Passport: Inconsistencies in photograph
A law firm that submitted identity evidence to the HM Land Registry (HMLR) which clearly did not stack up has been rebuked by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
North Lincolnshire firm Hetts Johnson Whiting did not pick up on the inconsistencies, “instead repeatedly submitting them to HMLR only for them to be rejected every time”.
It also failed to pick up on red flags indicating the difficulties the client was having in providing proper documents.
According to a regulatory settlement agreement published yesterday, it was acting for a client in seeking to register charges against two properties. In September 2023, it requested certified copies from the client of the identity documents, following HMLR requisition letters stating invalid documents had been sent.
“The firm’s client responded to ask if it was possible to resubmit the application and potentially get a different member of staff at HMLR to assess the application.
“While the firm advised its client this would not likely be successful, it should have raised a red flag and indicated that its client appeared to be attempting to bypass the HMLR process, and therefore further scrutiny of the identity documents was required.”
The client provided identity documents for one individual, which appeared to have been certified by a solicitor in October 2023. However, the passport photograph “appears to be that of another individual”.
Despite this, the firm submitted them to HMLR. They were also rejected as being invalid.
Hetts Johnson Whiting advised its client that identity documents should be certified by a qualified person.
“However, the firm’s client appeared unable or unwilling to arrange this and asked the firm if it could certify the documents itself. After the firm advised it was unable to certify the identity documents itself, its client provided copies of the documents certified by its office manager.
“Again, despite this, the firm submitted the documents to HMLR, and these were also rejected as being invalid.”
The SRA said it was clear – without the need for “forensic expertise” – that there were inconsistencies in the passport and driving licence photographs and signatures of the two individuals.
“The firm should have done more but did not do so, and had it not been for HMLR rejecting the documents, it is uncertain if any wrongful registration would have taken place.”
Hetts Johnson Whiting admitted that it failed to apply sufficient scrutiny to the customer due diligence (CDD) evidence received via a third party, in breach of the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations.
A rebuke was an appropriate sanction, the SRA said, because “although there is no evidence of harm having occurred, failure to adequately scrutinise CDD evidence is reckless, and the circumstances exposed the firm to the risk of fraud or money laundering”.
Leave a Comment