A London lawyer, whose clients were linked to the Panama Paper scandal, has been fined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Khalid Mohammed Sharif, partner at Westminster private client firm, Child & Child, was fined £45,000 for failing to carry out adequate due diligence on wealthy foreign clients that were politically exposed persons (PEPs). Additionally, Sharif was ordered to pay costs totalling £40,000.
The tribunal representative claimed that Sharif “failed to take any or any adequate steps to ascertain from publicly available information” and that the fine was an “appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances.”
Although the Tribunal has not identified the clients associated with the case, reports have claimed that they were related to the president of Azerbaijan. Under the current rules and legislation concerning money laundering, any person connected with senior political officials should be considered as a politically exposed person and simple due diligence should have ensured that this protocol was followed.
In actual fact, Sharif failed to make the necessary associations between the president of Azerbaijan and his daughters, whom he was instructed by to complete two property purchases.
Sharif was instructed to complete the purchase of two flats in London’s exclusive Knightsbridge region for a combined total of £60 million. Although contracts were exchanged in 2015, the deal failed. Again, when completing the source of funds for the reported £14 million worth of deposits, the PEP status was still not recognised by the lawyer.
It has been alleged that the clients were also the owners of a British Virgin Islands company that was set up by Mossack Fonseca, the law firm from which sensitive information was stolen during the Panama Paper data breach. The list of failures to ascertain the PEP credentials of the clients has culminated in the conclusive verdict from the Tribunal.
The case findings and sanctions highlighted the fact that: “Between February 2015 and April 2016, he failed to take any or any adequate steps to ascertain, from publicly available information or at all, at the time of acting for them, whether the X clients were: (a) politically exposed persons, pursuant to Regulation 14 of The Money Laundering Regulations 2007.
“The tribunal found that the Respondent was wholly culpable for his misconduct. Given the nature of his work, it was even more incumbent on the Respondent to ensure that he complied with the rules and regulations regime to minimise the risk of money laundering. It was a matter, given the nature of his work, to which he ought to have paid very close attention.
“Further, he was the MRLO at the firm. This should have heightened his sense of obligations, and his awareness of the risks. He was directly in control of the circumstances and was a senior solicitor. Given the nature of the misconduct and the respondent’s admitted failures, the Tribunal assessed his culpability as high.”
Whilst the Tribunal viewed the potential of money laundering through property to be extremely serious, the SDT also conceded that the misconduct “was not so serious that the protection of the public and the protection of the reputation of the profession required him to be removed from practice.”
Does the extent of the fine reflect the failure to complete important due diligence? Is there enough help, support and guidance for legal professionals concerning their obligations on money laundering issues?
One Response
Khalid Mohammed Sharif? Even the name evokes chunky gold jewellery on fat, hairy, sweaty fingers passing brown envelopes under the table. And “Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal” seems as much of a joke. That it effectively found Sharif “Guilty” of trying to buy sixty million quids worth of posh West London real estate, on behalf of two of the dodgiest women on the entire surface of the planet, without doing ANY due diligence – then fining him an absolutely pathetic 45k (less than one THOUSANDTH of the property value and probably less than a tenth of a combination of the fee he earned and the bribe everyone can perfectly surmise he took under the table to look the other way and pretend he didn’t know who they were) – is absolutely criminal. If this was a case of a private citizen being had up for a fraud on this scale, they would UNDOUBTEDLY spend time behind bars. Having solicitors regulate themselves, is clearly about as effective as the Roman Catholic Church setting up its own child safeguarding structures and then having priests police it.
The pusillanimity is complete. The SDT in its conclusions listed the fact Sharif was a “senior” solicitor. Which means he knew the rules. Returning to my previous notion of this being a criminal trial, no jury in the land would buy that this shyster knew anything less than FULLY what he was doing. The very fact the whole sordid business only came to light following the disgrace of the revelations surrounding the Panana Papers and that other bunch of shysters Mossack Fonseca in the BVI. And this is where the smooth relationships between the top echelons of government and the professionals (medical, legal, accountancy, architecture etc) – along with big business, journalism and academia – is revealed. It’s the same “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” mentality we’ve had since the Medieval guilds established themselves ostensibly to maintain quality but it also made it sooooo much easier for the goldsmiths, the fishmongers, the ferrymen, armourers, cobblers and haberdashers to be taxed. Nothing’s changed. The fact that the SDT can HIGHLIGHT the most DAMNING form of NEGLIGENCE – so negligent our hypothetical jury would only ever find his actions EASILY amount to conspiracy to commit fraud – by acts of COMMISSION, not of omission – but then the spokesperson has the temerity – the sheer chutzpah – to mewl that this arch shyster does not deserve to be struck off, I’m afraid speaks more to your so-called reputation than the greedy and venal acts of one particular Belgravia-based shyster. That those acts – some of the worst, most amoral, conniving and outright bent it is possible to conceive – should be deemed “serious” but “not so serious” as to prevent his removal blah blah blah is an affront to any regular citizen who may have ever used – or might ever need to use – the services of any solicitor based in Britain. It is, on the other hand, absolute condemnation of the entire cadre of solicitors operating not even just in this country, but given the supposed robustness of our legal system, by default therefore all lawyers on the planet.
If the blatantly dirty filthy dealings of a well heeled, well upholstered, well connected, well experienced, well savvy senior partner in a well established West London outfit don’t get properly punished, what hope is there? I am appalled that the Bankers – from Lehmann Brothers to RBS – simply move their Savile Row tailored arses to a different bank when their actions finally go bang. But they always were the croupiers at the casino. This is actually worse – worse even that those dog collared paedophilic peddlers of piety – priests never cease to amaze with their hypocrisy all predicated on Ancient Middle Eastern superstition – at least most people in this country have the choice as to whether they believe that old codswallop and thereby can CHOOSE whether or not they wish to allow themselves to be ruled by an old (or young) perv in a soutane. When I earlier mentioned categories or groups (people who have used and will require legal services) the brighter amongst you will have detected that effectively means everybody. We, the British public, cannot escape the force of British law which QED means a high likelihood if not an outright certainty that we ALL will have already instructed a solicitor previously or do so at some future point.
If crooked dirt bags like this are not fully sanctioned like the atrocious, rotten, stinking clients he ha! I thought to say “dealt with” but what I clearly mean is “colluded and conspired with”, then WHAT TRUST can be put not just in the SDT but the entire body of so-called professionals who are allegedly the guardians, the sentinels, the gatekeepers of the law which is at the very foundations of all civilised societies – look at Russia (or Azerbaijan – if you think you won’t shrivel to nothing with embarrassment and shame – like the Wicked Witch of the West ) to see the quality of life of the average Joe in either of those countries. And I challenge those within the SDT who made that decision – that they REALLY believe what Sharif did was “not so serious” – to go and live in Rostov-on-Don for a few decades. I GUARANTEE that on the assumption you even survived it, you would be BEGGING to get back to Britain and be harsh defenders of the rules – and not a bunch of pussy shysters….