Robert Andrew Schofield

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

Two solicitors of a small firm (Hilton Legal Business Ltd) participated in a purported $110m loan scheme, acting as an escrow agent and allowing the firm's client account to be used as a banking facility. Third-party borrowers paid 5% deposits on undertakings that monies would be used solely to procure an insurance guarantee, but the Respondents paid the funds out to various unconnected foreign accounts on clients' instructions, despite repeated and increasingly forceful warnings from the firm's bank that the transaction was fraudulent. The Tribunal found numerous admitted breaches of the Accounts Rules and Code of Conduct, and expressly found both Respondents acted dishonestly (Twinsectra test) and with lack of integrity from 29 August 2012 (the Second Respondent's dishonesty on the unauthorised-payments allegation found throughout). Both were struck off the Roll. Costs of £40,000 were ordered jointly and severally in case 11292-2014, with an additional £13,562.88 against the Second Respondent alone in case 11322-2014.

Duties found breached:

• AML and crime-prevention compliance
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Proper basis for allegations

Aggravating factors:

• Numerous warnings from the firm's bank (JJ) that the transaction was a fraud/scam, including explicit advice not to become involved
• Continued making large payments out of third-party deposits despite warnings and non-receipt of loan funds
• Second Respondent knew client SI had been struck off as a Chartered Accountant for fraud and did not disclose this to the First Respondent
• Use of solicitors' client account to lend legitimacy to a fraudulent scheme
• Payments made to foreign accounts (Russia, Italy) with no due diligence
• Second Respondent had a previous disciplinary finding (2013) involving breach of undertaking, and separate concurrent proceedings (11322-2014) also for breach of undertaking

Mitigating factors:

• First Respondent had a previously exemplary/clean disciplinary record
• Respondents did not personally receive the misappropriated funds; fees taken were modest (approx £11,700)
• Respondents were themselves deceived/'hoodwinked' by plausible fraudsters (SI and IM)
• First Respondent showed insight and accepted he got it wrong
• Second Respondent had a serious congenital progressive eye condition