Bread Factory: Request to lift freeze on franchisees’ bank accounts

A request to lift a freeze on the bank accounts of companies operating nine Bread Factory stores is central to Switz Group’s intervention in the case. According to a report published by Greek business newspaper Oikonomikos Tachydromos on 30 October 2026, the accounts were frozen by Greece’s Anti-Money Laundering Authority as part of a wider investigation. The businesses concerned are asking for the stores’ current operations to be considered separately from the network’s past.

The request and the pending process

According to Oikonomikos Tachydromos, the request was submitted on the Tuesday before the report was published. At the time of publication, the businesses concerned were awaiting the outcome and expressed optimism that the freezes would be lifted. No decision to release the accounts was reported.

This distinction is important: submitting a request is an action taken by the parties concerned, not a completed administrative or judicial outcome. Likewise, their optimism does not prejudge the competent authority’s decision. The report therefore describes a process that remains unresolved, with the operation of the nine outlets at stake.

Group sources cited in the report say the request concerns franchisees employing 1,000 people. This figure is attributed to the group and reflects the weight it places on employment as part of its case.

Separating trademark ownership from store operations

The case follows a change in how the stores are managed. According to Oikonomikos Tachydromos, Switz head Taizoon Fakhruddin Khorakiwala acquired the Bread Factory trademarks through companies in which he holds interests.

The report describes two elements of the deal: the purchase of the trademarks and the leasing of stores by franchisees of Koulourades, another Greek chain. According to its information, nine of the ten stores came under the new business structure’s management through lease agreements.

Related reports in Greek newspapers To Vima and Ta Nea, also published on 30 October, identify the nine locations as Moschato, Aspropyrgos, Marousi, Peristeri, Cholargos, Larissa, Piraeus, Michalakopoulou and Syngrou. They describe the stores as being operated by independent business owners under franchise agreements, with separate financial management.

The acquisition of a trademark and responsibility for a store’s day-to-day operations therefore appear as distinct elements of this particular deal. This structure underpins the request for the current business activity to be assessed in its own right.

The businesses’ position

Switz Group argues that current operations should be examined separately from the past. According to group sources cited by Oikonomikos Tachydromos, the new company is meeting its payment obligations, paying taxes and maintaining jobs.

The other reports state that the new business owners were not involved in the previous management and have no links to the chain’s former corporate structures or outstanding financial matters. These are statements and information presented in press reports, not a published finding by the competent authority on the request to release the accounts.

Regarding payments to the state, Ta Nea cites the new franchisees as saying they paid more than €1 million in taxes and social security contributions over four months. To Vima also reports that monthly payments now exceed €300,000. These amounts are presented as evidence of current operations and do not, on their own, resolve the issues raised by the wider investigation.

What this means for the franchise community

For Greece’s franchise community, the case is significant because it brings together independent business operations, a shared trademark and an unresolved account-freezing process. Switz Group’s position rests on separating current activity from the previous corporate structures. Whether the request would be granted, however, remained an open question when the report was published.

The next substantive development will be the decision on the request and its precise terms. Until then, the continued business activity described in the reports should not be confused with the conclusion of the process before the authority.

Practical takeaway: For prospective or existing franchisees, the case highlights the value of checking the company they are contracting with, the lease arrangements and any outstanding matters that could affect a store’s operations, rather than relying on brand recognition alone.