Bimal Bhupendra Thaker

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

On a rehearing (following a successful appeal to the High Court), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found all allegations proved against Bimal Bhupendra Thaker, a sole practitioner at Cave Malik. Over 1996-2003 he allowed his client account to be used as a banking conduit for over $2 million traceable from the Zambian State's Zamtrop account, receiving funds from non-clients and disbursing them to third parties with no underlying legal transaction, ignoring Law Society money laundering warnings. He was found grossly reckless as to allegations 1.3.1-1.3.4 and expressly dishonest (applying the Twinsectra test) regarding the £30,000 cash payment to former President Dr Chiluba and payments to the families of Chiluba, Chungu and Kabwe after the 'Matrix of Plunder' article. He was also found to have breached the Solicitors Accounts Rules. The Tribunal struck him off the Roll and ordered him to pay costs (stated to exceed £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:

• Not mislead the court
• No improper use of client money

Aggravating factors:

• Express finding of dishonesty in relation to the £30,000 cash payment to Dr Chiluba and the payments to families of alleged plunderers
• Gross recklessness in relation to allegations 1.3.1-1.3.4
• Course of conduct spanning several years (1996-2003) involving over $2 million passing through client account
• Ignored every warning sign in the repeatedly-issued Law Society Blue Card money laundering warnings
• Ignored information on his own bank statements and ledgers as to source of funds
• Shifting/inconsistent evidence compared with the High Court proceedings; found to be an unreliable and untrustworthy witness

Mitigating factors:

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