Report comment

I agree with the comment that the CEO should resign - his actions undermine confidence in the profession. You should try experiencing the SRA from the perspective of a victim of misconduct or fraud - some victims of the Ecohouse fraud have waited 5 years for justice and redress. We are so angry at the CEO being made a member of the new anti money laundering taskforce.

In the Ecohouse / Sanders and Co case the CEO has confirmed that the firm simply handed over client money to Ecohouse, yet the SRA has made no attempt to establish fraud against its members - the SRA didn't even allege dishonesty - it's totally perverse. Recently the CEO suggested to 44 MPs that there was no new information to justify bringing another SDT trial against the solicitors (having not struck any of them off).

How about the fact that the SRA buried all evidence of their dishonesty at the original SDT trial ?

How about the fact that they committed fraud by misappropriating £33,000,000 in client funds?

How about finally administering appropriate justice against fraudsters who were not adequately penalised originally?

How about correcting the obviously undesirable travesty that the reprobates are still free to practice in the profession and inflict further harm?

Ecohouse has been confirmed as a fraud during a recent Insolvency Service hearing which disqualified the Ecohouse founder, Anthony Armstrong Emery for 14 years. A re-trial of Charles Fraser Macnamara, Ecohouse director (and solicitor) at a very recent SDT hearing resulted in him being struck off. The hearing also confirmed the scheme as being a ponsi fraud.

Sanders and Co set out with the intention of scamming their clients. They reneged on the due diligence they had agreed with clients and chose instead to assist a fraudulent scheme. Their escrow agreement did not contain any statement to suggest that they were performing a merely administrative role, and neither did they write to clients to inform them about that or to suggest that they seek alternative legal advice. Clients reasonably understood that they would be protected, but in an act of sustained and wilful treachery over the course of 2½ years the firm breached several hundred legal agreements and simply paid client money to Ecohouse.

The SRA set out with the intention of cheating victims of fraud out of justice and redress. The SRA attempted to misrepresent the misappropriation of client funds as just a collapsed investment scheme. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme did not collapse, but was intervened upon by the Brazilian Police who took control of Ecohouse assets in a coordinated effort called operation "Godfather" aimed at halting the scam. The SRA were well aware of that fact and they had several key pieces of evidence that client funds were being misappropriated by Sanders and Co, but paid no heed to it. The SRA has buried evidence of the firm's dishonesty and never alleged it against any of the solicitors involved at the original SDT trial. Multiple arguments exist supporting the firm's dishonesty, misappropriation being one of them.

The SRA's tactics have been to conceal fraud so that they could evade paying any compensation to victims of the fraud, leaving victims in a no man's land between PII and the SRACF when all along the SRA knew that insurers can legitimately refuse indemnity for fraud, and that that meant that claims should fall back to the SRA. Even the SRACF panel has suggested to claimants that there is a route to challenge the insurance declination. That is a lie - there is no prospect to contest fraud. The SRA will use every deceitful tactic in it's unscrupulous armoury to avoid its obligation to protect and is more than happy to let those who have suffered loss to squander what little they have left attempting to overturn insurers who have no remit to indemnify fraud.

As far as the SDT allegations are concerned, the SRA rigged the allegations in order to limit SRA exposure to claims. By not alleging dishonesty the SRA is able to subject claims to hardship rules, but it also has the effect of compromising justice because solicitors cannot usually be struck off by the SDT panel if the SRA did not originally allege dishonesty.

What a completely corrupt organisation the SRA is for burying evidence of fraud and dishonesty in an attempt to evade having to pay compensation from the SRACF. This is precisely why the CEO should tender his resignation - the SRA is hopelessly conflicted and can no longer be trusted to deliver justice.