Report comment

It is pointless continuing with these arguments with you scruff. It's clear that your mind is closed and that you can only consider things from a solicitor's perspective, as opposed to the perspective of clients who have suffered a devastating loss purely for trusting a solicitor firm to protect their interests, provide the agreed service and undertake the agreed due diligence. You know nothing of the facts and there simply isn't the time to explain them to you. As you might imagine, there are far more important things to be concerned with than this trivial exchange, which doesn't appear to be altering your rather narrow viewpoint one iota.

As is often the case, police investigations can take several years to prove de facto fraud, but Insolvency Service evidence of fraud is conclusive - you won't gain access to that on the SDT or SRA websites and that is all the more reason why you can't start spouting off that fraud can't apply when you know nothing at all about the case. The SRA wanted this case to appear like a failed investment scheme because they would have no obligation to compensate the solicitor's clients if that were true - easy escape route for the SRA. The SRA Chief Exec was still referring to the case as a failed investment to MPs despite being in possession of Insolvency Service evidence of the Ecohouse director syphoning off £Millions to multiple overseas destinations unrelated to the scheme ; a very clear case of investor's funds not being used for their intended purpose to construct Ecohouse units ; i.e. fraud.