Defendant
Gigi MARGA
Date of birth 1981-02-20
Address 38 Milton Road, Southampton, SO15 2HR
Postcode SO15 2HR
Case summary
Reference 2500558594
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 Hampshire Police
Out of area — forces differ
URN track Libra Case Number (year 25, serial 00558594) - 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 SO15 2HR -> Hampshire Police (0.95)
Offence
Between 06/04/2024 and 04/04/2025 at within CCC were an officer, namely Director of a company to which Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 applied, namely Rayra 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
Timeline (1 event)
2025-09-17
list
City of London Magistrates' Court
Between 06/04/2024 and 04/04/2025 at within CCC were an officer, namely Director of a company to which Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 applied, namely Rayra 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 begin
Between 14/08/2024 and 14/04/2025 at within CCC, were an officer, namely Director of a company, namely Rayra 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 14/08/2024 and 14/04/2025 at within CCC the defendant, was an officer, namely Director of a company, namely Rayra Limited and who was in default in that the company refused an inspection without charge of i