(unnamed respondent)

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

The Applicant, struck off in 2009 for 13 proved allegations including six involving dishonesty (upheld on appeal in 2010), applied in 2025 for restoration to the Roll. Although his application was not premature and he had undertaken approved supervised work since 2020 and shown positive steps toward rehabilitation, the Tribunal found the supporting evidence of rehabilitation lacking in weight and depth. Given the seriousness of the dishonesty-based misconduct and the high threshold for restoration, the Tribunal refused the application and ordered the Applicant to pay costs of £4,709.59.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• AML and crime-prevention compliance
• No improper use of client money
• No taking unfair advantage
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Proper basis for allegations
• Segregate client money
• Supervise staff and delegated work

Aggravating factors:

• Six findings of dishonesty over a protracted period involving premeditated and planned deception
• Misconduct discovered by the SRA rather than the firm's own compliance processes
• Dishonesty findings upheld by the High Court on appeal

Mitigating factors:

• Application made around 16 years after strike-off, not premature
• Meaningful approved employment in the profession since 2020 under SRA supervision without incident
• Full acceptance of responsibility and expressions of remorse
• No client complaints, further regulatory action or criminal convictions
• Willingness to continue under conditions restricting practice