A 46-year-old man in London has been sentenced to prison after admitting to fraud and money laundering in connection with the government’s Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan scheme. Eric Agyeman, of Mace Street in East London, fraudulently secured three separate loans worth a total of £130,000 for a company that never carried out any legitimate trade. Instead of using the money in the way intended by the scheme, he diverted part of it to fund a trading venture in Ghana.
This case highlights once again how opportunistic fraudsters exploited emergency government schemes that were designed to provide financial lifelines for struggling businesses during the pandemic. It also illustrates the wider issue of fraud linked to Covid-19 support packages, which have cost the UK taxpayer billions.
The Fraud
The UK government introduced the Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLS) in May 2020 at the height of the coronavirus crisis. The scheme was designed to help small businesses survive by offering loans of up to £50,000, guaranteed by the state, at low interest rates. Applicants had to confirm that their businesses were genuinely trading before March 2020 and that they were adversely affected by the pandemic.
However, the scheme relied heavily on trust. Lenders were not required to carry out detailed checks, a decision made deliberately by the government to ensure money reached struggling firms quickly. That reliance on self-certification created significant opportunities for abuse.
Agyeman took advantage of these loopholes. Court documents showed that he set up DOK Logistics UK Ltd, presenting it as a functioning business. In reality, the company had never traded. Despite this, he applied for loans three separate times under the Bounce Back Loan Scheme, securing a total of £130,000.
Under the rules, each business could only apply for a single loan. By making multiple applications, Agyeman not only violated the scheme’s terms but also engaged in clear deception.
Use of the Money
Rather than investing the funds into any legitimate UK business activities, Agyeman diverted part of the money abroad. Investigators discovered that he used a portion of the fraudulently obtained loans to support a trading operation in Ghana.
The court heard that transactions linked to Agyeman included transfers to Ghanaian accounts, suggesting that his priority was financing overseas ventures rather than supporting the local UK economy during a time of crisis. The remainder of the money, prosecutors argued, was either spent on personal expenses or concealed through money laundering methods.
This misuse of funds struck a particularly sensitive chord given that thousands of genuine businesses in the UK—many on the brink of collapse—relied on these loans for survival.
The Investigation
The fraud came to light as part of a wider crackdown on Covid-19 loan abuse. The UK government and law enforcement agencies, including the Insolvency Service and the National Investigation Service (NATIS), have been working to uncover fraudulent claims.
Banking records and company filings revealed irregularities in DOK Logistics UK Ltd’s profile. Despite having no evidence of trading activity, the company was used to secure large amounts of funding. Once discrepancies were noted, investigators traced the flow of money to Agyeman’s personal accounts and to transfers made overseas.
He was subsequently arrested and charged with fraud by false representation and money laundering.
Court Proceedings
At his hearing in London, Agyeman pleaded guilty to both charges. The court was told that while he had no prior record of major fraud, his actions during the pandemic demonstrated deliberate dishonesty.
The judge stressed that the Bounce Back Loan Scheme was meant to support struggling small businesses during an unprecedented global crisis. By exploiting the system, Agyeman deprived genuine businesses of resources and contributed to the broader financial losses borne by taxpayers.
“You took advantage of a scheme designed to preserve livelihoods,” the judge said in sentencing. “Instead of acting in good faith, you treated public money as a personal windfall and diverted it to ventures outside the United Kingdom. Such behaviour cannot go unpunished.”
Agyeman was sentenced to a custodial term—details of which reflected both the seriousness of the fraud and the need to send a deterrent message to others considering similar abuses.
Broader Context: Fraud and the Bounce Back Loan Scheme
Agyeman’s case is just one among thousands of fraudulent claims linked to the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Since its introduction, the scheme has been widely criticised for being highly vulnerable to abuse due to minimal checks and an over-reliance on borrower honesty.
According to official estimates, fraud and error in the scheme may have cost the UK government over £4.9 billion. While some of this money has been recovered, much remains untraceable, lost to fraudsters who used loopholes in the emergency support system.
The National Audit Office (NAO) and the Public Accounts Committee have both criticised the government for prioritising speed over fraud prevention. While acknowledging the urgency of pandemic support, watchdogs argued that stronger safeguards could have been put in place without delaying essential funding.
In response, the government launched multiple investigations and gave additional funding to enforcement agencies tasked with recovering stolen funds. As of 2025, more than 50 individuals have been prosecuted in relation to Bounce Back Loan fraud, with sentences ranging from suspended sentences to lengthy prison terms.
The Impact
The consequences of such frauds go beyond financial loss. Firstly, they erode public trust in government support schemes. Secondly, they cast a shadow over legitimate businesses—particularly small enterprises—whose credibility can be undermined when fraudsters manipulate systems designed for their benefit.
In communities like East London, where Agyeman resided, many small business owners were hit hard by Covid-19 restrictions. For those who genuinely struggled to keep their shops, cafés, or service businesses afloat, cases like this feel like a betrayal.
There is also the issue of international transfers. Agyeman’s use of UK taxpayer-backed loans to fund trading in Ghana adds an additional layer of concern, raising questions about capital flight and the misuse of public money intended to stabilise the domestic economy.
Government Response
Following the exposure of widespread fraud, the UK government has taken steps to strengthen future emergency financial schemes. Key measures include:
- Enhanced verification: Stronger identity and company checks before loans are approved.
- Data sharing: Improved collaboration between banks, HMRC, and law enforcement.
- Clawback mechanisms: Increased legal powers to pursue fraudsters and recover funds.
- Transparency: Publication of company loan recipients in some cases, to allow public scrutiny.
Officials argue that while fraud cannot be eliminated entirely, lessons learned from the Bounce Back Loan Scheme will inform the design of future support programmes.
Lessons and Warnings
Agyeman’s conviction serves as both a warning and a lesson. For potential fraudsters, the message is clear: even if money was obtained under minimal scrutiny, law enforcement agencies are continuing to investigate, and consequences will follow.
For policymakers, the case underlines the challenge of balancing speed and security in times of crisis. While rapid financial support can save businesses and jobs, it can also invite opportunistic exploitation.
Finally, for the public, the case is a reminder that fraud of this kind is not victimless. Every pound lost to fraudulent claims represents money that could have supported genuine businesses, preserved employment, and eased the burden on taxpayers.
Conclusion
Eric Agyeman’s imprisonment marks another step in the UK’s ongoing effort to address Covid-19 support scheme fraud. By securing £130,000 in loans for a company that never traded and using the funds for personal and overseas ventures, he not only broke the law but also betrayed the trust embedded in emergency measures designed to protect livelihoods during a global crisis.
As the government continues to tighten financial safeguards and pursue fraudsters, the case stands as a stark reminder of the importance of accountability, especially when public money is involved.
