LONDON, UK – A former reality television contestant and his brother operated online knife businesses that sold weapons later linked to at least 14 murders in the United Kingdom, yet received nearly $460,000 from a government compensation scheme designed to remove dangerous blades from circulation.
Adam Eliaz, who appeared on “Young Apprentice” in 2010 at age 17, and his older brother Eddy ran what authorities describe as a multi-million dollar knife empire through their respective companies DNA Leisure and Sporting Wholesale. Both operations were based in warehouses in Luton, Bedfordshire.
Police investigations have connected weapons sold by the brothers’ businesses to numerous violent crimes, including the murder of 16-year-old Ronan Kanda, who was killed with a 22-inch ninja sword in Wolverhampton in June 2022. The case highlights ongoing concerns about the availability of deadly weapons through online retailers.
The brothers’ operations came under scrutiny when the UK government implemented a ban on zombie knives in September 2024. The new law prohibits ownership of knives with sharpened blades longer than eight inches that also feature serrated edges, multiple holes, spikes, or more than two sharp points.
To facilitate the transition, the Home Office established a compensation program offering a minimum of £10 ($12.40) per surrendered weapon. However, the Eliaz brothers accounted for a staggering 78 percent of the 47,795 knives turned in during the month-long scheme.
According to police and Home Office records, Adam’s DNA Leisure surrendered 1,500 knives while Eddy’s Sporting Wholesale turned in 35,800 weapons. The combined payout of at least £373,000 ($462,000) has drawn criticism from victims’ families and policy experts who question the program’s oversight.
Government projections had estimated that knife owners would surrender approximately 472 blades, resulting in a total payout of £14,000 ($17,400). The actual cost exceeded initial estimates by more than 2,500 percent, raising questions about the scheme’s design and implementation.
The case has reignited debate about online weapons sales and the effectiveness of government buyback programs. Critics argue the compensation scheme contained significant flaws that allowed commercial dealers to profit from taxpayer funds while potentially removing weapons they could no longer legally sell anyway.
The brothers have reportedly disputed the figures and denied profiting inappropriately from the government program. However, the revelation has prompted calls for stricter oversight of future weapon surrender initiatives and enhanced regulation of online knife sales platforms.
