During the Covid-19 outbreak, a father and son were sentenced to more than two years in prison for distributing “useless” hand sanitizer. “Effective against coronavirus” was the claim made by William Irving, 69, and Alexander Irving, 35, regarding their product. Although the two sold nearly 25,000 bottles, consumers complained to Trading Standards.
In January 2023, they entered a guilty plea to charges of dishonest dealing, and on Monday, Bristol Crown Court handed down their sentence. Operating out of a facility at Woodlands Farm in Berkeley, the Irving family—both of whom resided at Woodend Lane, Hill, South Gloucestershire—managed Aquatic Chemicals Limited (ACL) and started manufacturing and marketing hand sanitizer in March 2020.
Due to the product’s unmatched demand, the company made at least £95,000 in just two weeks, selling for as much as £10 per 100ml. According to South Gloucestershire Council, the two stated that the medication was “effective against coronavirus,” could “kill 99% of germs,” and contained 70% alcohol. They also mentioned that the World Health Organization had conducted laboratory testing on the product.
However, Trading Standards was immediately inundated with complaints from consumers who expressed doubts about the sanitizer’s authenticity and its lack of an alcohol odor. The council stated that after the couple failed to assist, its Trading Standards staff decided to open a criminal inquiry.
More than 1,300 bottles were taken out of circulation after customers—including a housing organization and a charity—were approached about bringing the product. Product samples were tested, and the results showed that most bottles had just 1% alcohol—much less than the 60% needed to meet efficacy standards.
‘useless’ product when used as a disinfectant After conducting additional analysis on the samples, Professor Primrose Freestone, an associate professor of clinical microbiology at the University of Leicester, declared that the product was “useless” as a hand sanitizer.
Irving William William tried persuading Trading Standards that the sanitizer was made by an anonymous person who had hired a unit from him at his location and left it there, so he just chose to sell it. The Irvings were charged with fraudulent trading offenses under the Companies Act by South Gloucestershire Council. In January 2023, they both entered guilty pleas at Bristol Crown Court, but later requested to withdraw their admissions, stating they were coerced into doing so.
Judge Michael Cullum blasted the Irvings on Monday, finding them guilty of “preying on public fears” despite their obvious knowledge that the product was not what they represented it was. The Irvings were sentenced to two years and two months apiece. The Irvings “blatantly profiteered from a ‘useless’ product,” according to Shaun Fudge, South Gloucestershire Council’s service manager for trading standards. On July 1, 2024, the two will be subject to another hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act.