Ilyas & Hussain

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

In a major SDT case arising from the catastrophic collapse of Wolstenholmes LLP, the Tribunal found that unqualified third parties (a bankrupt and others) were permitted inappropriate control over the firm, causing massive client account shortfalls (book difference of c.£19.8m) and net Compensation Fund losses exceeding £7.6m. The Second Respondent (Imran Hussain), de facto then Managing Partner, was found dishonest on multiple counts (allegations 1.1-1.6 and misleading the SRA) and struck off, ordered to pay £137,229.69 costs. The Sixth Respondent (Asma Qayum) was found dishonest for signing cheques and round-sum transfers without supporting documents and struck off, costs £91,905.87. The Third Respondent was suspended 2 years (costs £34,898.47), the Fifth Respondent 1 year (costs £53,127.09), and the Fourth Respondent 6 months (costs £34,898.47, not enforceable without leave), each with post-suspension practising conditions. The First Respondent's case was severed. Total costs £447,477.24.

Duties found breached:

• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Act in the client's best interests
• Cooperate openly with regulators
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• No conflict between current clients
• No taking unfair advantage
• Segregate client money
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Dishonesty (Second and Sixth Respondents)
• Massive loss of client money - net Compensation Fund loss over £7.6 million
• Concealment of role of unqualified third parties and of First Respondent from insurers and regulator
• Permitting bankrupt and unqualified individuals to control the firm and client account
• Obstruction of SRA investigation; deletion/removal of computer records and client files
• Failure to permit intervention agents access
• Lack of insight (Second Respondent); lack of credibility as witness
• Improper round sum transfers totalling £314,000 and payments to OSCS instead of HMRC

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary findings against any of the Second to Sixth Respondents
• Third, Fourth, Fifth Respondents not personally dishonest and made no financial gain
• Fourth Respondent: shortest membership, sought legal advice, tried to leave, ill health, admissions, references attesting honesty
• Fifth Respondent: inexperienced, raised concerns to fellow members, good competence, cooperative
• Third Respondent: admissions in disciplinary and CDDA proceedings, worked part-time, meant well
• Sixth Respondent: limited role, used by others, personal devastation and embarrassment
• Second Respondent: public apology, expressed willingness to continue career