The London flat purchased for £8.5 million by financier Tim Horlick has been frozen as part of a criminal investigation related to a controversial PPE contract. Horlick, 64, is linked to the supply of 50 million faulty personal protective equipment (PPE) masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. The flat, located in Pimlico, was acquired in November 2020, shortly after his company, Ayanda Capital, secured a significant government contract worth £255 million.
The Crown Prosecution Service’s proceeds of crime unit imposed a criminal restraint order on the property in November 2022. This legal measure prevents any attempts to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the flat while the investigation is ongoing. Such orders are typically enacted to safeguard assets thought to be connected to illicit activities until legal proceedings are completed.
The Times has reported that the order is part of a broader examination into Horlick’s business dealings during the pandemic. Investigators are focused on the financial implications surrounding the supply of faulty PPE, which raised serious concerns about the quality of equipment provided to healthcare services.
Restraint orders serve a critical function in criminal investigations. They help ensure that any potential proceeds from alleged criminal activity are preserved, allowing for appropriate restitution or penalties to be pursued if necessary. The use of these orders reflects the seriousness of the allegations against Horlick and underscores ongoing scrutiny of government contracts awarded during the pandemic.
Horlick’s dealings have come under fire, with critics questioning the decision to award such a large contract to his firm amid reports of substandard products. The fallout from the pandemic continues to reveal significant challenges in the procurement processes employed by governments worldwide, particularly in emergency situations.
As the investigation unfolds, it remains to be seen how these developments will impact Horlick’s business and the broader landscape of government contracting in the UK. The implications of this case highlight the need for transparency and accountability in public procurement practices, especially during times of crisis.
