Unlicensed manager prosecuted for providing false information as part of investigation by the Security Industry Authority
An unlicensed manager has been prosecuted for providing false information  as part of investigation by the Security Industry Authority.
In October 2017, the SIA began an investigation into Irfan Dogan, owner and manager of Cobra Security Services based in Leicester. As the investigation progressed Dogan’s licence expired on 8 January 2018 but he continued to operate as the manager of Cobra Security Services. As a manager of a security company he was required to be licensed under the Private Security Industry Act (2001).
 
When the SIA contacted Dogan he claimed that Cobra Security Services had not been in operation since the start of the year. The SIA invited Dogan to a formal interview in May 2018. He said he was unable to attend as he was abroad. 
 

 

In August 2018, the SIA checked with the UK Border Force who confirmed Dogan had returned to the UK. As a result, in August SIA investigators again invited Dogan to a formal interview. He ignored this and did not attend. 
 

Dogan also failed to respond despite confirming that he had received the formal request, an offence under the Private Security Industry Act (2001). Since May 2018, Dogan had failed to communicate with the SIA and as a consequence, he has been prosecuted.

 

 

Nathan Salmon, the SIA’s criminal investigations manager said: "Working without an SIA licence is unlawful and should not be taken lightly. The SIA licence ensures that everyone working in the industry is ‘fit and proper’ and has been checked by the regulator. It also exists to protect the public and give assurance that security operatives are properly trained and equipped."


He added: "This case also draws attention to the fact that ignoring our requests for information and providing false information is also unlawful. Burying your head in the sand does not mean the case against you will go away."


Dogan will be sentenced at Leicester Crown Court on 3 December 2018 and his case considered under the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)