AOG Technics Jailed After Selling 60,000 Fake Airline Engine Parts to Airbus and Boeing Aircraft

A London-based aviation parts supplier, AOG Technics, has become the centre of a major aviation fraud scandal after selling more than 60,000 counterfeit aircraft engine components with falsified documentation to airlines and aircraft manufacturers, including those operating Airbus and Boeing aircraft, as per the reports of Simple Flying. Jose Alejandro Zamora Yrala, 38, who was the former director, had pleaded guilty to fraudulent trading charges. He was sentenced in London on 23 February 2026 to four years and eight months in prison. The scheme that ran between 2019 and 2023 alleges the defrauding of CFM56 engine components. This was common to both Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 families, which raised international safety concerns, leading to temporary aircraft bans and regulatory investigations in a wide range of jurisdictions.

Scopes of the Fraud and Technical Supply Chain Impact

FlightGlobal coverage of the court hearings stated that Zamora’s company generated approximately £6.9 million ($9.3 million) in illicit revenues. This was by selling engine components like bolts, seals, washers, and fan blades with a forged airworthiness certificate and counterfeit papers claiming to have been produced by actual manufacturers. Over the four years, about 90 percent of AOG Technics income were based on fraud in traded parts, with over 60,000 parts under suspicion making their way into the world aviation supply chain. The scheme was exposed in 2023 when one of the engineers providing maintenance services to TAP Air Portugal found out that a bolt they received could not fit in a CFM56 engine. He requested the actual manufacturer, Safran, to validate the certificate, which proved that it was a forgery. Subsequent safety alerts by aviation regulators in the UK, US, and EU, including the Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), led to temporary groundings as operators audited the suspect engines. As per the reports of Simple Flying, the counterfeit parts were discovered in serviceable aircraft that were being utilised by carriers. This included airlines such as American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Ryanair, and Ethiopian Airlines, amongst others, leading to quarantined engines, unscheduled maintenance, and major disruptions. Airlines measured industry losses at around £39 million ($53 million) from recovery operations, aircraft downtime, and replacement parts, with American alone reporting an estimated £23 million ($31 million) in costs.

Fraud Overview

Response and Safety Protocol Reinforcement (Regulatory)

The discovery of widespread counterfeit engine components has prompted aviation authorities and OEMs to tighten supply chain verification processes. The investigation was led by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which found that Zamora had not only forged certificates, but also was generating counterfeit employees and fake employee identities with the aid of graphic design software to steal money from unsuspecting buyers. Other regulators, such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the UK CAA, have also responded by advising operators, maintenance organisations, and suppliers to improve traceability, check unapproved parts and report suspicious components, and embark on more rigorous part broker audits, including documentation practices. As per the reports of Asia Aviation, airlines and MRO service providers are moving towards the use of electronic parts-tracking systems. They are undertaking more rigorous checking of the provenance of components and an audit of suppliers to reduce the chances of unapproved or counterfeit parts finding their way into service.

Aerospace Supply Chain: OEM Responsibility and Supervision

After the case of AOG Technics, Boeing and Airbus made clear that they had no direct sourcing of production supply chains via the broker, and that they demanded high levels of traceability again. The two manufacturers liaised with the regulators and engine OEMs to assist the airlines in the process of identifying and quarantining suspected components. Airbus advised the operators to check the complete back-to-birth documentation as per the EASA compliance schemes, whereas Boeing tightened the appropriate FAA-approved certification requirements. The case has done more to drive towards digitised parts tracking and closer audits by brokers. The case of OEMs is different in that they are currently keen on reinforcing monitoring of the global aftermarket spares ecosystem.