East London Mosque: Javed got close to claimants’ father
A solicitor has been ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds after the High Court made findings of fraud and fraudulent breach of trust against him.
Awais Javed was “an entirely dishonest witness, by turns argumentative, evasive and untruthful”, said Christopher Pymont KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge.
Once he had obtained money from the claimants, which was meant for property investments, “Mr Javed proceeded to treat the money as if it were his own, maintaining as much secrecy in his dealings and activities as he could get away with and fobbing off enquiries with half-truths and lies to avoid having to give a full account”.
His “temporary success” in doing so showed the trust that the claimants had placed in him.
Judge Pymont recorded that Mr Javed’s two companies, which hold the properties, were in administration, while Mr Javed himself was adjudicated bankrupt on his own petition last November.
However, in December, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews allowed the case to continue, making directions for trial, and allowed the claimants to amend their particulars of claim to plead a case in fraud and fraudulent breach of trust.
This was because, under the Insolvency Act 1986, such claims are kept alive notwithstanding a bankrupt’s discharge from bankruptcy.
According to the judge, Mr Javed came to the UK in around 2003, when he was about 17, to study law as an international student at London Metropolitan University. He met Mohamad Marsal at the East London mosque and they became close. Mr Javed qualified as a solicitor in 2016.
The claimants – Mr Marsal’s four children and a company owned by one of them – claimed Mr Javed persuaded them to enter into what was supposed to be a joint venture to invest in property.
Under this, they would contribute 50% of the capital and Mr Javed would find the properties to purchase and invest the other 50%.
It was a term of the agreement that any properties would be purchased for cash rather than with mortgage finance, as the claimants were devout Muslims and any transaction had to be compliant with Sharia law.
They paid a total of £834,000 to Mr Javed or his two companies between November 2018 and November 2019.
“Some property was purchased with the use of the claimants’ money, though it is apparent from the messages passing between the parties that Mr Javed operated as secretively as he could and dishonestly manipulated the situation to his advantage,” the judge found.
Three properties were bought without Mr Javed contributing any money but with large mortgages.
The claimants said Mr Javed has otherwise used the money for his own purposes and not accounted for it.
Judge Pymont found that there was no final joint venture agreement, but the claimants had agreed to entrust their money to Mr Javed “in anticipation of their jointly agreeing to invest in property once they had identified one or more suitable opportunities”.
He had “no doubt” that the claimants had “complete trust and confidence in Mr Javed” as a family friend and as a solicitor.
The evidence showed the family consulting him as a solicitor on a variety of personal matters, and he “had represented to them that he had the legal experience to devise a proper structure and to draft terms for the investment”.
The judge held that Mr Javed had “clearly accepted a fiduciary role” and collected in the claimants’ money pending their further agreement as to how to invest it. “He received the money in his fiduciary capacity and as a constructive trustee.”
The companies were at all material times Mr Javed’s “ciphers” and so held the money and acted at all times as his agents and nominees.
Judge Pymont went on: “Since the claimants have as yet received no value for the money transferred to Mr Javed’s companies, and Mr Javed has failed to account in respect of any of it (both in the sense of giving proper information as to his dealings with the money and in the sense of failing to return it), the claimants seek a money judgment in the amount of £834,000 (being the aggregate amount of the bank transfers and cash not accounted for). I would make such an order.”
Further, the properties were each acquired in breach of trust and fiduciary duty, with the claimants’ money being used without their informed consent. As a result, none of the defendants had any rights in the property in priority to the claimants’.
The judge added that he was willing to consider making orders for sale but needed to hear from the administrators first.
The claimants should also recover rent received by Mr Javed for which he did not account to them, plus interest on the £834,000 compounded annually.
“For the purposes of section 281(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, I should make it clear that this judgment is based on Mr Javed’s fraud and fraudulent breach of trust.”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority said Mr Javed was not practising at the moment, having notified it of his bankruptcy, but had no other comment.
Photo: By AA – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2746535
Leave a Comment