Defendant
Oguz DEMIRIL
Date of birth 1993-01-01
Address 85 Great Portland Street, First Floor, London, W1W 7LT
Postcode W1W 7LT
Case summary
Reference 2500559027
Platform libra
Source
Magistrates
Court City of London Magistrates' Court
First listed 2025-09-17
Latest listing 2025-09-17
Force matching
Prosecuting force City of London Police
Defendant area Metropolitan Police
Out of area — forces differ
URN track Libra Case Number (year 25, serial 00559027) - no force code embedded (0.00)
Text track court 'City of London Magistrates' Court' is in the City of London Police area (0.45)
Postcode track postcode W1W 7LT -> Metropolitan Police (0.95)
Offence
Between 22/06/2024 and 25/04/2025 at within CCC were an officer, namely Director of a company to which Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 applied, namely VAY Group Limited and who was in default in that the company failed to keep a register of people with significant control over the company with required particulars of any individual with significant control over the company who was 'registrable'
Timeline (1 event)
2025-09-17
list
City of London Magistrates' Court
Between 22/06/2024 and 25/04/2025 at within CCC were an officer, namely Director of a company to which Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 applied, namely VAY Group Limited and who was in default in that the company failed to keep a register of people with significant control over the company with required particulars of any individual with significant control over the company who was 'registrable' in relation to the company, being entered in the register before the end of the period of 14 days b
Between 18/10/2024 and 25/04/2025 at within CCC, were an officer, namely director of a company, namely VAY Group Limited and who was in default in that the company refused an inspection without charge of its PSC register. Contrary to sections 790Q(1) and 790Q(2) of the Companies Act 2006. Between 18/10/2024 and 25/04/2025 at within CCC the defendant, was an officer, namely director of a company, namely VAY Group Limited and who was in default in that the company refused an inspection without cha