§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

John Kenneth Hyland

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number6907/1995
Date01/01/1995
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
Costs 990
Dishonesty foundYes

Sole practitioner admitted in 1975 acted in a mortgage fraud. He failed to disclose to his building society client the true (reduced) purchase price (£1.65m) while the society advanced £2m on a stated price of £3m, and created a false back-to-back contract purporting to show a sale from Palladium Investments to the client for £3m to conceal the true price. He transferred £523,801.13 of client money to an offshore company in which the client had an interest, and took a cash payment of £11,306.25 as an inducement to continue the dishonest transaction. A client account cash shortage of £535,107.38 resulted. He also failed to deliver his accountant's report due 30 April 1995. The respondent admitted the allegations and the dishonesty. The Tribunal found that although he did not enter the transaction with dishonest intent, he dishonestly misrepresented the price to the building society and colluded in covering up the fraud. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay £990 costs plus the Investigating Accountant's costs (to be taxed). A prior 1982 disciplinary finding involved no dishonesty and did not sway the decision.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Participation was necessary to complete a fraudulent mortgage transaction
  • Misrepresented purchase price to building society knowing they would not have advanced the loan
  • Created a false back-to-back contract to lay a false trail and conceal the impropriety
  • Took an inducement payment to continue the dishonest transaction
  • Large client account shortage of £535,107.38
  • Eighty applications received by the Compensation Fund

Mitigating factors:

  • Did not originally enter the transaction with dishonest intent
  • Was persuaded and manipulated by the client
  • Cooperated fully and handed over the file intact once detected
  • Did not interfere with other clients' funds held on client account
  • Otherwise honest practice since 1977
  • Personal and financial ruin, facing bankruptcy
  • Previously well regarded in the community
  • Genuine remorse and apology

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/6907/