An Express investigation into businesses behind Britain's high streets has uncovered vape shops in Prime Minister Andy Burnham's constituency linked to individuals accused of acting as "ghost directors" for illegal migrants. One shop in Burnham's village was prosecuted for selling a vape to a child.
Investigation into Accrington's 'dodgiest town'
The investigation began with further digging into Accrington, Lancashire, described as Britain's 'dodgiest town' due to an oversupply of vape and barber shops. During a visit earlier in the year, reporters encountered strange behaviour: shelves were suspiciously empty, and staff seemed surprised to see customers. At 230 Union Road, the owners pulled the shutters down when reporters arrived at 2pm on a weekday.
Official records revealed a series of "burner" companies set up and then dissolved at that address, according to financial crime expert Ray Blake. The address was also listed as the official correspondence address for Bryar Mohammed Zada, named in an undercover BBC investigation last year as someone who could allegedly be appointed as a "ghost director" for £400 a month, acting as a legal shield to absorb fines for illegal migrants.
Links to ghost director network
Another registered director at 230 Union Road, Karwan Jameel Saadoon, had taken over a business from Kardos Mateen in nearby Bolton. Mateen was secretly recorded in the BBC exposé promising to help asylum seekers run vape shops illegally. Both Saadoon and Zada held a staggering number of directorships across the country, so many that Blake believed it was highly improbable they could be carrying out their official duties.
Reporters visited five of the nine active businesses Saadoon was listed as directing. Two were in Burnham's own constituency, including a mini-market in his village where Saadoon was prosecuted for selling a vape to a child. The current owner told reporters over the phone that Saadoon had sold the business. However, Companies House records showed that on the exact day in August that Wigan Council publicly announced Saadoon's fine, the new owner registered a near-identical company at the address in Burnham's village. The same individual also established a second company closely mirroring another business Saadoon operated in Manchester.
Evasion and contradictory explanations
On the ground, the standard tactic was evasion. Staff often claimed not to speak English, denied knowing who their boss was, or insisted management were on holiday. Nearly everyone spoken to claimed to be newly employed, having worked there for just a couple of months.
After the visits, a man claiming to be Saadoon contacted reporters. His explanations were full of contradictions. Initially, he said he had taken a court penalty on someone else's behalf, claiming a 'worker' had actually sold the vape to the child. Yet court records showed Saadoon himself was formally charged and convicted. He firmly denied involvement in any fraudulent enterprise, claiming instead that he was a victim of identity theft. He said HMRC had flagged a phantom bank account opened in his name, and that he'd paid fines for driving penalty points he never committed. He also claimed his business empire was legitimately funded by Home Office compensation, paid out after he was detained during two failed deportation attempts in 2012 and 2018.
When asked about Kardos Mateen, his story shifted. He first called him a "friend," but when asked about Mateen's alleged links to an immigration crime network, he backtracked, claiming he barely knew him, and then insisting he didn't even know his last name. Saadoon then offered to bring this 'Kardos' to meet reporters in Bolton. But when they arrived for the pre-arranged meeting and he saw their cameras, he fled. He later called to admit the entire encounter was a deliberate ruse, and that none of the men he brought was who he'd claimed they were.
Questions over Burnham's high street plans
The investigation shows that a quick look at corporate records often reveals a deeply suspicious paper trail. Burnham's newly announced measures to fix the high street, like scrapping the "Aim to Permit" rule and extending closure orders, rely almost entirely on granting new powers to local councils. That assumes local authorities have the resources and willingness to shut these places down, which, given the financial state of local government, is rarely the case. The people exploiting corporate loopholes and lax law enforcement don't operate on a purely local level, and council officers can't tackle nationwide networks playing shell games on Companies House.
