Nikki Ngozi Modie-Nwaefulu

• Application 10248-2009
• Admitted 2000
• Hearing 28 January 2010
• Reasons 4 May 2010

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of London SE25, should be struck off the roll. Contrary to rule 1 and/or rule 3.01 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007, the respondent had acted in a conflict of interest situation, when she accepted a loan from a Mr KB, and had failed to advise him to take independent legal advice in relation to the loan; contrary to rule 1 of the code, she had failed to have regard to, and comply with, the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, and in particular she had breached regulation 5 in that she had failed to carry out the required ‘customer due diligence measures’ in that no steps had been taken to verify the identity of Mr KB, and/or she had breached regulation 8 in failing to conduct ongoing monitoring of the business relationship between herself and Mr KB, and/or she had breached regulation 11, in that she had continued with the transaction in circumstances where she had been unable and/or unwilling to carry out the ‘due diligence’ enquiries; she had dishonestly withdrawn money from client account other than as permitted by rule 22 of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998; she had breached the terms of rule 1.04, and/or 4.02 of the code by virtue of her failure to advise a lender client of material information; she had breached the terms of rule 1.04 of the code, by virtue of her failure to act in the best interests of a client(s); and she had breached the terms of rule 1 and/or rule 20.01 of the code, in that she had carried on practice as a solicitor at a time when she did not hold a current practising certificate.

The SDT had considered the documents before it most carefully and the submissions of both the applicant and the respondent. However, it had been struck by the fact that there was no statement of truth upon the respondent’s statement. On the facts found the SDT had found that the respondent’s conduct had been dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. In all of those circumstances, it was satisfied so that it was sure that the respondent had not had an honest belief that she could withdraw the monies from client account in the way she had and therefore that she had known that what she was doing was dishonest by those same standards.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £13,900.00, such order are not to be enforced without the consent of the SDT.