•  Application 11708-2017
  • Admitted 2001
  • Hearing 5 April 2018
  • Reasons 5 April 2018

The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £20,000, and further that she should be subject to the following conditions: that she might not act as a manager or owner of any authorised body; or act as a compliance officer for legal practice or a compliance officer for finance and administration, with liberty to either party to apply to vary those conditions.

The matter was resolved by way of agreed outcome.

[The respondent was the second respondent in the rule 5 statement. The first two allegations in the rule 5 statement were against the first respondent Kam Cheung Mak (KCM)].

The respondent had abrogated any responsibility for the financial management of the firm to KCM during which time he had made improper transfers involving client money totalling £511,618.80 over the course of nearly five years, thereby breaching principles 6, 8 and 10 of the SRA Principles 2011, failing to achieve outcomes 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and breaching rule 6 of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011.

Together with KCM, the respondent had failed to maintain proper accounting records in breach of rules 1.2(a), (c), (f), 29.1, 29.4, 29.9 and 29.12 of the rules.

Together with KCM, the respondent had failed to have proper systems and processes in place for the firm’s accounts and practice management, thereby breaching rules 1.2(e), 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 and 17.5 of the rules.

The SDT was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent’s admissions were properly made.

A fine together with a restriction order was the proper sanction. The level of fine proposed was appropriate and proportionate having regard to the respondent’s culpability, and the restrictions proposed were necessary to protect the public.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £14,000.