The £8.5 million flat purchased by financier Tim Horlick in London has been frozen as part of a criminal investigation linked to a controversial personal protective equipment (PPE) deal. Horlick, 64, is the founder of Ayanda Capital, the company awarded a significant government contract to supply PPE during the pandemic. This deal, valued at £255 million, has come under scrutiny due to allegations regarding the quality of the masks supplied.
Located in Pimlico, the grade II listed flat was acquired in November 2020, shortly after Ayanda Capital won the contract. Official documents reveal that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) imposed a criminal restraint order on the property in November 2022. This order prevents any sale of the flat and is a common legal measure used in criminal investigations to ensure that assets potentially linked to illicit activities are preserved.
Such restraint orders are critical during investigations as they stop suspects from disposing of or hiding assets that may be deemed to originate from illegal funds. The objective is to allow prosecutors to pursue compensation and prevent any criminal proceeds from being misused.
The circumstances surrounding Horlick’s PPE deal have raised numerous questions, particularly regarding the quality of the masks supplied to the government. Reports indicate that a substantial number of the masks delivered were faulty, leading to concerns about public safety and the handling of government contracts.
As the investigation progresses, the CPS is expected to examine the financial dealings of Ayanda Capital in greater detail. The implications of this inquiry could extend beyond Horlick, potentially affecting the reputation of various governmental agencies involved in the PPE procurement process.
The legal battle surrounding the flat adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious situation. With the financial stakes high, scrutiny of both Horlick’s business practices and the government’s procurement processes is likely to intensify.
Further developments in this case will be closely monitored, as they may reveal significant insights into the broader issues of accountability in government contracting, especially in times of crisis.
