§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Bimal Bhupendra Thaker

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
BodySolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT)
Professionsolicitor
Case number9697/2007
Date01/01/2007
OutcomeStrike off

Allegation / charges

Breaches, Client Money, Failures, Solicitors' Accounts Rules

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

SanctionStrike Off
Dishonesty foundYes

On a rehearing remitted by the High Court, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found all allegations against Bimal Bhupendra Thaker proved beyond reasonable doubt. He had allowed his client account at Cave Malik to be used as a banking conduit for over $2 million of funds traceable to the Zambian Zamtrop account, with no underlying legal transactions, in breach of Rules 1, 7, 22 and Note (ix) to Rule 15. He was grossly reckless regarding allegations 1.3.1-1.3.4. The Tribunal made an express finding of dishonesty (applying the Twinsectra test) in relation to a £30,000 cash payment to Dr Chiluba and disbursements to the families of Chiluba, Chungu and Kabwe made after he knew of the 'Matrix of Plunder' allegations. He was struck off the Roll. The Tribunal ordered costs (the Applicant's costs exceeded £200,000) subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, not to be enforced without leave of the Tribunal given his apparent impecuniosity. His application for a stay pending appeal was refused.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Express finding of dishonesty in relation to the £30,000 payment to Dr Chiluba and the post-'Matrix of Plunder' payments
  • Course of conduct spanning several years (1996-2003)
  • Ignored every warning sign in the Law Society Blue Card warnings and money laundering guidance
  • Allowed over $2 million of traceable Zambian State funds to pass through client account
  • Made cash payments and third party payments to non-clients with no underlying legal transaction
  • Inconsistent evidence given compared to the High Court proceedings; found to be an unreliable and untrustworthy witness

Mitigating factors:

  • No previous disciplinary matters
  • Respondent claimed no personal benefit
  • Respondent asserted prejudice from delay and destruction of the 1999 inspection file

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/case/9697/