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

In the Ecohouse case one of the respondents was a junior solicitor who was the main client interface, validated escrow release certificates from accountants (supposedly) and coordinated all new investors onto the Ecohouse scheme. This junior solicitor (the daughter of the Ecohouse director) permitted investors to sign up to the scheme despite knowing that :-

+ Ecohouse and the firm were operating in a conflict of interests.
+ A family conflict of interest existed between her and her father who was acting Ecohouse director.
+ Client funds were being drawn without any development work taking place.
+ Development land was not owned by Ecohouse.
+ The client account was deficient by several £Million.
+ Clients were not receiving any returns or their investment funds back.
+ The firm had received floods of complaints from clients concerned about misappropriation of their funds.
+ The SRA were investigating the firm.
+ A dispute existed between Ecohouse and the firm over fees.
+ Investors were being subject to a certain financial loss.
+ Client funds were being released in the absence of release certificates.
+ The firm was not legally protecting client funds or advising clients to seek alternative legal advice.

Despite the fact that she knew all of the above was true, she signed up new investors onto the scheme. It is clear that she didn't give a damn that clients were guaranteed to suffer loss.

At the SDT trial no penalty was brought against her. In the recent SDT trial against her father, Charles Fraser Macnamara, Ecohouse was established as a Ponzi fraud - this proves that she assisted fraud (and very probably committed fraud herself), but despite this, the SRA has refused to revisit justice against her and the two Sanders & Co partners. The SRA perverted the course of justice by concealing evidence of dishonesty - it is deplorable that the SRA refuses to go back to correct its mistake and the resultant shoddy justice.

The new SDT findings indicate what a bunch of duplicitous cheats the SRA were not to allege dishonesty originally. The SDT didn't pick up on the SRA's deceit (or were assisting the SRA to evade substantial compensation claims), so none of the solicitors were struck off at the SDT hearing.

A recent Insolvency Service hearing also confirmed the Ponzi fraud and resulted in the disqualification of the Ecohouse founder, Anthony Armstrong Emery for 14 years. The recent re-trial of Charles Fraser Macnamara, Ecohouse director (and solicitor) resulted in him being struck off.

The SRA perverted the course of justice in the Ecohouse case by letting the junior solicitor walk free after her wilful, sustained and key involvement in fraud - what a stark contrast with what happened to the junior whistle blower mentioned in this article (whom I have every sympathy with). This whistle blower demonstrated integrity by sticking her neck out to report fraud despite knowing there would be serious consequences for her career. Barring whistle blowers who come forward to report fraud is no incentive for others to come forward to report fraud in the future.

With the SRA doing everything in its powers to conceal evidence of fraud and dishonesty in significant fraud cases and failing to intervene for fear of implying dishonesty; thereby making frauds worse, it is vital that whistleblowers are not dissuaded from coming forward to bring fraud to a halt at the earliest possible opportunity.

Your details

Cancel