Mohammed Shariful Islam & Another

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

In consolidated SDT proceedings, the First Respondent Mohammed Shariful Islam was found to have committed widespread mortgage fraud and money laundering-type misconduct: signing Certificates of Title with grossly inflated purchase prices for Barclays and Alliance & Leicester lenders, failing to disclose material facts, breaching undertakings, using the client account as a banking facility, and diverting large surplus mortgage funds (including to his own company Feroza Housing Ltd). The Tribunal expressly found him dishonest (Twinsectra test) and struck him off, ordering costs of £156,750. The Second Respondent, a salaried partner, admitted signing Certificates of Title without proper familiarisation and SAR breaches but no dishonesty was alleged or found; she was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £8,250 costs (not enforceable without leave). Total costs summarily assessed at £165,000.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Safeguard documents and limit liens
• Supervise staff and delegated work
• AML and crime-prevention compliance

Aggravating factors:

• Systematic dishonesty in a pattern of behaviour
• Mortgage fraud on a massive scale involving vast sums
• Signing Certificates of Title with inflated purchase prices
• Diverting surplus mortgage funds to Feroza Housing Ltd, a company in which he and his wife had personal interests
• Failure to engage with proceedings and non-attendance

Mitigating factors:

• Second Respondent: no dishonesty; naive and inexperienced newly-qualified solicitor
• Second Respondent manipulated/bullied by the dominant First Respondent
• Second Respondent cooperative during investigation
• Second Respondent's difficult personal circumstances, poor health and dire finances
• No previous disciplinary matters for either respondent
• No subsequent complaints against Second Respondent