In line with its manifesto promise, the Labour government recently announced the appointment of Tom Hayhoe as the new Covid Corruption Commissioner to investigate alleged frauds that took place during the pandemic.
Here, Hamraj Kang, founder and Senior Partner at KANGS Solicitors, examines the Commissioner’s likely areas of focus, including the companies and individuals that can expect to be placed under the spotlight.
Key focus
Kang said: “It appears that the new Covid Corruption Commissioner’s remit is to focus on the government contracts that were issued to various parties during the height of the pandemic, as opposed to the schemes that were fraudulently misused, such as bounce-back loans, furlough and Eat Out to Help Out.
“This covers the £8 billion that the government spent on PPE which was subsequently either deemed to be unfit for purpose, or the contract performance was not as originally agreed. An important part of Mr Hayhoe’s work will be deciding whether such sums should be properly written off or whether the government can look to recoup the funds.”
Who will face scrutiny?
Kang added: “The Commissioner’s final report could focus on individuals – including politicians, civil servants and government advisors – who were instrumental in establishing and operating the procurement system; those involved as ‘brokers’ or ‘middlemen’; and the companies that ultimately benefited from securing the government contracts.
“One of the hurdles Mr Hayhoe and his team will face here is the passage of time since the pandemic. If evidence has not already been properly preserved and secured in relation to certain contracts, it may prove an unenviable task to build a case against the companies that supplied the PPE or other equipment or materials.”
Possible consequences: criminal or civil liability?
The National Crime Agency is already undertaking criminal investigations in relation to companies and individuals that secured government contracts via the ‘VIP lane’ that was created in the early days of the pandemic.
Commenting further, Kang said: “One area for criminal liability could be the possible false representations made by contracting parties in order to initially secure and then subsequently maintain the contracts.
“Even if criminal liability cannot be established, the government has scope for pursuing civil claims against suppliers of PPE and other equipment or materials, if such products were deemed unfit for purpose or such contracts were either obtained or serviced by dishonest means.
“The Government Legal Service is currently pursuing breach of contract and dishonesty claims against PPE suppliers; this is an area that the Commissioner is likely to explore further.”
Kang concluded: “Businesses and individuals involved in government contracts during the pandemic should be fully aware of the potential criminal and civil ramifications of the Commissioner’s work, and ensure they have comprehensive legal representation in place in the event of any investigation.”
