While most solicitors endeavour to comply with their anti-money laundering (AML) obligations and avoid being used for mortgage fraud, there are some whose conduct falls significantly below expected standards.
The disciplinary digest covers Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal cases where AML compliance failings or involvement in mortgage fraud have been identified and contribute to the sanction imposed.
Firms may find these cases useful for identifying risks and educating staff members.
All cases can be accessed from the SDT website. Appeals may have been lodged subsequent to publication.
SRA v KHATTAK, KHAN and KHATTAK
Decision number: 10795 – 2011
Decision date: 4 September 2012
Summary: The third respondent admitted to acting in transactions which showed signs of mortgage fraud and failing to make checks that the solicitors purporting to act for the vendors were in fact genuine firms. In a number of cases they were not. He was found to have been reckless in continuing to make payments to a firm, after having been warned that one firm he was dealing with was not genuine.
Sanction: The third respondent, as a non-qualified employee was subject to a s.43 order restricting his future employment by law firms in England and Wales. The first respondent was struck off for a number of failings, including a failure to exercise appropriate supervisions over his practice.
Read the full decision (PDF 257kb)
SRA v Bishop
Decision number: 10936-2012
Decision date: 4 September 2012
Summary: The respondent acted in two attempted sales of a property for a client, in breach of a restraint order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The respondent was aware of the restraint order and the tribunal found that he had acted without integrity and dishonesty and that his actions would have allowed the client to benefit from the proceeds of his crime if the sales had been completed.
Sanction: The respondent was struck off.
Read the full decision (PDF 127kb)
SRA v Subramaniam
Decision number 10889-2011
Decision date: 1 October 2012
Summary: The respondent acted in transactions that bore clear signs of mortgage fraud, including direct deposits, unusual instructions and changes in the purchase price. The tribunal found that the signs of mortgage fraud were so obvious that the respondent could not possibly have through that his actions were honest.
Sanction: Struck off
Read the full decision (PDF 152kb)
SRA v Gohil
Decision number: 10927-2012
Decision date: 8 October 2012
Summary: The respondent was convicted of five counts of concealing criminal property and entering into a money laundering arrangement and one count of making a disclosure likely to prejudice a money laundering investigation. The convictions related to the respondent's actions on behalf of his client James Ibori, a former Nigerian governor who was jailed for fraud and money laundering. While the respondent has appealed his conviction, the tribunal decided that it was appropriate to act on the conviction as it stood.
Sanction: Struck off
Read the full decision (PDF 91kb)
SRA v Heywood
Decision number: 10222-2009
Decision date: 16 October 2012
Summary: The respondent concealed files relating to property purchases when he knew a money laundering investigation was underway and transferred £13,000 of criminal property to himself. The respondent had been convicted of prejudicing a money laundering investigation and transferring criminal property and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
Sanction: Struck off
Read the full decision (PDF 96kb)
SRA v Ra'ana
Decision number 10994-2012
Decision date: 5 November 2012
Summary: The respondent allowed over £2.7m pass through her client account without any underlying transactions and without any enquiries as to the source of funds. While the tribunal noted that money laundering was not alleged, they found that there was a significant risk of money laundering occurring in such a situation. They said that the failure to carry out the necessary checks and make enquiries in accordance with the guidance, was harmful to the general reputation of the profession.
Sanction: The respondent was suspended for 12 months and further conditions placed on her practising certificate.
Read the full decision (PDF 127kb)