Report comment

Ecohouse Victim
Commented on: 19 June 2018 11:16 GMT

"...The insurers refused indemnity due to the obvious dishonesty of both partners of the firm ..."

Why do you say this? Where is the source for the contention please?

"... The solicitor firm was releasing client funds illegitimately over a prolonged period of 2.5 years, aiding and abetting a fraud. .."

If so then were they prosecuted for either Fraud of Aiding and Abetting? I am a bit confused or is it just your opinion? If so could you tell us that it is just your opinion so we can be clear here?

"....Even after the firm had been reported to the SRA in December 2013, the misconduct (misappropriation) continued right under the SRA's nose in total defiance of regulatory principles and accounting rules. .."

Was this an actual factual finding at the SRA or of the SDT then?

"...The firms failure to report it's misconduct and the shortfall in client account funds is an act of dishonesty in itself because they misled the SRA into thinking that everything was in order at the firm, even after they had been reported for illegitimate release of client funds. ...Whether the solicitors used the funds for their own purposes or not is immaterial, it still constitutes misappropriation and fraud because the funds were taken without client consent ... The firm knew that they were guilty of wrongdoing, but still continued, which satisfies any subjective dishonesty test. .. In summary, the SRA cannot possibly justify their failure to allege dishonesty, nor their failure to intervene on the mere suspicion of dishonesty. .."

This does sound like your opinion though, is it?

Scruff.