Report comment

In the Ecohouse fraud, the SRA has never made any attempt to establish fraud against those involved, stating that it was neither necessary nor appropriate. Paul Philip has even recently confirmed to 44 MPs that client funds were simply handed over to Ecohouse without due diligence - he trying to justify the SRA not having to pay compensation because the firm didn't provide a legal service. They had agreed to provide protection in legal escrow agreements, but reneged on their obligations. Paul Philip has basically confirmed that the firm laundered client funds and assisted a fraud. Despite that he argues that there is no new information to justify a case - how about all the evidence of dishonesty the SRA buried? That is new information for the SDT - it wasn't presented to the SDT previously because the SRA did not allege dishonesty. The SRA are so duplicitous - they will find a solicitor who simply borrowed client funds dishonest (even though he paid the funds back), yet in the Ecohouse case where up to £33 Million was misappropriated over 2+ years in deliberate acts of repeated and sustained misappropriation, the SRA did not allege dishonesty. It is clear why the SRA did not allege dishonesty - absence of a dishonesty finding in relation to SRACF claims permits the SRA to subject claims to hardship rules. Only 9% of victims of the fraud ever made an application to the SRACF, such was the SRA's effectiveness at dissuading victims. Despite 91% of victims not making a claim due to SRA skullduggery, the SRA is still arguing the toss over compensation. By all accounts the SRA will have got of lightly upon settling the claim made by the 9% of victims. Despite being presented with significant evidence of dishonesty in relation to SRACF claims, the SRACF Technial Officer and also the adjudication panel dismissed it all. That represents maladministration of the compensation scheme. There is no possibility that dishonesty does not apply in a case of a solicitor furm facilitating fraud.

This is why Paul Philip is the last person on Earth to form an anti money laundering task force - under his direction the SRA simply ignores fraud in order to evade the impact it would have on the SRACF. As most solicitors probably know, professional indemnity insurance does not indemnify acts of fraud, so claims fall back to the SRA.