Did somebody say money laundering?
Forensic Analysis in Mannol UK
Critical Evidence for HMRC Investigation
People don’t just buy products, they buy into brands.
They choose the ones they trust, the ones whose story and values align with their own.
​​
So, let’s talk about SCT, the company behind Mannol, Fanfaro, Pemco, and Chempioil, and see what this brand is really about.
​
This is a company suspected of fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, of CEO's stealing millions from the company and to spice it up a little bit, even the odd Russian advisor thrown in for good measure.
​
From the outside, the company appears to be a well-established, reliable brand, investing heavily in innovation and the latest technologies. But beneath the surface lies a far more complex picture: a deep, dark web of connections, deceit, contradictions and unanswered questions.
​​​
This website offers a small glimpse into the findings and evidence uncovered and the impact they’ve had on the UK lubricants industry.
​
We encourage readers to consider all of the information presented here, including the forensic analysis of Mannol UK’s accounts below, before forming their own conclusions about SCT and its family of brands.
Lubriage Ltd presents overwhelming evidence of fraudulent financial reporting and potential tax evasion. The auditor’s disclaimer in the 2023 accounts combined with their subsequent resignation statement provides explicit documentation of management obstruction, missing records, and unverifiable financial figures. This is among the most serious audit situations possible and demands immediate HMRC investigation.
​
Key Evidence Summary:
​
-
Auditor issued disclaimer of opinion citing inability to verify core financial figures
-
Auditor resigned citing management obstruction and refusal to provide evidence
-
Multiple critical accounting failures documented by professional auditors
-
2024 accounts now overdue (due 31 December 2025, only 2 months remaining)
-
Director changes during crisis period (July 2025)​
PART 1: AUDITOR’S DISCLAIMER IN 2023 ACCOUNTS
1. Unallocated Credit Notes
What this means: Credit notes issued but not properly matched to invoices or customers - Could indicate fictitious sales being reversed to hide fraud - May represent undisclosed refunds or returns affecting taxable revenue - Suggests poor controls or deliberate manipulation of revenue figures
​
Tax Implications: Revenue may be overstated in tax returns - VAT may have been incorrectly claimed - Profit figures unreliable for corporation tax
2. Limitation on Observing Physical Inventory Count
What this means: Auditor was prevented from verifying stock actually exists - Inventory valuation cannot be confirmed - Classic red flag for asset inflation fraud
Tax Implications: Cost of goods sold may be understated (inflating profits artificially for other purposes while hiding true profitability from HMRC) - Inventory values may be fictitious - Could indicate stock diversion or theft being concealed
3. Inability to Verify Receivable Balances
What this means: Could not confirm customers actually owe the money claimed - Receivables may be fictitious (fake sales) - May include related party transactions being hidden - Suggests inadequate or deliberately withheld customer records
Tax Implications: Revenue recognition may be fraudulent - Sales figures used for tax returns cannot be verified - Bad debt provisions may be manipulated
4. Absence of Key Bank Statements
What this means: MOST SERIOUS - Management refused or failed to provide bank records - Suggests hidden transactions, undisclosed accounts, or money laundering - Makes verification of any financial figure impossible - Indicates deliberate concealment
​
Tax Implications: Cash receipts cannot be verified (potential undeclared income) - Payments cannot be verified (potential false expense claims) - Entire financial position is unverifiable - Strong indicator of tax evasion
PART 2:
AUDITOR’S RESIGNATION STATEMENT
“During the course of our most recent audit for the year ending 31 December 2023 we encountered significant difficulties in obtaining sufficient and appropriate audit evidence and experienced challenges in securing clear and timely explanations from management on key audit matters. As no meaningful corrective actions were taken by management to address these issues we concluded it would be inappropriate for us to continue as statutory auditors.”
SHAH & CO Chartered Certified Accountants & Registered Auditors
“Significant difficulties obtaining audit evidence”
Management actively obstructed the audit - Records were withheld, incomplete, or non-existent - Auditor could not perform basic verification procedures
“Challenges securing explanations from management”
Management was evasive or uncooperative - Responses were inadequate or contradictory - Suggests deliberate concealment of information
“No meaningful corrective actions taken”
Management was informed of serious issues - Management refused to remedy the problems - Indicates intentional non-compliance, not mere incompetence
“Inappropriate to continue”
Auditor had ethical obligation to resign - Could not sign off on accounts they couldn’t verify - Professional standards require resignation when fraud is suspected and management uncooperative
PART 3:
COMBINED IMPACT - WHY THIS IS FRAUD
The Pattern of Evidence:
​
1. Disclaimer of Opinion (2023): Auditor publicly states accounts cannot be verified
​​
2. Management Obstruction: Auditor documents management’s refusal to cooperate
​​
3. Resignation: Auditor walks away citing ethical concerns
​​
4. Director Changes (July 2025): New director appointed as crisis unfolds
​​
5. 2024 Accounts Pending: Still not filed with only 2 months until deadline
This Pattern Indicates:
Deliberate Financial Fraud:
Not accounting errors or incompetence - Systematic obstruction of verification - Multiple areas of unverifiable figures - Management refusal to remedy issues
Likely Tax Evasion:
If figures cannot be verified by professional auditors, tax returns are unreliable - Missing bank statements suggest hidden income - Unverifiable receivables suggest fictitious revenue - Unallocated credit notes suggest revenue manipulation
Potential Money Laundering:
Absence of bank statements is extreme red flag - Suggests transactions being deliberately concealed - May indicate proceeds of crime being processed
PART 4: SPECIFIC RED FLAGS FOR HMRC
1. Revenue Recognition Fraud
Evidence: - Unallocated credit notes (revenue reversals not properly recorded) - Inability to verify receivables (sales may be fictitious)
​
HMRC Concern: - Corporation tax based on false profit figures - VAT claimed on non-existent or reversed sales
​​
2. Asset Inflation
Evidence: - Could not observe physical inventory count - Stock valuation unverifiable
HMRC Concern: - Balance sheet manipulation - Potential loan fraud (inflated assets for lending) - Cost of goods sold manipulation affecting taxable profit
3. Hidden Transactions
Evidence: - Absence of key bank statements (most serious) - Management refused to provide banking records
HMRC Concern: - Undeclared cash receipts (hidden income) - False expense claims (payments cannot be verified) - Potential offshore accounts or money laundering - Complete inability to verify tax return figures
4. Management Obstruction
Evidence: - Auditor explicitly states management refused to cooperate - No corrective action despite being informed of issues - Auditor forced to resign
​
HMRC Concern: - Indicates intentional fraud, not negligence - Suggests awareness of wrongdoing - Director liability for fraudulent trading
PART 5:
PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT
2020-2022: - Multiple amended accounts filed - Pattern suggests either systematic errors or deliberate manipulation - Amendments may have corrected tax-relevant figures
​
2023: - Accounts filed with auditor disclaimer - Four major areas of unverifiable figures documented - Public acknowledgment that accounts cannot be relied upon
2024: - Auditor resigns citing management obstruction - Explicit statement that management refused to cooperate - Professional confirmation of serious irregularities
July 2025: - Director changes during crisis period - Jevgenij Lyzko terminated 29
July 2025 - Eckhard Korn appointed 28 July 2025 - Timing suggests potential liability avoidance
​
October 2025: - 2024 accounts still not filed (due 31 December 2025) - Only 2 months remaining until deadline - Pattern of non-compliance continuing
Conclusion: This is not isolated incompetence but a sustained pattern of problematic financial reporting, management obstruction, and regulatory non-compliance.
PART 6:
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Auditor’s Professional Obligations:
Under ISA (UK) 705 and 706: - Auditors must issue disclaimer when unable to obtain sufficient evidence - Auditors must resign when management obstructs audit - Resignation statement must explain circumstances
​
Lubriage’s auditor followed proper protocol - their actions confirm serious irregularities.
​
Director’s Legal Obligations:
Under Companies Act 2006: - Directors must maintain adequate accounting records (s.386) - Directors must provide auditors with information (s.499) - Failure is criminal offense (s.501)
​
Lubriage’s directors are in breach - documented by auditor.
HMRC Powers:
​
Under Finance Act and Taxes Management Act:
HMRC can investigate suspected tax evasion - Can demand full records and bank statements - Can assess tax based on best judgment if records inadequate - Can prosecute for fraud
This case meets threshold for criminal investigation.