Andrew Lindsay & Marina Frankel

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SDT decision (Case 11576-2016) against two directors of Tandem XJA Ltd (Tandem Law). The First Respondent, Andrew Lindsay (95% owner/managing director), was found to have caused Tandem to accept and misuse some £5.92m of Axiom litigation-funding monies contrary to the funding agreement, failed to place client money in client account, assisted the investment managers despite notice of possible fraud, made false statements (about his disciplinary history, Frion documents, a £50,000 Crosslaw benefit, 24/7 CC trading), improperly transferred £2m from Signey and £1.7m to City Equities to put it beyond receivers' reach, proposed unlawful co-ownership of a firm with non-solicitors, and failed to co-operate with the SRA. Dishonesty was expressly found (applying Ivey) on allegations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12. He was struck off and ordered to pay £108,371.65 costs. The Second Respondent, Marina Frankel (5% owner/HR director), was found to have breached the Accounts Rules, failed to make proper inquiries before signing the Signey asset purchase agreement, carried out an unlawful redundancy exercise, failed to co-operate with the SRA, and abrogated her duties as a director. The Tribunal found she lacked integrity but made NO finding of dishonesty against her. Given her lack of insight she was suspended indefinitely and ordered to pay £42,056.60 costs. Hearing proceeded in the First Respondent's absence; his later High Court appeal on that point was dismissed.

Duties found breached:

• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not misrepresent regulated status
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty alleged and proved (First Respondent)
• Misconduct deliberate, calculated and repeated over time
• Concealment of wrongdoing and misleading the regulator
• Took advantage of more junior partner's blind faith
• Previous appearance before the Tribunal (2006: fined £2,500, costs £10,600)
• Significant harm to Axiom investors and to clients (many pursuing negligence claims)
• Second Respondent's misconduct continued/repeated; near-total lack of insight

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent: health and family circumstances, extensive pro bono work (no exceptional circumstances found)
• Second Respondent: only three years' post-qualification experience, bullied/manipulated by First Respondent, previously unblemished career, may respond to training

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_costs_amount=150428.25"]