Shameer Farouk Sacranie - SFS Legal Ltd - J

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

The First Respondent, sole director of SFS Legal Limited (Second Respondent), faced 20 allegations arising from two SRA forensic investigations. The Tribunal, proceeding in his absence after refusing his adjournment request, found all allegations proved except 1.17 against the Second Respondent. Breaches included widespread Solicitors Accounts Rules failures (two non-corresponding ledger sets, client debit balances, banking facilities through client account for clients PI and LM without underlying transactions, round sum transfers of £165,920), failures to disclose material facts to lender clients in back-to-back conveyancing, unwritten referral arrangements and referral fees paid from client account, an SDLT mitigation scheme with inadequate client advice, and taking client loans without independent advice. Crucially, the Tribunal made express findings of dishonesty on allegations 1.18-1.20: the First Respondent obtained mortgage advances (including in his wife's name using a false application) purporting to fund property purchases but used the funds to develop his business, failed to register charges leaving lenders unsecured, and misled the SRA about a £108,715 mortgage advance and a supposedly redeemed mortgage. Dishonesty was found on the combined Twinsectra test. The First Respondent was struck off; the Second Respondent's recognition (as Alcimus Limited, in liquidation) was revoked. He was ordered to pay costs subject to detailed assessment with interim costs of £40,000 within 14 days.

Duties found breached:

• No improper communication with the court
• No taking unfair advantage
• Act in the client's best interests
• Disclose material information to client
• No conflict between current clients
• No improper use of client money
• Prompt accounting and return of money
• Accounting records, reconciliation and reports
• Diligence and timeliness
• Truthful, non-misleading advertising

Aggravating factors:

• Express findings of dishonesty on three allegations
• Deliberately misled lender clients and the regulator
• Serial re-mortgaging of properties and failure to register charges, leaving lenders unsecured
• Used status as solicitor to obtain funds lenders would not otherwise have advanced
• Blatant disregard for professional obligations, breaching core duties
• No remorse; relied on spurious explanations shown to be untrue
• Failure to cooperate with the SRA investigation

Mitigating factors:

• Some admissions of SAR breaches made in correspondence
• Lenders had not suffered loss as mortgage repayments were maintained (raised by Respondent but treated as irrelevant)