Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

Charles Valentine Fraser-Macnamara

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number11859/2018
Date01/01/2018
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches

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

SanctionOther
CostsGBP 22,725
Dishonesty foundNo

The Respondent, sole director of EDL, was found to have caused or allowed misrepresentations to investors (that EDL owned land, was an approved supplier under a Brazilian government scheme, that funds were secure, use of the Olympic logo, and ISO 9001 accreditation), failed to maintain adequate accounting records, profited from and misled the public into investing in EDL which was a Ponzi scheme, and involved himself in dubious transactions bearing hallmarks of fraud/money laundering. Dishonesty was found proved for Allegations 1.1.1 (land ownership), 1.1.3 (security of funds), 1.2 (accounting records), 1.3 (Ponzi scheme) and 1.4 (dubious transactions). Allegations 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 were found not proved and breach of Principle 3 was not proved. Investors lost at least £21 million. The Tribunal was heard in the Respondent's absence. He was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs of £22,725.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Dishonest conduct that was calculated and repeated over a period of 2.5 years
  • Significant efforts to conceal wrongdoing from EDL creditors, liquidator, Department of Trade and Industry and the Tribunal
  • Substantial harm - loss of at least £21 million of investors' deposits
  • Previous Tribunal finding relating to his involvement with EDL
  • Misled the Applicant through contradictory and untrue statements
  • Financial motivation; used his solicitor status to lend a veneer of legitimacy

Mitigating factors:

  • Engaged with the regulatory process

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["review_dishonesty_finding_cue_present"]

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/11859/