Ban for law firm revenue controller who diverted payments to own bank account


Accounts: Revenue controller diverted payments

A law firm revenue controller given a suspended jail sentence after diverting £32,000 in payments meant for suppliers to his own bank account has been banned from working in the profession.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has made Ian Burleton subject to an order under section 43 of the Solicitors Act 1974, which prevents him from working in the profession without its permission.

In 2019, Mr Burleton pleaded guilty to fraud by abuse of position, contrary to section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006, and was handed a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years, as well as 180 hours of unpaid work and a 30-day rehabilitation order.

He worked as a revenue controller for an unnamed City law firm and was responsible for setting up and scheduling payments to the firm’s service providers.

Over the course of 18 months, he diverted 13 payments totalling £32,000 meant for a service provider into his personal bank accounts.

His employer made a report to Action Fraud and it was passed to the City of London Police’s fraud squad to investigate.

The firm’s suspicions were initially raised after one of the service providers claimed it had not been paid for three consecutive months.

An inspection of the banking records revealed that Mr Burleton had changed the account details on the invoices for this service provider, and diverted three payments into his own bank account.

He was dismissed and further investigation showed he had diverted an additional 10 payments to a second account in his name in an attempt to conceal the funds.

Speaking at the time of the sentence, Detective Constable Simon Andrews said: “Burleton was a wholly deceitful person, abusing the trust put in him by his employer and exploiting his knowledge of their systems to manipulate those around him, including service providers.”

In defence of his actions, Mr Burleton claimed his offending was triggered by large child maintenance bills he needed to pay.

However, analysis of his outgoing payments revealed evidence of him spending large sums of money on flights, holidays and at expensive bars and restaurants.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


What challenges will the Bar face in the next five years?

As we look towards the end of 2021 and at how the Bar has adapted to the harsh realities of the pandemic, the question beckons as to what the future holds.


The rise of cyber-criminal threat for law firms since Covid-19

The global coronavirus pandemic, and the rise in people working from home, has unfortunately provoked a growth in cyber-crime. The UK government estimates that the cost of cyber-crime is £27bn per annum.


How to ensure your ATE cover is adequate security for costs

When does an after-the-event insurance policy provide adequate security for a defendant’s costs? The short answer is that it very much depends on the wording of the particular policy.


Loading animation