Olasumkanmi M Bolaji & Sokunle O Sonuga

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

Two solicitors practising as OMBC Solicitors were found to have facilitated mortgage fraud through back-to-back sub-sale conveyancing transactions involving non-genuine clients (Miss Rolfe and Mrs Anderson, both on state benefits). They failed to report sub-sales, price uplifts, third-party payments, and short ownership periods to lender clients, submitted false Certificates of Title, gave false explanations to the SRA, and created false client care letters, bills and ledgers. The First Respondent additionally drew money improperly from client account, made secret profits on disbursements, misled his indemnity insurers (3% conveyancing vs over 90%), and failed to disclose non-registration to LIS. The Second Respondent attempted to persuade the two women not to report to the SRA while handing them cheques. The Tribunal found all allegations proved including dishonesty (applying the Twinsectra/Bryant test) and struck off both Respondents, ordering joint and several costs of £30,000 not enforceable without permission.

Duties found breached:

• Not mislead the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Act in the client's best interests
• No conflict between current clients
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Blatant mortgage fraud facilitated by Respondents
• Clients (Miss Rolfe and Mrs Anderson) suffered financially and were left in debt
• False and misleading explanations given to the regulator
• Creation of false documents
• Attempts to persuade witnesses not to disclose to the Authority
• Evasive and untruthful evidence given to the Tribunal

Mitigating factors:

• References provided for both Respondents
• Second Respondent recently admitted with limited experience at time of transactions
• Both Respondents had been unemployed for two years and suffered personal/financial loss
• No previous disciplinary findings
• First Respondent had not stolen client money despite large sums passing through client account