Ashok Kumar Sancheti

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

Ashok Kumar Sancheti, sole director of Morgan Walker Solicitors Ltd, faced 10 allegations (4 alleging dishonesty) arising from four client matters. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence after finding he had voluntarily and deliberately absented himself despite the SRA providing him air tickets, accommodation and offering expenses. He breached a £63,000 professional undertaking given to Hamlins (V matter) and failed to account for the funds; wrongly converted and removed US$3.5 million held for Mr G's divorce settlement by converting it to rupees and sending it to India out of the court's jurisdiction at the time a court order was being made; failed to maintain any client account; failed to discharge £135,080 Stamp Duty for client AHL; and failed to account to client H. The Tribunal found 9 of 10 allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt, including all 4 dishonesty allegations (only allegation 1.8 re H not proved). Express findings of dishonesty applying the Twinsectra test. The Respondent was struck off the Roll and ordered to pay costs subject to detailed assessment, with an immediate interim costs payment of £106,545. His subsequent appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal were dismissed/refused.

Duties found breached:

• Comply with and respect court orders
• Not mislead third parties or opponents
• Handle inadvertently received material
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Four findings of dishonesty proved beyond reasonable doubt
• Considerable harm caused to clients and third parties
• Deliberate evasion of paying over client funds and attempts to cover his tracks
• Repeated failure to comply with Court Orders, including orders with penal notices attached
• Complete failure to maintain proper accounts making tracing of money difficult
• Element of planning rather than spontaneous conduct
• Breach of clients' trust and confidence and that of third parties
• Left the jurisdiction to avoid facing proceedings
• Obstructive and disruptive approach to proceedings; failed to engage
• Abuse of position of trust and failure to exercise any stewardship of client money

Mitigating factors:

• No previous disciplinary matters