Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

@Ecohouse Victim; Commented on: 13 June 2018 22:22 GMT:

"...A minority of offenders in the profession cause solicitor contributions to the SRACF to have to increase. You can blame the SRA for failing to keep its house in order and for failing to bring adequate prosecutions against solicitors who raid client accounts. ..."

This is nonsense. If a Solicitor does bunk with client finds and their insurers don't pay and get it back in due course, then the SCF does compensate.

"....In the Ecohouse case none of the solicitors were struck off despite a £33m fraud ..."

Where is the evidence that there was any Fraud from the Criminal Courts?

"...(actually Ecohouse was the 2nd offence for one particular solicitor involved - the SRA previously failed to prosecute him in 2012 for tax fraud when his firm was shut down by HMRC owing HMRC and its creditors £2.1m). ..."

Are you sure that you understand the Insolvency Act and recouping funds for priority creditors - only if there is anything left in the firm? Have a look again at it.

"...Lack of prosecution permitted that solicitor to go on devise and perpetrate the Ecohouse fraud. ..."

It is not the SRA's job to 'prosecute' 'Fraud' (even if it was Fraud).

That is the Criminal Authorities job.

Scruff.

Your details

Cancel