Decision record
Olasumkanmi M Bolaji & Sokunle O Sonuga
Allegation / charges
Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules, Others
Findings โ machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Two solicitors practising as OMBC Solicitors were found to have facilitated back-to-back sub-sale conveyancing transactions bearing all the hallmarks of mortgage fraud, acting for non-genuine buyers (individuals on state benefits) while failing to report sub-sales, price uplifts, third party payments and short ownership periods to lender GMAC RFC. The Tribunal found express dishonesty on all allegations against both Respondents, including giving false explanations to the SRA, creating false client care letters/bills/ledgers, improper client account withdrawals, false statements to insurers, and (Second Respondent) paying witnesses cheques while asking them not to inform the Authority. Both were struck off the Roll and ordered jointly and severally to pay GBP 30,000 costs, not to be enforced without Tribunal permission.
Duties found breached:
- Proper basis for allegations
- No improper communication with the court
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- No conflict between current clients
- Handle inadvertently received material
- No improper use of client money
- No baseless or threatened misconduct report
- Truthful, non-misleading advertising
- Not misrepresent regulated status
Aggravating factors:
- Blatant mortgage fraud facilitated by Respondents
- Clients suffered serious financial harm and were left in debt to mortgage companies
- Dishonesty found on all allegations
- Vulnerable individuals on state benefits used as false purchasers
- Attempting to persuade witnesses not to disclose to the regulator
- False Certificates of Title submitted to lenders
Mitigating factors:
- First Respondent submitted he did not intend to do wrong and provided references
- Second Respondent had limited experience, having been admitted less than a year before some transactions
- No previous disciplinary findings
- Respondents had been unemployed and suffered financial loss (house repossession)
Duties engaged
- Proper basis for allegations
- No improper communication with the court
- Honesty
- Professional independence
- Not mislead third parties or opponents
- Act in the client's best interests
- Disclose referrals, commissions and benefits
- No conflict between current clients
- Handle inadvertently received material
- No improper use of client money
- No baseless or threatened misconduct report
- Truthful, non-misleading advertising
- Not misrepresent regulated status