PPE FRAUD CONVICTIONS SHOW WHY SUPPLIER CHECKS CANNOT BE BOX-TICKING

A National Crime Agency investigation has ended with convictions in a PPE fraud case that shows how quickly weak supplier checks can become a direct business-loss problem.

The NCA said Jogesh Bhandari, Craig Morris and Meenakashi Bhandari were convicted at Leicester Crown Court on 15 July after a five-week trial linked to fraudulent PPE deals during the pandemic. The case centred on claims that a company could provide nitrile gloves, while funds were instead diverted into personal spending, debt repayment, home improvements and luxury cars.

According to the NCA, one early deal involved an agreement to provide 12 million boxes of gloves. In another, Bhandari received more than $3.18 million for nitrile gloves intended for US hospitals that were never delivered. The agency said forged documents were used to persuade businesses to trade, including bank statements showing up to 125 million and letters of attestation. In a final deal, a supplier paid 1.35 million for planned shipments after being shown a fraudulent letter stating that 35 million had been deposited as security.

The NCA said more than 47,000 WhatsApp messages and emails were exchanged during the criminality. It also reported that money was spent on a Porsche, Rolexes and other luxury watches, jewellery, cars, overseas travel and home improvements, rather than the PPE orders for which it had been paid.

The defendants are due to be sentenced on 21 August.

Why it matters

The case is not just a pandemic-era fraud story. It is a warning about how supplier trust can fail when urgency, weak evidence and big promises collide.

For SMEs, procurement and finance controls often sit in the same place: someone checks the invoice, the supplier, the bank details and the urgency of the request. When that process is informal, fraudsters get room to operate.

The practical risk is not limited to PPE. Any business buying stock, materials, equipment, labour, vehicles, software or subcontracted services can be exposed if supplier checks are treated as a formality. Forged bank statements, impressive claims, escrow language and large promised orders can all create a false sense of security unless the business has a disciplined verification process.

There is also a tax and records angle. If a business cannot show who it paid, why it paid, what checks were performed, what goods or services were received, and how the transaction was approved, the loss becomes harder to explain, recover, insure or defend.

Practical takeaway

Businesses should tighten supplier onboarding before the next urgent purchase, not after money has left the account.

That means checking company identity, trading history, VAT and tax references where relevant, bank details, contract terms, delivery evidence, beneficial ownership concerns, unusual payment pressure, and whether the supplier's claimed capacity makes commercial sense.

For higher-value or time-sensitive purchases, there should be a second-person review before payment. Finance teams should also keep a clean evidence trail: quote, contract, approval, supplier checks, payment instruction, delivery confirmation and follow-up correspondence.

V3 can help business owners turn that into a practical control rather than a paperwork exercise: supplier checks, bookkeeping evidence, payment approval process, VAT and tax record discipline, and clean finance admin that protects cash before fraud becomes a recovery problem.

Conclusion

The NCA case shows the same lesson in brutal form: fraud does not need a sophisticated business to succeed. It needs a business under pressure with weak checks.

Supplier due diligence is now basic commercial self-defence. If the money matters, the evidence has to be stronger than the sales pitch.

Call the V3 team on 02392 361115 hello@v3recruitment.com