Marc Dillon

Introduction

Marc Dillon, a 62-year-old company director from Benson, Oxfordshire, was one of the first people in Britain convicted under the identity-verification rules introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 — not for failing to verify his own identity, but for failing to stop someone else from acting while unverified. Dillon had completed his own identity verification with Companies House. His offence was failing to take reasonable steps to prevent his fellow director, Jill White, from continuing to act as a director of White (Reading Properties) Limited while she remained unverified, despite being aware of the legal requirement. He was convicted at City of London Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday 16 September 2026, in the first court action of its kind brought by the Insolvency Service.

Background Information

Identity verification is a central part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which strengthened Companies House powers to improve the accuracy of the company register and tackle the misuse of UK companies for criminal purposes. Newly appointed directors have been required to verify their identity before acting as a director from 18 November 2025. Existing directors were required to verify during a 12-month transition period, when filing the company’s next confirmation statement.

Dillon and White were both directors of White (Reading Properties) Limited. The Insolvency Service stated that multiple opportunities were provided for the directors to comply with the requirements before enforcement action was taken — and that “there is no option to opt out”. A third director, Modinat Banjo of J Isogony Apparel Limited, was fined in the same first round of prosecutions, which covered both failing to verify and failing to prevent an unverified person from acting.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Convicted. The court found that Dillon, despite having verified his own identity and being aware of the legal requirement, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent White from continuing to act as a director while unverified. He was also convicted after the company failed to file a confirmation statement on time.

White acted as a company director without ever completing the mandatory verification process: according to the Insolvency Service, she participated in board-level decision making and signed company accounts while remaining unverified, completing verification only in early September 2026 — around nine months after the deadline for existing directors had passed, and shortly before appearing in court. Dillon, who had verified his own identity, was prosecuted on the second theory the new law creates: that a director who knows the rules must actively prevent an unverified person from continuing to act.

Both men were also convicted after their company failed to file a confirmation statement on time. The matters were dealt with together at City of London Magistrates’ Court on 16 September 2026.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Daniel Hart, Senior Criminal Lawyer at the Insolvency Service, said: “Identity verification is a legal requirement for company directors and forms a key part of efforts to improve the accuracy of the Companies House register and tackle economic crime.” He added: “These prosecutions demonstrate that directors have responsibilities not only for their own compliance but also for ensuring unverified individuals do not continue acting as directors on behalf of a company,” and warned that “directors who continue to act without verifying risk investigation and prosecution”.

Martin Swain, Director of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Engagement at Companies House, said the prosecutions mark “an important milestone in strengthening the integrity of the UK’s company register”, describing identity verification as “a cornerstone of the reforms” under the 2023 Act and saying “these cases send a clear message that identity verification is not optional”.

Dillon was fined £307, with costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £123. White, convicted alongside him, was fined £166 with £85 costs and a £66 surcharge; Banjo was fined £80 with £85 costs and a £32 surcharge.

Current Status

Dillon’s conviction stands, with the fine, costs and surcharge imposed at City of London Magistrates’ Court on 16 September 2026. He remains subject to the identity-verification regime that all company directors now fall under, and the case stands as the first of its kind: a prosecution not of an unverified director but of a verified one who let the unverified continue. Companies House has directed that directors who have not yet verified should do so online, free of charge, or via an Authorised Corporate Service Provider.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The conviction establishes a personal legal duty that runs alongside — not instead of — a director’s own compliance: ensuring that no one else acts for the company while unverified. For Dillon, the price of standing by was a criminal conviction, a fine with costs and surcharge, and a place in the first round of prosecutions that Companies House and the Insolvency Service published deliberately as a warning to the wider director community.

Sources

• Insolvency Service, “Directors warned to verify identities with Companies House following first Insolvency Service prosecutions” — source