The following provides details of Orders and Undertakings which have to date been granted, or accepted, under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as amended (the Act):

• On 10 May 2012 the Sheriff at Ayr Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Joseph Nelson, 15 Doonview Wynd, Doonfoot, Ayr, KA7 4HY for a period of seven years.  The misconduct was in terms of Sections 56 B 2 (i) failing to account satisfactorily to the trustee  and (m) failing to cooperate with the trustee.  The debtor sold or transferred several vehicles registered to himself or his business, Nelson Civil Engineering, after the date of sequestration, making them assets of his estate.  The debtor's failure to account for the location of the assets and money received from the sale of assets, delayed and obstructed the administration of his bankruptcy.  The debtor also admitted regularly living and working abroad, in Spain and France, without notifying his trustee.  In terms of the Sheriff's interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 10 May 2019.
   

 

• On 10 April 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Falkirk for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring, before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay.  The debtor, whose sole income came from benefits, took out two new loans despite being unable to repay her existing debts.  No attempt was made to repay these new loans.  The BRU will remain in force until 10 April 2014. 
   
• On 4 April 2012 the Sheriff at Hamilton Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Derek Carlyle, 8 The Paddock, Hamilton, for a period of twelve years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (c) making a gratuitous alienation, (i) failing to account satisfactorily to the trustee and (m) failing to co-operate with the trustee.  The debtor received funds from the sale of his property, which were distributed to friends and relatives to the detriment of his creditors.  The trustee has been unable to fully account for all of these funds and obtain a full understanding of the debtor's financial situation due to the debtor's repeated refusal to co-operate, which includes refusing to answer questions under oath and sign the transcript of a private examination.  In terms of the Sheriff's interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 4 April 2024.

 

• On 22 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Broxburn for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (d) creating an unfair preference.  The debtor used the funds received from the sale of his property to repay debts owed to a family member in preference to paying his recognised debts.  The BRU will remain in force until 22 March 2014. 
  
   
• On 16 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Edinburgh for a period of six years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (d) creating an unfair preference, (i) failing to account satisfactorily to the trustee and (m) failing to cooperate with the trustee.  The debtor took deliberate steps to hide £41,000 from his trustee, preventing these funds being used to pay legitimate creditors.  In addition, the debtor failed to provide supported information on how the money was spent.  The BRU will remain in force until 16 March 2018.

 

• On 15 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Dundee for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (m) failing to cooperate with her trustee.  The debtor received a PPI compensation payment which she did not immediately disclose and pay to her trustee.  The trustee was later notified by which time the funds had been used to pay her brother and cousin.  The BRU will remain in force until 15 March 2014. 

 

• On 15 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Glenrothes for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (j) carrying on gambling.  The debtor, whose only income is from state benefits, gambled away funds she should have used to pay creditors.  The BRU will remain in force until 15 March 2014.

 

• On 13 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Glasgow for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (d) creating an unfair preference and (m) failing to cooperate with the trustee.  The debtor provided incorrect information when completing his statutory questionnaire.  Further enquiries revealed that the debtor received a compensation payment for £7,500.  The debtor gave £5,000 to his wife and used the remainder for gambling.  The BRU will remain in force until 13 March 2014.

 

• On 6 March 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Hamilton for a period of three years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring a debt which she had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay and (j) carrying on gambling.  The debtor spent money on gambling that should have been used to pay off her overdraft and other debts.  She also incurred further debts to continue gambling, which she had no prospect of repaying.  The BRU will remain in force until 6 March 2015. 

 

 

• On 28 February 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Lanark for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (d) creating an unfair preference and (m) failing to co-operate with his trustee.  The debtor used funds received from a compensation payment to pay a family debt and buy new clothes instead of repaying his declared creditors.  He only notified the trustee after the funds had been spent. 

 

• On 20 February 2012 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted by a debtor living in Kilmarnock for a period of three years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring, before commencement of the bankruptcy, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay and (j) carrying on unreasonable extravagance.  The debtor took out a loan to purchase a sports car in the knowledge that she had significant existing debts, which were not being serviced, and without having any recognisable income.  The BRU will remain in force until 20 February 2015. 

 

• On 9 February 2012 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in Dumfries for a period of two years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (d) creating an unfair preference and (j) carrying on unreasonable extravagance.  The debtor used funds received from the sale of her home to pay off family debts and pay for her honeymoon, before applying for bankruptcy.  These funds should have been used to pay off declared creditors.  The BRU will remain in place until 14 February 2014.
  
   
• On 3 February 2012 the Sheriff at Inverness Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Colin McEwan, 10 Glenlia, Foyers, Inverness, IV12 6XX  for a period of five years.  The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (m) failure to cooperate with the Trustee.  The debtor failed to declare an asset; made strenuous efforts to put an asset beyond the reach of the trustee and failed to comply with an order of court.  In terms of the Sheriffs interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 22 November 2016.
   
• 
  On 30 January 2012 the Sheriff at Dumfries Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Graeme Calvert, Braes Lodge, Kirtlebridge, Lockerbie, DG11 3LZ for a period of nine years.  The misconduct was in terms of Sections 56 B 2 (i) failing to account satisfactorily to the trustee, (j) carrying on gambling and (l) fraudulent breach of trust.  The debtor failed to account for withdrawals and transfers from his bank account and for the sale of a number of vehicles.  Significant funds received for the purpose of paying a VAT bill were instead used to fund a gambling addiction, resulting in him being made bankrupt by HMRC.  In terms of the Sheriffs interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 18 April 2020. 
  
   

• On 26 January 2012 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in Wick for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (j) carrying on unreasonable extravagance. The debtor was in considerable debt at the time she purchased two holidays, using funds received from the sale of her property and an equal pay settlement.  These funds should have been used to pay off some of her debts. The BRU will remain in force until 26 January 2014.

 

• On 16 December 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in Edinburgh for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (j) carrying on unreasonable extravagance. He made regular payments to adult websites, diverting funds away from his creditors which would have been available to potentially manage and reduce his debts. The BRU will remain in force until 16 December 2013.

   

• On 6 December 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in Glasgow for a period of five years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay and Section 56 B 2 (m) fraud. He provided false information about his employment status and income in a hire purchase application to purchase a motor vehicle and several credit card applications. The BRU will remain in force until 6 December 2016.

   

• On 10 November 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in East Kilbride for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. He took out five separate loans while having existing debts and a fixed income. He was unable to repay the amounts, increasing his total debts by £5,000. The BRU will remain in force until 10 November 2013.

   

• On 7 November 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor for a period of five years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay and Section 56 B 2 (j) carrying on any gambling. He took out a loan with the intention of repaying it using winnings from gambling. Excessive levels of gambling attributed to increasing his debts and the failure to repay his debts. The BRU will remain in force until 7 November 2016.

 

• On the 19 October 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor living in Edinburgh for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) when the debtor took out a car loan he had no real expectation of maintaining shortly before applying for bankruptcy. He had just lost his job and the reduced income would have made sustaining the new loan financially inoperable. The BRU will remain in force until 19 October 2014.

   

• On 22 September 2011 a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Methil, Fife for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (l) fraud or fraudulent breach of trust. The debtor took out finance on a car but was subsequently unable to service the loan. The car was sold and the proceeds spent maintaining his lifestyle instead of returning them to the finance company. The BRU will remain in force until 22 September 2014.

 

• On 31 August a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Blantyre for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) incurring before the commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. The debtor obtained a loan five months before her sequestration while having existing debts of £18,000 and being in receipt of a fixed income. The BRU will remain in force until 31 August 2013.

   

• On the 23 August 2011 the Sheriff at Dundee Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor John Fernie Morris, 1/R 66 Craigowan Road, Dundee DD2 4NL for a period of 4 years in respect that the debtor failed to declare a lump sum he had received from the Prudential shortly before he made his application. He thereafter spent this money on non essential items, rather than making it available to his Trustee for the payment of his debts. In terms of the Sheriffs interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 23 August 2015.

   

• On 20 July 2011, a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Dundee for a period of two years and six months. The misconduct was in terms of Secton 56 B 2(i) carrying on gambling. The debtor admitted that she had gambled both before and after the date she was sequestrated and that the amount gambled, £8,000 could have paid off a proportion of her debts. The BRU wil reamain in force until 20 January 2014.

 

• On 11 July 2011, a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of two and a half years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2(j) carrying on gambling which increased the level of his debts. The debtor sold his property and gambled the majority of the profit which originated from the sale. The amount involved was in the region of fifty thousand pounds. The BRU will remain in force until 11 January 2014.

   

• On 20 June 2011 the Sheriff at Stirling Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB made under section 56A of the Bankruptcy (S) Act 1985 as amended, for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor John George Francis Henry, Flat 2, 2 Park Terrace, Glasgow G3 6BY and formerly at Bracken House, Old Mugdock Road, Strathblane, Stirling G63 9ET for a period of 7 years in respect that he (1) failed to keep full and accurate business records in respect of J G Henry Builders, 116 Strathmore Road, Balmore Industrial Estate, Glasgow G22 7DW (2) failed to produce full and complete records to his Trustee in relation to his personal and business affairs (3) continued to trade when he knew or ought to have known that he was unable to pay his debts, incurring in excess of £100,000 of additional credit over a four month period (4) neglected his business affairs by failing to pay HMRC in relation to PAYE and CIS, which resulted in financial penalties being imposed which increased the extent of his debts and (5) failed to co-operate with his Trustee by continuing to act as a Director of Limited companies although prohibited from doing so by the terms of his bankruptcy. In terms of the Sheriff's interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 26 August 2017.

• On 13 June 2011, a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Tranent, East Lothian for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56 B 2 (m) - failing to co-operate with the Accountant in Bankruptcy and also within the terms of Section 56 B 2 (I) - fraud or fraudulent breach of trust. The debtor entered into a contract for the purchase of a horse valued at £2000 without disclosing to the seller she was bankrupt and without disclosing this post sequestration business transaction to her Trustee. The BRU will remain in force until 13 June 2013.

   

• On 6 June 2011, a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Montrose, Angus for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 52 B 2 (c) - a gratuitous alienation. The debtor transferred £5600 into an account set up in a partner's name prior to entering bankruptcy. Further misconduct was in terms of Section 52 B 2 (d) - creating unfair preferences. This was done when the debtor paid off debts of some £4900 to three debtors in preference to other ordinary creditors in his sequestration. The BRU will remain in force until the 6th of June 2014.
• On 17 May 2011, a BRU was accepted by a debtor in Stonehouse, Larkhall for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 52 B 2 (j) - unreasonable extravagance. The debtor took out a considerable loan just prior to entering bankruptcy and did not disclose his current situation to the lender on the loan application form. The BRU will remain in force until 17 May 2014.

 

• On 27 April 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Fochabers, Morayshire for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 52 B 2 (c) -gratuitous alienation. The debtor gave her car away to her son just prior to entering bankruptcy even though her son can’t drive, was not insured and she continued to have sole use of the car. The BRU will remain in force until 27 April 2013.

 

• On 19 April 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Winkleigh, Devon for a period of two years. The misconduct was in the terms of Section 56 B 2(m) - failure to co-operate with the trustee. The debtor failed to notify his trustee of his new job and change of address and failed to return his statutory documents. The BRU will remain in force until 19 April 2013. On 13 April 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Boyndie, Banff for a period of three years. The misconduct was in the terms of Section 56 B 2 (h) - incurring, before the sequestration process begun, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. Also in terms of Section 56 B 2 (j) in that she carried on gambling, speculation or unreasonable extravagance which may have materially contributed to or increased the extent of her debts. The BRU will remain in force until 13 April 2014.

 

• On the 18 March 2011 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Milton of Campsie for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B 2 (j) carrying on gambling. The debtor, who had run up considerable gambling debts prior to applying for bankruptcy, carried on gambling three weeks after he had signed his Debtor Application form. The BRU will remain in force until the 18 March 2014.
•  
  On the 18 of March 2011 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Cambuslang for a period of two years. The misconduct was in the terms of Section 56B 2 (j) incurring an unreasonable extravagance. The debtor had paid an instalment for a holiday shortly before she had applied for bankruptcy. At the time of making the instalment to the travel agent she was overdrawn and had about £9000 worth of debt outstanding. The BRU will remain in force until the 18 March 2013.

 

• On the 14 February 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Clydebank for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B 2 (d) - Creating an Unfair Preference. The debtor paid off loans outstanding to members of her family after receiving a redundancy payment, in preference to her ordinary creditors through the trustee. The BRU will remain in force until 14 February 2014.

 

• On the 2 February 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Cumbernauld for three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B(2)(m) – Failure to co-operate with his trustee. The debtor failed to disclose to his trustee the existence of a bank account and that he had an additional source of income. The BRU will remain in force until 2 February 2014.

 

• On the 27 January 2011, the sheriff at Dumfries Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) against the debtor Allan Jason Burke, Flat 11, 40 Longley Lane, Northenden, Manchester M22 4JJ for a period of 5 years in because the debtor had failed to maintain adequate records in relation to his business and had failed to provide the trustee with information on his income or expenditure. In terms of the sheriff's decision (or interlocutor), the BRO will remain in force until 27 January 2016.
• On the 21 January 2011, a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Glasgow for two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B(2)(i) – Incurring a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay before the start of their bankruptcy. The debtor obtained a loan from a Credit Union shortly before making an application for bankruptcy however she failed to advise the Credit Union of her true financial position and her ability to repay the loan. The BRU will remain in force until the 21 January 2013.

 

• On 18 January 2011 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Glasgow for two years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B(2)(i) – Incurring, before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. The debtor obtained a loan from a Credit Union shortly before making an application for bankruptcy however she failed to advise them of her true financial position and her ability to repay the loan.

 

• On 18 January 2011 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Elgin for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B (2) (i) – Failing to account satisfactorily to the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The debtor has not accounted satisfactorily for the earnings he made and what they were subsequently spent on, or why he failed to inform the trustee of a change in circumstances at the time. The BRU will remain in force until 18 January 2014.

 

• On 11 January 2011 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of 3 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56B 2(c) – gratuitous alienation. The debtor authorised his solicitor to transfer the sum of £115,205.95, surplus funds from the sale of a jointly owned property to his wife, to enable her to buy a property. The debtor’s estranged wife has benefited to the extent of £57,602.97, being half the proceeds of the surplus funds from the sale of the property, to the detriment of the debtor’s creditors. The BRU remains in force until 11 January 2014.

 

• On 23 December 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Aberdeen for a period of 2 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B) (2) (j) Carrying on gambling. The Debtor gambled £4828.20 just prior to her bankruptcy, £690.75 of which was gambled online after the date of sequestration. This represents approx 20% of the debtor’s total stated debt, indicating that the debtor has taken undue risks with her money, at a time when she should have been more cautious. The BRU remains in force until 23 December 2012.

 

• On 30 November 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of 4 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B) (2) (j) Carrying on gambling. The debtor used £40,000 which he received from the sale of his property to gamble on horse racing, rather than pay his creditors. The BRU remains in force until 30 November 2014.

 

• On 24 November 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Troon for a period of 2 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(i) Failing to Account. The debtor failed to provide accurate and evidenced information regarding the proceeds from the sale of a car. The debtor gave two explanations as to how the proceeds of the sale were spent, and by not supplying evidence to support either statement, he prevented his trustee from pursuing the recovery of the money. The BRU remains in force until 24 November 2012.

 

• On 1 November 2010 the Sheriff at Paisley Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Stuart Hugh Dornan, 4 Kingston Avenue, Neilston, Glasgow G78 3JF.On said date the Sheriff granted a BRO for a period of 4 years in respect of the debtor who had failed to co-operate with the Trustee. The debtor has been in dispute regarding the amount he owed and failed to accept liability for his current financial difficulties. By refusing to accept the whole sequestration process has resulted in his intransigent attitude towards his Trustee. In terms of the Sheriffs interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 1 November 2014.

 

• On 30 September 2010 the Sheriff at Falkirk Sheriff Court granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restriction Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Kevin Allison, 46 Wilson Avenue, Denny FK6 5AJ . On this date, the Sheriff granted a BRO for a period of 6 years in respect of the debtor who had failed to co-operate with the Trustee and obtained in excess of £5000 in credit after the date of his sequestration. In terms of the Sheriffs interlocutor the BRO will remain in force until 30 September 2016.

 

• On 29 September 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Hamilton for a period of 2 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(c) Making a gratuitous alienation and (d) Creating an unfair preference. The debtor transferred ownership of her vehicle to settle a debt, shortly before applying for bankruptcy therefore creating an unfair preference towards her other creditors. The BRU remains in force until 29 September 2012.

 

• On 23 September 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of 4 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(h) Incurring, before commencement of the sequestration, a debt which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay. The debtor obtained a card from a Fuelcard Company in November 2008 and incurred credit of £15,500 in the period of 3 weeks. The BRU remains in force until 23 September 2014.

 

• On 16 August 2010 a BRU was accepted from a Debtor in Glasgow for a period of 3 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(i) - failing to account satisfactorily to the Accountant in Bankruptcy. The Debtor received £20,873 following the sale of his house, which he stated he gave to friends and family but failed to provide sufficient evidence to his trustee. BRU remains in force until 16 August 2013.

 

• On 9 August 2010 a BRU was accepted from a Debtor in Dumfries for a period of 3 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(h) - Incurring debt which the debtor had no expectation of being able to pay and (j) carrying on gambling. 6 months prior to bankruptcy the debtor incurred debt of £1,451.95 and our investigation indicated that she had no free income from her earnings and had no reasonable expectation of being able to repay. In an effort to obtain funds to repay these debts the debtor began gambling online which materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy. BRU remains in force until 5 October 2013.

 

• On 29 July 2010 a BRU was accepted from a Debtor in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire for a period of 3 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(2)(j) - unreasonable extravagance which may have materially contributed to the extent of her debt. In the 6 months prior to bankruptcy the debtor received an inheritance of £20,000 which she spent rather than settle her debts. BRU remains in force until 29 July 2013.

 

• On 22 July 2010 a BRU was accepted from a Debtor in Glasgow for a period of 3 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(h)- Incurring a debt which the debtor had no expectation of being able to pay. During the months before his bankruptcy, the debtor had used his credit card facilities to withdraw cash and then when the limit was reached purchased goods up to the maximum credit allowed. The BRU remains in force until 20 July 2013.

 

• On 15 July 2010 a BRU was accepted from a Debtor in Glasgow for a period of 5 years. The misconduct was in terms of Section 56(B)(j). It related to the debtor carrying on gambling at various betting shops and roulette machines which materially contributed to or increased the extent of the bankruptcy. The BRU remains in force until 15 July 2015.

 

• On the 29 June 2010 the Sheriff, after a Hearing at Dundee Sheriff Court, granted an application by AiB for a Bankruptcy Restrictions Order (BRO) in respect of the debtor Iain Leitch, 18F Fairbairn Street, Dundee DD3 7JJ for a period of 4 years. The misconduct related to the debtor having systematically visited a number of mobile phone shops and taken out 5 contracts with different companies within 4 days but having no intention of making any payments towards them, resulting in an increased debt in excess of £4000. In terms of the Sheriff's interlocutor, the BRO will remain in force until 25 May 2014.

 

• On the 02 July 2010 a Bankruptcy Restriction Undertaking (BRU) was accepted from a debtor in Inverness for a period of 2 years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56(B)(l) - fraud (concealing car asset). The debtor failed to disclose in his application that he was the registered keeper of a motor vehicle, paid insurance for and still operated the car one year after he had indicated that the vehicle had been sold.

 

• On the 28 June 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of 2 years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56(B)(2)(d). It related to an unfair preference in that the debtor received a lump sum compensation payment, initially failed to advise her trustee of this fact and then chose to pay her partners credit card bill with the money, rather than make it available to her own creditors.

 

• On the 30 March 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Rothesay for a period of six years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(l) and (m). It related to fraudulent breach of trust in that the debtor used funds obtained from an insurance claim payout for a purpose other than what it was intended for and failed to co-operate with the trustee by not declaring an operational bank account and a car.

 

• On the 30 March 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Rothesay for a period of five years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(l) and (m). It related to fraudulent breach of trust in that the debtor used funds obtained from an insurance claim payout for a purpose other than what it was intended for and failed to co-operate with the trustee by not declaring an operational bank account.

 

• On the 12 March 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Aberdeen for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(2)(h). It related to incurring a debt, before the date of sequestration, which the debtor had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay, in that she obtained a loan from a Credit Union one day prior to making her application.

 

• On the 02 March 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Livingston for a period of four and a half years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(2)(k). It related to unreasonable extravagance and gambling in that the debtor took two foreign holidays and lost in excess of £6000 gambling shortly before making his application.

 

• On the 16 February 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Falkirk for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(2)(d). It related to creating an unfair preference in that the debtor sold her car for in excess of £2000 and gave the proceeds to her father.

 

• On 09 February 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Edinburgh for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(2)(d). It related to creating an unfair preference in that he chose to pay all the bills relating to his wedding from a redundancy payment which he received, having failed to notify his trustee of this payment.

 

• On 03 February 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Giffnock, Glasgow for a period of three and a half years. The misconduct was in terms of section 56B(2)(k), (d) and (j). It related to extravagance in that she took a holiday shortly before making he bankruptcy application; created an unfair preference by giving money to her family and failed to account for the sale of a car and the holiday which she had taken.

 

• On 26 January 2010 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Ayr for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B(2)(h). It related to a bank overdraft taken out by the debtor shortly before making her bankruptcy application and which she had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay, given her financial circumstances.

 

• On 11 January 2010 the Sheriff at Falkirk Sheriff Court granted an application for a BRO for a period of eight years in respect of the debtor Zahid Ali, 70 Wallace Brae Drive, Falkirk FK2 0FB, t/a Centre News Ltd, 4 Vicar Street, Falkirk FK1 1JL. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56(B)(2)(a), (b), (l) and (m) in that the debtor initially failed to co-operate with his trustee by deliberately swapping identities with his brother, failed to produce business records and accounts when requested to do so by his trustee and fraudulently concealed assets from his trustee by failing to declare business premises which he operated.

 

• On 13 November 2009 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Livingston, West Lothian for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B(2)(j). It related to an extravagance in respect that the debtor took a holiday to Crete costing £1,645.34 shortly before making her bankruptcy application, knowing that she already had £42,853.63 of debt.

 

• On 20 August 2009 BRU was accepted from a debtor in Dunblane, Perthshire for a period of two years. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B(2)(c) of the Act. It related to a gratuitous alienation in respect of the transfer of a motor vehicle valued between £3,000 - £3,500 for inadequate payment or other consideration.

 

• On 17 August 2009 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Thurso, Caithness for a period of three years. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B (2)(d) of the Act. It related to an unfair preference shown towards two creditors for the sum of £26,000.

 

• On 11 March 2009 BRUs were accepted from a married couple in Baillieston, Glasgow, for periods of four years each. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B(2)(l) and section 56B(m) of the Act. It related to the concealment of a property asset by failing to disclose it in their bankruptcy applications. The property had equity in excess of £50,000.

 

• On 19 January 2009 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Falkirk for a period of 30 months. The misconduct was in terms of the grounds stated in section 56B(2)(j) of the Act. It related to online gambling that materially contributed to or increased the extent of the debts.

 

• On 06 January 2009 a BRU was accepted from a debtor in Hurlford, Ayrshire for a period of three years. The misconduct in terms of the grounds stated in sections 56B(2)(c), (l) and (m) of the Act. It related to a gratuitous alienation for the sum of £5000, concealment of a bank account and failure to disclose assets.