors on 2 January 2019. In total, 16 payments were made up to the date of liquidation. All 16 payments were made at a time when the company was defaulting on its Revenue liabilities. The company made 6 of the payments after receipt of the 21-day statutory demand from the Revenue Commissioners.

The company failed to maintain proper books and records, which resulted in substantial uncertainty as to the assets and liabilities and impeded the orderly winding up of the company.

The directors did not fully co-operate with the liquidator. In the Statement of Affairs, Mr. O’Brien advised that the company’s assets were limited to water systems and that there were no company vehicles. However, the company entered into two successive financing arrangements for the purchase of BMW cars. The company was defaulting on its Revenue liabilities when it entered into these loan agreements with BMW. The directors concealed these assets from the liquidator and continued to use the cars after his appointment. Both cars were subsequently repossessed and sold by BMW Financial Services after the liquidator was appointed.

The liquidator entered into a settlement agreement with the directors whereby they were to make monetary payments. The case was listed in Court on several occasions and was finally concluded on 10 November 2025. Mr. Justice Mulcahy concluded that Mr. O’Brien’s conduct warranted a 10-year disqualification, reducing the term by 3 years by way of mitigation for the payment of settlement money. The second director, Ms. Nollaig Baker, was disqualified for a period of 5 years. Both disqualifications were backdated to 1 May 2024.

The company was incorporated in September 2004, providing cash in transit and other security services. Following the discovery of a €1.8 million deficit in the company’s client account, a provisional liquidator was appointed to the company by Order of Mr. Justice Allen on 22 July 2019 and, by further Order of Mr. Justice Allen, the appointment of theliquidator was confirmed on 28 August 2019. The directors at the date of liquidation were Ms. Emily Farrell and Mr. William Farrell.

The company had previously exited examinership in 2017. The former directors, Mr. Jim Farrell and Ms. Grainne Farrell, were replaced by the current directors in March 2017 as part of the examinership process. From his investigations, the liquidator believed that Ms. Emily Farrell and Mr. William Farrell had limited roles in the operation of the company and that both Mr. Jim Farrell and Ms. Grainne Farrell acted as de facto directors.

The liquidator noted that Mr. Jim Farrell had sworn the grounding affidavit for the appointment of the liquidator. Both Mr. Jim Farrell and Ms. Grainne Farrell were cheque signatories, and the company’s customers confirmed to the liquidator that they ordinarily dealt with Mr. Jim Farrell and Ms. Grainne Farrell as decision makers. The company’s accounts recorded an interest free director’s loan in the amount of €2,148 made to Mr. Jim Farrell which was owed to the company. 

The liquidator advised that, in correspondence with him, Mr. Jim Farrell agreed with this assessment.The liquidator identified a deficit of approximately €1.8 million in the company’s client accounts and formed the opinion from his investigations that this money was used to fund the company on a day-to-day basis. When the company entered examinership, the Revenue Commissioners were owed €640,000 approximately, which increased to some €679,000 at the date of liquidation. The liquidator identified a repeated pattern of failure by the company to file returns and pay its tax liabilities as they fell due, leading to the Revenue Commissioners issuing 13 final demand letters. 

The company also failed to maintain an accurate up to date asset register which disclosed significant assets. The liquidator identified 38 motor vehicles that were not included on the asset register and their whereabouts at the date of liquidation were unknown. Two leased assets were disposed of by the company without the knowledge of the finance providersand the company failed to discharge the finance on those assets.

Relief was granted in relation to the current registered directors Ms. Emily Farrell and Mr. William Farrell but was not granted in respect of the de facto directors, Mr. Jim Farrell and Ms. Grainne Farrell. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the CEA declined to offer undertakings and instructed the liquidator to issue proceedings in the High Court. On 7 July 2025 Mr. Jim Farrell was disqualified from acting as a director for a period of 9 years, with Ms. Grainne Farrell being restricted for a period of 5 years.

As part of a joint operation, in November CEA and GNECB officers carried out targeted searches of properties in counties Meath and Kildare. The searches were conducted as part of an ongoing investigation into suspected company law and other Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act-related offences on which the CEA and GNECB are co-operating.

By leveraging GNECB resources, the CEA secured key investigative material from multiple sites concurrently. Equally, the GNECB’s investigation benefited from access to the CEA’s forensic accounting and digital forensic expertise.

Following a CEA investigation, Mr. Gary Nugent was charged with two counts of deception, in addition to seven counts of using a false instrument contrary to section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The charges relate to a CEA investigation into the affairs of Cycling Ireland Limited.

Having entered a plea of guilty, in relation to two counts of deception, before the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in December 2025, on 19 February 2026 Mr. Nugent was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended in full on strict conditions including that Mr. Nugent be of good behaviour for 3 years. Imposing sentence, Her Honour Judge Orla Crowe noted that Mr. Nugent ‘played an active role’ and was ‘not entitled to try and deceive…’ as he had done.

Following a CEA investigation, Mr. Patrick O’Connor was charged with 1 count of furnishing false information to the CRO, contrary to section 876 of the 2014 Act. The charges relate to a CEA investigation into J,P & P Properties Limited which arose in the context of a wider CEA investigation into suspected company law offences involving other individuals.    

In June 2025, Mr. O’Connor was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to an offence contrary to section 876(1) of the 2014 Act.

On 9 July 2025, Her Honour Judge Crowe indicated that the offence warranted a headline custodial sentence of up to 18 months’ imprisonment, noting in particular the deliberate nature of the conduct and Mr. O’Connor’s position as a Peace Commissioner. After hearing the plea in mitigation, the penalty imposed was 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of 12 months. Imposing sentence, Her Honour Judge Crowe noted ‘Mr. O’Connor was a peace commissioner …  and as a peace commissioner he was a person in a position of trust’.

A consequential disqualification from acting as a company director for a period of five years was also imposed, pursuant to section 839 of the Companies Act 2014, effective from 9 July 2025.

In April 2025, Mr. Jack Carey appeared before Dublin District Court charged with 14 offences under the Companies Act 2014, including furnishing false information to the CRO contrary to section 876, failing to file annual returns contrary to section 343, and failing to notify the CRO of a change of registered office within the prescribed period contrary to section 50(3) in respect of companies including White Capital & Assets Holdings Ltd and White Capital Trinity Ltd. 

Ms Catriona Carey, a co-accused, was charged in February 2025 with 46 offences under the Companies Act 2014 alleged to have occurred between 2019 and 2022.

The trial, originally listed for 5 May 2026, has been rescheduled for 23 June 2027.

On 10 December 2025, following a CEA investigation into the affairs of Northsidemotorpark Limited, its directors, Mr. Alan Harford and Ms. Lorraine Harford, were each charged with five offences of failing to keep adequate accounting records contrary to section 281 of the Companies Act 2014.

Each alleged offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding €500,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or both, upon conviction.