Kamran Adil & A nother

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

The SRA brought proceedings against two directors of Tavistock Law Limited, which was intervened into in November 2012. The First Respondent, a Registered Foreign Lawyer, was found to have involved himself in or acquiesced in numerous conveyancing transactions bearing the hallmarks of mortgage fraud, where deposit/completion monies were diverted to unrelated third parties, leaving a client account shortage of over £2 million and large Compensation Fund payouts. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty (objective and subjective, Twinsectra test), finding he gave false assurances, false CHAPS vouchers, and misrepresentations. He also practised without PII, failed to supervise staff, failed to close the Firm in an orderly manner, and failed to co-operate with the SRA. He was struck off the Register of Foreign Lawyers and ordered to pay £34,000 costs. The Second Respondent (solicitor), found to be largely a victim drawn into the fraud, admitted failures of governance/supervision but was found to have shown no lack of integrity; he was reprimanded, made subject to a practising restriction, and ordered to pay £1,000 costs (not enforceable without leave). Total costs assessed at £35,000.

Duties found breached:

• Act in the client's best interests
• Firm governance, systems and compliance
• Integrity
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Non-discriminatory acceptance and cab-rank
• Uphold public trust in the profession

Aggravating factors:

• Proven dishonesty that was deliberate, calculated and repeated
• Removal of files and computers as evidence of concealment of wrongdoing
• Motivated by greed; actions planned and premeditated (e.g. moving decimal point to pay only 10% of redemption amounts)
• Substantial harm to individual victims and to public trust in the profession
• First Respondent was senior principal/owner of the Firm

Mitigating factors:

• (Second Respondent) No lack of integrity or dishonesty; trustworthiness not in question
• (Second Respondent) Drawn unwittingly into a carefully pre-planned fraud and used as a front; little opportunity to prevent it
• (Second Respondent) No financial gain, in fact unpaid salary
• (Second Respondent) Full co-operation with the SRA, insight shown, admitted allegations
• (Second Respondent) Unblemished career of over 40 years; aged 76; no previous disciplinary matters
• First Respondent advanced no mitigation