Key Points
- Cardiff businesswoman Rupali Wagh has been jailed for two years and three months after admitting five counts of fraud over Covid Bounce Back Loans.
- Wagh, 50, fraudulently secured £216,250 for four companies between May and September 2020 by inflating turnover figures and, in one case, taking duplicate loans for the same business.
- She used parts of the money to pay personal debts and buy stocks and shares, according to the Insolvency Service.
- Wagh pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court in November 2025 and was sentenced at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court on Friday 17 July.
- The Insolvency Service is seeking to recover the money under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Cardiff (Cardiff Daily) July 18, 2026 – Cardiff businesswoman Rupali Wagh has been jailed after a court heard she fraudulently secured five Covid Bounce Back Loans worth £216,250 across four companies during the pandemic.
As reported by the Insolvency Service and heard at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court, the 50-year-old used false turnover figures, applied twice for one company, and spent loan money on personal debts and investments rather than the businesses the scheme was designed to support.
The court was told that Wagh’s offending took place between May and September 2020, at a time when government-backed lending was being rapidly issued to help firms survive the economic shock caused by coronavirus restrictions.
Wagh was jailed for two years and three months on Friday 17 July after previously pleading guilty to five counts of fraud at Cardiff Crown Court in November 2025.
How did the fraud scheme work?
According to the Insolvency Service, Wagh’s first fraudulent application came in early May 2020, when she sought a £16,250 Bounce Back Loan for One2Four Accounting Ltd, a bookkeeping services company she had set up in June 2018.
She declared a turnover of £65,000, but records showed the business had actually turned over just £39,000 in the previous calendar year.
Within weeks of receiving the money, Wagh transferred it into her personal bank account and spent most of it on debts and stocks and shares, the investigation found.
In June 2020, she applied for a £50,000 loan for Talensetu UK Ltd, claiming the company had a turnover of £218,000 even though dormant accounts showed it was not trading at the time.
Days after receiving that loan, she moved the full amount into her personal account and used it for personal finance and investments, while also transferring more than £25,000 to an account in India.
What were the five loan applications?
Wagh’s second Talensetu UK Ltd application in July 2020 was also for £50,000, this time from a different bank, despite already having secured one loan for the same business.
She claimed a turnover of £225,000 on that application, while estimating the company’s turnover for the next year as just £72,000 on a form completed the same day.
She falsely stated that it was the company’s only Bounce Back Loan application, even though she had already obtained funding for it.
In August 2020, Wagh applied for a fourth fraudulent loan, this time £50,000 for White Coconut Ltd, which traded as an Indian street food outlet in Cardiff.
The Insolvency Service said she claimed a turnover of £252,000, contradicting the £72,000 estimate she had given in another application, and falsely declared that it was the company’s only Bounce Back Loan application even though she had already secured £18,000 for the same business three months earlier.
Her fifth and final fraudulent application came in late September 2020, when she applied for £50,000 for Indian Canteen Ltd, a street food business incorporated only in January that year.
She claimed a turnover of £206,000, despite estimating on another form that the company’s turnover for the next year would be only £82,000, and later transferred more than £25,000 of the loan funds to White Coconut Ltd.
What did the court hear?
David Snasdell, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said Wagh
“systematically targeted a scheme designed to help genuine businesses survive the pandemic”.
He added that she lied about her turnover, obtained duplicate loans for the same businesses, and used the money to pay personal debts and buy stocks and shares.
The investigation also found that when confronted with the evidence, Wagh initially tried to blame someone else before later admitting that she had acted alone.
She also admitted using the funds to pay off personal credit card debts and loans, telling investigators that she believed clearing those debts would be helping her businesses.
What happens next?
The Insolvency Service is now seeking to recover the fraudulently obtained funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
That process can run separately from the criminal sentence and is intended to strip offenders of the benefit of fraud.
The case also adds to wider scrutiny of Bounce Back Loan abuse, which has remained a major enforcement issue for investigators since the pandemic lending schemes were introduced.
Explore More Cardiff Crime News
Rioters Sentenced After Chaos at Cardiff Crown Court: Ely 2023
Cardiff Shop Owner Fined For Selling Vapes To Children Canton 2026
Background to the case
The Bounce Back Loan scheme was introduced during the Covid-19 crisis to give fast access to credit for small businesses affected by the pandemic.
News writing guidance emphasises that the most important facts should come first, with later paragraphs providing background, quotes and lower-priority detail.
In this case, the background is important because the scheme relied heavily on applicants’ honesty, which made inflated turnover claims and duplicate applications particularly serious.
The Insolvency Service has continued to investigate suspected misuse of pandemic support money, including cases where funds were diverted for personal spending rather than business survival.
Prediction for businesses and taxpayers
For genuine small businesses, cases like this may increase pressure on lenders and investigators to apply stricter checks to emergency funding in future support schemes.
For taxpayers, recoveries under the Proceeds of Crime Act may help reduce the net loss caused by fraudulent lending, although such cases can take time to resolve.
For business owners, the case is a reminder that misleading turnover figures, duplicate applications and personal spending of business support funds can lead to prison sentences and confiscation action.
For readers following Covid fraud enforcement, the likely impact is continued prosecution of older pandemic-era cases as investigators work through remaining evidence and recovery actions.
