Father and son sentenced for insurance fraud
A father and son have been sentenced for their roles in a fraudulent car insurance scheme, following an investigation led by the City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED).
I. R. pocketed £61,763 from August 2016 to January 2020 by selling fraudulent insurance policies to the public, an act known as ‘ghost broking’. From September 2019 to June 2020, he shared £11,977 of this with his son, A. I.
CCTV footage obtained by IFED showed that, while a search warrant was being executed at A.’s home, I.’ brother, Z. R., removed two computers from I.’ office.
The trio were sentenced at Leicester Crown Court on 6 June 2025 as follows:
- I. R., 51, of N. R., Leicester, was sentenced to 21 months in prison. He pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation, breaching the Financial Services and Markets Act and transferring criminal property.
- A. I., 28, of N. R., Leicester, was sentenced to 16 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to complete 100 hours of unpaid work. He pleaded guilty to money laundering offences.
- Z. R., 47, of T. R., Leicester, was sentenced to 18 weeks imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work. He pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice.
IFED’s financial investigators will now undertake an investigation to identify the total amount that I. and A. obtained from the ‘ghost broking’ activity. Confiscation proceedings, which will seek to recover the proceeds of crime, will take place at a later date.
Detective Constable D. W., from the City of London Police’s Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), said:
“‘Ghost brokers’ leave their victims uninsured and vulnerable to fines, points on their license and even having their car seized. I. showed no qualms in exposing his victims to these consequences for his own financial gain.
“Despite the trio’s attempts to deceive officers during the investigation, the strength of the evidence gathered meant that all three admitted their guilt in court and have now rightfully been held to account for their actions. The upcoming confiscation proceedings against I. and A. should send a clear message that IFED will use its full suite of options to ensure that ‘ghost brokers’ do not benefit from criminal activity.”
The case was referred to IFED by the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB), after it linked I. to a total of 52 fraudulent motor insurance policies that had been taken out across four insurers.
I.charged his victims a fee of between £200 and £300 to set up low-cost insurance. When he took out the policies, I. provided insurers with forged letters from a company called E. C. to obtain no claims discounts for the policyholders. The letters falsely stated that the policyholder had been employed by E. C. for several years and, during that time, had not been involved in any road traffic collisions or submitted any claims on insurance.
The use of false information and forged letters meant that the policies were invalid, and many were cancelled by the insurers due to concerns that they were fraudulent.
The investigation found that E. C. shared the same registered address as the office Ilyas used to sell insurance policies.
Officers from IFED executed search warrants at I. and A.’s properties. A warrant was first carried out at A.’s property, during which officers asked for keys to I.’ office address.
As the keys were not provided, officers forced entry into I.’ office and seized a CCTV recorder.
An examination of the CCTV footage recorded on the day of the search warrant revealed that Z. had entered I.’ office while IFED officers were searching A.’s property. Z. unsuccessfully attempted to cover a CCTV camera in the office using a glove, before he removed two computer towers from a desk and then left the premises with them.
Officers found that four phone calls had taken place between I. and Z. before the incident captured on CCTV took place.
Further search warrants were carried out at A. and I.’ addresses. Two computers and a phone belonging to A. were amongst the items seized.
IFED’s analysis of A.’s phone showed that he had exchanged messages related to insurance with at least 31 contacts from October 2015 to March 2021. When the contacts messaged A. to request quotes, he often stated that Ilyas arranged the policies and that he would come back to them with a cost the following day.
If a quote was finalised, A.would ask the contact to visit I.’ office to set up their policy or send a photo of their bank card so that the payment could be processed.
One of the computers seized from I.’s office contained seven documents related to insurance.
IFED’s financial investigators found that I. pocketed £61,763 from August 2016 to January 2020 as a result of his ‘ghost broking’ activity. However, enquiries with HMRC established that its records showed that he had claimed he had only earned a total of £27,366 from 2016 to 2020.
During his police interview, A. told officers that he did not remember receiving money from Ilyas and that he was not sure what it would have been for.
J. D., Intelligence and Investigations Manager at the Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB), said:
“I. R. exploited innocent members of the public, pocketing tens of thousands of pounds by selling sham car insurance that left devastated victims uninsured and out of pocket. Shockingly, his fraudulent activity was also supported by his own brother and son.
“We're pleased justice has been served against this family for the role they all played in this reckless fraud scheme. ‘Ghost broking’ remains a serious threat, and we continue to work closely with police and insurers to protect consumers. We encourage anyone with evidence of insurance fraud to report it to our confidential CheatLine.”