Andreas Erothodos Alexandrou

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

Sole practitioner Andreas Alexandrou faced wide-ranging admitted accounts rules breaches arising from FIO inspections (no cash book, no reconciliations, no accountants' reports for years, client account shortfall of c.£71,000, and a 6-month failure to pay client E's SDLT). Additionally, during County Court possession proceedings against him and his wife, he repeatedly gave a judge false reasons for his wife's absence (he had not told her of the hearing). The Tribunal found all allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt and made express findings of dishonesty on all four Rule 7 allegations applying the Twinsectra test. Given the dishonesty, striking off was inevitable; the Tribunal noted it would have considered strike-off or lengthy suspension for the accounts breaches alone. He was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £21,500 (reduced from £25,044.88, partly due to SRA delay in bringing the two matters together).

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• No improper use of client money
• No taking unfair advantage
• Prompt accounting and return of money

Aggravating factors:

• Repeated dishonesty over two days on four occasions
• Deliberate misleading of a judge by an officer of the court
• Premeditated/planned conduct, with opportunities given by the judge to correct false statements not taken
• Respondent familiar with litigation and court process, making conduct inexcusable
• Accounts not produced for 3 years, flouting conditions on practising certificate
• Continued to practise after having 'given up' on accounts
• Judge driven to write letter of complaint to SRA

Mitigating factors:

• Previous good character/no prior disciplinary matters
• Relatively prompt admissions of most allegations and of dishonesty in three of four Rule 7 allegations
• Significant personal and family difficulties during the relevant period
• Undiagnosed health condition (though no medical evidence provided)
• Made up the SDLT shortfall from his own funds; no client suffered financial loss
• Apologised to the judge and his wife at the time