Two IT companies wound up by courts for generating unsolicited pop-ups that misled people into thinking there was a fault with their computer.
Msinfosys Support Ltd and MS Global Support Ltd were wound up in the public interest in the High Court on 9 March before Judge Barton. The Official Receiver has been appointed liquidator of the companies.
The court heard that the two IT companies generated unsolicited pop-up error messages and when people phoned-up to check what was wrong, some were led to believe there was a fault with their computers.
The victims were led to believe they were dealing with well-known software companies and some paid money to fix their computers. But neither Msinfosys Support or MS Global Support were authorised to act on behalf of the larger software companies.
The Insolvency Service started confidential investigations into Msinfosys Support and MS Global Support after complaints were received from customers.
Investigators found that the director, Vikram Singh, had no real control of either company and work was outsourced to a company in India called Underpin Services Private Limited.
Vikram Singh admitted both companies were Underpin’s businesses and allowed Underpin to trade in the UK, the High Court was told.
The records of the companies were kept and maintained by Underpin in India and were not available for inspection in the UK, a breach of the Companies Act 2006.
Judge Burton commented on Vikram Singh’s response, his lack of knowledge and the lack of relevant records showed the companies’ accounts ‘ran in a chaotic manner’.
Msinfosys Support Ltd and MS Global Support Ltd did not defend the petitions at the hearing and Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Burton stated consumers had been ‘misled’ by the companies and that it was appropriate the companies were wound up to protect the public.
Edna Okhiria, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:
Msinfosys Support Ltd and MS Global Support Ltd deliberately used false pretences to deceive consumers, with many paying the companies on the belief they were dealing with well-known software companies or their authorised representatives.
In reality, both companies were controlled by an overseas company with the director recognising he had no knowledge of what the company informed consumers.
The court recognised the severity of this misconduct and both have been removed from the business environment to protect the public from further harm.