SDT: Blackmail claim not mitigation
A solicitor who has cost the profession more than £3.8m in payments from the SRA Compensation Fund to replace money that was taken from property clients has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) also sanctioned Jasbinder Singh Sohal after he was convicted of stalking his former partner.
Mr Sohal, who qualified in 2002, was the sole owner and director of Huddersfield firm Sterlingking, which the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) closed down in May 2019 after receiving reports from multiple clients about money going missing.
He did not engage with the SDT, which heard that there are ongoing criminal proceedings.
Between August 2018 to February 2019, Mr Sohal made £2.85m of improper payments from client account from money transferred to the firm to purchase properties.
Several of the victims were people who had been introduced to the firm by a property investment company, one of whose directors was a ‘Person C’. The payments were made to Person C and other third parties.
Mr Sohal admitted to the SRA his misconduct in relation to some of the transactions, saying the transfers had been made at Person C’s direction.
He claimed he made the first improper payment because Person C had told him about a friend whose home was going to be repossessed. Mr Sohal “said he took pity on Person C’s friend”, the SDT recorded.
Subsequently, the solicitor claimed, Person C “blackmailed” him into making further payments.
The SDT said the SRA’s Compensation Fund has paid out a total of £3.85m in relation to the missing money, reflecting other losses, interest and costs.
The tribunal said the allegation of blackmail “could not be considered as a mitigating factor given that he had clearly admitted having made other similar improper payments merely out of pity for Person C’s friend”.
The other charge related to Mr Sohal’s conviction for stalking ‘Person G’ – he followed her, turned up at and loitered outside her house, and sent her multiple unwanted emails – and failure to report it to the SRA.
Aggravating factors included that he had deliberately targeted a vulnerable person, that there had been an abuse of power and that the misconduct “involved a form of violence”.
Further, after having been found guilty, Mr Sohal “still placed the blame on his former partner who was the victim of the offence”.
In light of the seriousness of the misconduct, the SDT said only a strike-off would be appropriate.
Mr Sohal was also ordered to pay costs of £16,280.
