Yulia Slavina

UK directors face enforcement as Insolvency Service secures first identity verification convictions

UK directors face enforcement as Insolvency Service secures first identity verification convictions
Directors face ID crackdown

UK company directors are under new compliance pressure after the first prosecutions for failing to meet Companies House identity verification rules. The convictions highlight how the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is now being enforced against both unverified directors and those who let them continue acting.

Highlights

  • Jill White, Marc Dillon, and Modinat Banjo became the first to be convicted under Companies House identity verification rules, receiving fines at City of London Magistrates’ Court on 16 September.
  • The convictions follow the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, with new and existing UK directors now required to verify their identity or face prosecution and potential penalties.
  • White was fined £166 and Dillon £307 for compliance failures including late confirmation statement filing, while Banjo received an £80 fine for similar offences.

First convictions under identity verification rules

As reported by GOV.UK, the Insolvency Service says Jill White and Marc Dillon of White (Reading Properties) Limited, and Modinat Banjo of J Isogony Apparel Limited, were fined at City of London Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday 16 September for offences linked to the Companies House identity verification regime.

Identity verification is a core part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which expands Companies House powers to improve the accuracy of the company register and curb the misuse of UK companies for criminal purposes. Newly appointed directors have been required to verify their identity before acting from 18 November 2025, while existing directors must complete the process during a 12-month transition period when filing the company’s next confirmation statement.

Daniel Hart, Senior Criminal Lawyer at the Insolvency Service, says identity verification is a legal requirement and warns that directors who continue to act without complying risk investigation and prosecution. Martin Swain, Director of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Engagement at Companies House, says the cases mark an important milestone in strengthening the integrity of the UK company register.

Penalties and compliance implications for directors

White, 62, of Speen, Buckinghamshire, acted as a director without verifying her identity, including taking part in board-level decisions and signing company accounts. She completed the process only in early September 2026, around nine months after the deadline and shortly before appearing in court.

Dillon, 62, of Benson, Oxfordshire, had verified his own identity but was prosecuted for failing to take reasonable steps to stop White from continuing to act while unverified. Both were also convicted after their company failed to file a confirmation statement on time; White was fined £166, with £85 in costs and a £66 victim surcharge, while Dillon was fined £307, with £85 in costs and a £123 victim surcharge.

Banjo, 50, of Thornham Street, London, also continued acting as a director and signed company accounts before completing identity verification on or around 28 May 2026. She was likewise convicted for failing to file a confirmation statement within the statutory period and was fined £80, with £85 in costs and a £32 victim surcharge.

Authorities are urging any directors who have not yet verified their identity to do so as soon as possible. The process can be completed online through Companies House free of charge or through an Authorised Corporate Service Provider.

Our earlier article on proposed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) reforms explained how UK ministers were weighing changes to eligibility and assessments to curb rapidly rising welfare costs. We noted options under review including replacing the points-based system with triage for severe cases, alongside potential measures such as means-testing and tighter rules for younger claimants, as the government tried to balance savings with political risk.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.