A STOOGE director has been banned for 12 years after she illegally transferred £2.5 million worth of property assets to her father-in-law.

Pauline Muldowney, more commonly known as Pauline Gopee, was disqualified for 12 years on December 7 last year at the High Court of Justice.

Pauline Muldowney was the sole formally appointed director of Pangold Investments Ltd in 2016 and just more than a year later in April 2017, a winding-up order was made against Pangold Investments.

Yet just four days before the company was going to be shut down by the courts, Ms Muldowney caused Pangold Investments to transfer property assets, worth an estimated £2.5 million, to her father-in-law Dharam Prakash Gopee for just £1.

However, not only was Dharam Gopee a disqualified director, the transfer also breached a restraint order from 2015 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Following the winding-up of the company, the Official Receiver interviewed Pauline Muldowney who explained that properties owned by Pangold Investments were transferred to Dharam Gopee so that he could deal with them. Ms Muldowney also admitted that she did not do a lot as a director and the only function she carried out was to transfer the company’s property to her father-in-law.

By transferring the properties, Ms Muldowney facilitated her father-in-law to collect rent and deal with properties in which the company had an interest but this was a direct breach of the restraining order.

By order of the courts, Ms Muldowney is now banned from becoming involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company for 12 years.

Dharam Gopee has since been jailed for 15 months having admitted in 2017 that he had breached the restraint order. He was also held in contempt of court.

Peter Joicey, Deputy Official Receiver for the Official Receiver, said: “Despite being aware of the restraint order, Pauline Muldowney allowed herself to act as a stooge for her father-in-law when she transferred £2.5 million of the company’s property for a measly pound.

“Twelve years is a substantial ban and this should act as a warning to those who allow themselves to be put forward as directors in order to mask the devious activities of those who are actually controlling limited companies from proper scrutiny.”