SDT: Solicitor was reacting to events
A solicitor has been fined £7,500 for failing to carry out source of funds checks and keep lenders properly updated about where purchase money was coming from.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) said Rehana Saeed’s misconduct was “motivated by her desire to complete the transactions without proper regard for her regulatory duties”.
She was “reacting to events and was under pressure to complete the transactions”.
Whilst she was an experienced solicitor, “she was not experienced in the type of conveyancing transactions undertaken and had no knowledge of her anti-money laundering responsibilities”.
When Ms Saeed joined Carter Devile in Ilford, Essex, in January 2015, her practising certificate (PC) was subject to conditions preventing her from working as a solicitor in any role other than employee.
These were lifted in December 2016, when she agreed in a regulatory settlement agreement (RSA) with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to pay a fine of £2,000 and accept a rebuke for the misconduct in conveyancing work dating back to 2013-15.
This should have “heightened her diligence in compliance with her professional obligations”, the SDT observed.
Ms Saeed, who qualified in 1997, was acting for the buyer of two properties. She admitted that she “failed adequately to scrutinise the source of the funds supplied by third parties” to fund the purchases – in each matter around £230,000.
There was no evidence that the clients had even been asked to provide details of their source of funds.
She also failed to update the lender on one of the properties that some of the funds were coming from third parties, despite knowing she had to. This showed a lack of integrity, the SDT held.
In deciding on sanction, the tribunal disregarded the RSA – even though there was overlap with the allegations – as there was “no evidence” that Ms Saeed had conduct of the matters it covered.
It was clear that Ms Saeed had made “significant errors” in her conduct of the transactions. “She had admitted her failings, and had since undertaken training. The tribunal accepted her evidence that she would conduct herself differently if faced with a similar transaction in the future”.
A fine was the appropriate sanction, which the SDT set at £7,500. It ordered to pay £12,000 in costs as well.
