The following cases show solicitors whose conduct falls significantly below expected standards.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) cases where AML compliance failings or involvement in mortgage fraud have been identified and contribute to the sanction imposed.

All cases are on the SDT website.

SRA v Melvin Douglas Goldberg

• Decision number: 11464-2016 /Decision date: 25-27 October 2016
• Summary: The respondent failed to comply with Regulations 5 and 7 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, contrary to Outcome 7.5 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2011.
• The Respondent also acted for clients in purported transactions which bore the hallmark of money laundering and/or fraudulent financial arrangements, in breach of Principles 2 and 6 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2011.
• Sanction: The Respondent was struck off the Roll of Solicitors for his misconduct and ordered to pay costs of £40,000.
• Read more (PDF on the SDT website)

SRA v Mark Lorrell

• Decision number: 11371-2015/Decision date: 12 August 2016
• Summary: One of the allegations against the Respondent was that he failed to comply with anti-money laundering legislation, contrary to Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.
• The Tribunal could not be satisfied that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. His compliance could have been better but he had done some customer due diligence checks. The Tribunal did not find allegation proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sanction: The Respondent was suspended from practice for a period of three months and ordered to pay costs of £35,000.
• Read more (PDF on the SDT website)

SRA v Gavin Croft Wilcock

• Decision number: 11474-2016 / Decision date: 10 August 2016
• Summary: The Respondent admitted his involvement in transactions which bore the hallmarks of money laundering. He had failed to carry out money laundering checks or prevent his client bank accounts from being misused.
• Sanction: The Respondent was suspended from practice as a solicitor for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of £12,500. The Tribunal also imposed conditions on the Respondent to apply following his suspension.
• Read more (PDF on the SDT website)