CLOSE SEARCH
We acted for a senior business professional facing criminal prosecution and a potential 15-year director disqualification for allegedly acting as a (de facto) director while disqualified. The central issue was whether their involvement in a high-growth start-up crossed the legal threshold for “acting as a director” under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Following a detailed forensic review of the evidence and sustained negotiations with the Insolvency Service, we successfully challenged the extent of the alleged conduct. The proposed prosecution was withdrawn, and a substantially reduced disqualification period was agreed by way of undertaking, avoiding court proceedings and enabling our client to rebuild their career.
Our client was a highly experienced and accomplished business professional who had built a successful career over several decades in the financial services and corporate sectors. Earlier in their career, following the insolvency of a previous business venture during a period of significant economic turbulence, they had given a disqualification undertaking for eight years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
During the course of that disqualification period, our client became involved with a rapidly growing technology start-up company in which they held a significant equity stake. Seeking to contribute their expertise and experience to the business, they took on an increasingly prominent role within the company’s operations, including:
Attending board meetings and contributing to strategic discussions
Engaging with investors and stakeholders
Participating in high-level decision-making alongside formally appointed directors
The Insolvency Service, acting in its capacity as the principal enforcement authority for director disqualification matters in England and Wales, commenced an investigation following intelligence received suggesting that our client had been acting as a (de facto) director in breach of their existing disqualification undertaking.
The investigation revealed extensive evidence that our client had, over a sustained period of approximately three years, held themselves out as a director to third parties, made decisions ordinarily reserved to the board, and exercised real influence over the conduct of the company’s affairs despite never having been formally appointed to the board of directors.
Proceedings were brought under Section 13 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, exposing our client to criminal prosecution in the Crown Court, with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. More significantly, the Insolvency Service indicated its intention to seek a further extended disqualification period of up to fifteen years,effectively threatening our client’s ability to participate in corporate life for the remainder of their career.
This case presented a complex combination of legal, evidential, and personal challenges requiring specialist expertise in director disqualification and regulatory enforcement.
The allegation centred on a broad and purposive interpretation of “acting as a director”, which extends beyond formal appointment to include:
De facto directors, who assume the functions of a director without formal title
Shadow directors, who influence or direct the board’s decisions
The evidential threshold for establishing such roles is deliberately low, and the Insolvency Service had compiled a substantial body of material, including board minutes, internal communications, and witness statements, all suggesting sustained involvement in the company’s management.
Key risks included:
Criminal liability: potential prosecution, imprisonment, and financial penalties
Extended disqualification: up to 15 years, effectively ending our client’s corporate career
Reputational damage: including the impact of public proceedings and regulatory publicity
The alleged conduct spanned approximately three years, increasing its seriousness in the eyes of the regulator. The Insolvency Service’s initial position was that this represented a flagrant and sustained breach of the existing undertaking.
We were instructed at a critical stage, shortly after the Insolvency Service confirmed its intention to pursue both criminal prosecution and extended disqualification proceedings. Our immediate priority was to take control of the strategic response and engage constructively with the regulator.
We undertook a detailed review of the evidence and developed a more nuanced understanding of our client’s involvement. While our client had played an active role in the business, there were important distinctions between their conduct and that of a formally appointed director.
Our work included:
Conducting a forensic analysis of the evidence gathered by the Insolvency Service
Identifying periods of limited involvement and areas where our client had deliberately avoided formal governance functions
Preparing detailed written representations addressing each element of the alleged conduct
Presenting mitigation evidence, including good character, professional contributions, and remedial steps taken
We then engaged in intensive and sustained negotiations with the Insolvency Service over several months. This required a careful balance,robustly challenging the regulator’s position while demonstrating our client’s insight, cooperation, and commitment to compliance.
We also made detailed submissions on the appropriate length of any disqualification period, drawing on relevant case law and regulatory guidance to demonstrate that the conduct, properly characterised, fell towards the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness.
As a result of our intervention, the Insolvency Service agreed to withdraw the proposed criminal prosecution entirely. This removed the risk of imprisonment, avoided a criminal conviction, and spared our client the reputational impact of a Crown Court trial.
We also secured a substantial reduction in the proposed disqualification period, significantly below the 15 years initially sought. The matter was resolved by way of undertaking rather than court order, avoiding a public hearing and limiting reputational damage.
Crucially, the outcome enabled our client to move forward professionally. They have since successfully obtained court permission to act as a director of a specified company and now serve as a senior executive within a major organisation in the City of London.
This case demonstrates the importance of early specialist advice, detailed evidential analysis, and strategic engagement with regulators in high-stakes director disqualification matters.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
