SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:

Transcription

1 SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and GAVIN CROFT WILCOCK Respondent Before: Mr R. Nicholas (in the chair) Mr K. W. Duncan Mrs C. Valentine Date of Hearing: 10 August 2016 Appearances Mr Mark Gibson, solicitor, of The Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Cube, 199 Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RN, for the Applicant. The Respondent, Mr Gavin Croft Wilcock, was not present but was represented by Mr Richard Ferry-Swainson, counsel, of 2 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4BU. JUDGMENT

2 2 Allegations 1. The allegations against the Respondent, Mr Gavin Croft Wilcock, made in a Rule 5 Statement dated 20 January 2016, were that: 1.1 He used, or permitted the use of his client bank account and Euro bank account, for ten clients to be used as a banking facility between 20 April 2011 and 21 August 2014, where there were no underlying legal transactions and thereby: failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 ( the 2007 Code ) and/or Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2011 ( the 2011 Principles ); behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles; breached Rule 15(ix) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 ( SAR 1998 ) and/or Rule 14(5) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 ( AR 2011 ). 1.2 He made transfers and withdrawals from client bank account and Euro bank account without instructions, confirmation or authority, between 20 April 2011 and 21 August 2014, and thereby: behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles; breached Rules 22(1)(e) and 30(1)(a) of the SAR 1998 and/or Rules 20(1)(f) and 27(1)(a) of the AR He involved himself in transactions that bore the hallmarks of money laundering, and thereby: failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the 2007 Code and/or Principle 2 of the 2011 Principles; behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles. 1.4 He failed to follow the guidance in the Money Laundering Warning Card when allowing his client account to be used as a banking facility, and thereby: failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the 2007 Code and/or Principle 2 of the 2011 Principles;

3 behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles. 1.5 He breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 with regard to the customer due diligence undertaken by Archer and Wilcock (firm), its retention of identity documents and his failure to monitor ongoing business relationships, and thereby behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles. Documents 2. The Tribunal reviewed all of the documents submitted by the parties, which included: Applicant: - Application dated 20 January 2016 Rule 5 Statement, with exhibit MNG1, dated 20 January 2016 Costs schedule at date of issue Costs schedule dated 7 July 2016 Respondent: - Answer to the allegations dated 23 March 2016 Bundle of character references Preliminary Matter Proceeding in the absence of the Respondent 3. The Respondent was not present, but was represented by counsel. 4. On 9 August 2016 Mr Ferry-Swainson had sent an to the Tribunal to explain that the Respondent had intended to attend the hearing but was unable to do so for health reasons. The stated that the Respondent was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence and that he intended no disrespect to the Tribunal by his nonappearance. Mr Ferry-Swainson confirmed to the Tribunal that this remained the Respondent s position. 5. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent, through his counsel, had had the courtesy to notify the Tribunal that he did not feel able to attend due to health difficulties and accepted that no disrespect was intended to the Tribunal. As the Respondent had made it clear, through counsel, that he was content for the matter to proceed in his absence, and as he had made full admissions to the allegations, the Tribunal determined that it was just and appropriate to proceed to hear the case.

4 4 Factual Background 6. The Respondent was born in 1948 and was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in He did not hold a Practising Certificate at the date of the hearing. 7. At all material times the Respondent was the recognised sole practitioner of the firm Archer and Wilcock at Old Rectory, Repps Road, Clippesby, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk NR29 3BH ( the Firm ). 8. On 26 August 2014 the Applicant commenced an investigation into the Firm. Following interviews with the Respondent conducted by the forensic investigation officer ( FI Officer ) Mr Jason Connell, on 26 August, 3, 9 and 18 September, 7 October and 4 November 2014 the FI Officer produced a forensic investigation report dated 16 January 2015 ( the FI Report ). Allegation The FI Report identified ten separate client matters in which payments were made into and out of the Firm s client bank account and Euro bank account, where there were no underlying transactions. Three such transactions were exemplified and are set out below. 10. Between 13 June 2011 and 18 August 2014 payments to the value of 477, were paid into the Firm s client bank account and credited to the ledgers of F Ltd and Mr OB and payments to the value of 463, were made out of these ledgers where there were no underlying legal transactions. 11. Between 20 April 2011 and 21 August 2014 payments to the value of 829, were paid into the Euro bank account and credited to various client ledgers and payments of 782, were made out of the client ledgers where there were no underlying legal transactions. F Ltd pound sterling ledger 12. F Ltd was a company which was registered on the Isle of Man and owned by Mr CC. His son was Mr MC. 13. The Respondent had agreed to allow the use of his Firm s client account for the receipt of funds relating to the sale of high value motor vehicles. 14. On 24 May 2013 the Firm s client account bank statement and the ledger for F Ltd recorded a payment into the client bank account of 1,025. On 7 June 2013 the Firm s client account bank statement and the leger for F Ltd recorded a payment into the client account of 14, The Respondent admitted that he cashed a cheque for 5,000 on 7 June 2013 on behalf of Mr C and handed the cash to him. This payment out was recorded in the Firm s client account bank statement and the L Ltd ledger.

5 5 16. Between 31 May 2013 and 8 August 2015, 5 payments were made to Mr MC totalling 10,025m, as recorded on the Firm s client account bank statement and in the ledger for F Ltd. 17. On 22 October 2013 the Firm s client account bank statement and ledger for F Ltd recorded a payment into the client account of 45,000, which arose from the sale of a motor vehicle. On 25 October 2013 the Firm s client account bank statement and ledger for F Ltd recorded that a client account cheque was cashed in the sum of 1,500. The Respondent admitted in the investigation that he cashed the cheque and handed the cash to Mr CC. 18. Between 24 October 2013 and 18 August 2014, 22 payments were made to Mr MC totalling 53,000, as recorded in the Firm s client bank account bank statement and in the ledger for F Ltd. In total, Mr CC received payments of 69,525 either through payments to his son, Mr MC, or case payments made directly to him. 19. In an interview with the FI Officer on 9 September 2014 the Respondent admitted that there were no underlying legal transactions in relation to the receipts or payments out of the above mentioned monies. 20. The FI Report also identified other payments into and out of the F Ltd ledger where there were no underlying transactions. Five such transactions were exemplified: 20.1 The F Ltd ledger recorded a transfer from the ledger of JB deceased of 2,000 on 29 January During a meeting with the FI Officer on 4 November 2014, the Respondent indicated that the transfer was made as Mr B, the husband of the late JB, had purchased a Cartier watch from Mr CC. A copy of the invoice relating to that purchase was appended to the FI Report; 20.2 On 23 June 2014 the F Ltd ledger recorded a transfer of 9,500 from the ledger of Mr B. The Respondent explained that Mr C and Mr B had reached an agreement that Mr C would loan Mr B an unspecified amount. The Respondent was not involved in the transaction and did not have a matter file. The Respondent produced a letter dated 23 June 2014 from Mr BC to Mr B acknowledging receipt of 9,500 in settlement of the twelve thousand Euros that was owed to me The F Ltd ledger recorded a payment of 57,000 was made on 14 June 2011 to B UK Ltd. The payment was made for the purchase of a Rolls Royce motor vehicle for Mr C; 20.4 On 24 May 2012 the F Ltd ledger recorded a payment of 3,700 to Mr PB. The Respondent informed the FI Officer that the payment was to a taxi driver used by Mr C when he visited Italy; 20.5 The F Ltd ledger recorded a payment of 660 to AJP on 11 July The Respondent informed the FI Officer that the payment was for a doctor s bill relating to Mr C.

6 6 F Ltd Euro ledger 21. The FI Report identified numerous payments into and out of the F Ltd Euro ledger between 20 April 2011 and 1 August 2014, where there were no underlying legal transactions. Three were exemplified: 21.1 The F Ltd ledger recorded a payment of 100,000 on 20 April 2011 which was described as From A for future trust commission and was recorded on the Firm s Euro bank statement on 19 April 2011, described as [BLT] LDA. The Respondent informed the FI Officer that this was a commission payment paid by Dr AS of BLT On 9 November 2011 the F Ltd Euro ledger recorded a transfer to IP SRI in the sum of 18,670, which transfer was also recorded in the Firm s Euro bank statement. The Respondent told the FI Officer that the payment was for a debt owed by Mr C to that company On 28 March 2014 the F Ltd Euro ledger recorded Euros purchase ( 1,758.71) and the payment out of the client ledger was 2,000. The Respondent stated that he had withdrawn this amount in cash and handed it to Mr C. 22. In an interview with the FI Officer on 18 September 2014 the Respondent admitted that he had not provided any legal advice in relation to the commission payments made in the F Ltd Euro ledger. The N Railways Euro ledger 23. The N Railways Euro ledger recorded a transfer from F Ltd of 2,000 on 4 April 2013 and that 2,000 were purchased on the same day. That purchase was recorded on 4 April 2013 in the Firm s Euro bank statement. The Respondent told the FI Officer on 4 November 2014 that this sum had been handed to Mr C in cash, but he was unable to explain the credit and debit transaction. Allegation The FI Report identified numerous transfers and withdrawals from various client ledgers where there was no evidence that the Respondent received written instructions or had confirmation or authority from the client to make the transfers. Three matters were exemplified: 24.1 The ledger for Mr OB recorded a transfer on 22 February 2012 of 100,000 To C F Ledger. This was a transfer to Mr C. There were no written instructions from the client on the file to transfer the 100,000 to Mr C The F Ltd leger recorded a transfer of 2,000 from the ledger of JB deceased on 29 January The Respondent stated that this was paid by Mr B, the husband of the late JB, to Mr C for the purchase of a Cartier watch owned by Mr C. The Respondent explained that the matter was concluded by way of a verbal instruction from Mr B. The FI Report recorded that the Respondent did not have any written instruction from Mr B, although there was an invoice from Mr C dated 27 January 2014 in relation to the watch.

7 On 23 June 2014 the F Ltd ledger recorded a transfer to F Ltd from a Mr B for 9,500. The FI Report recorded that the Respondent was not able to produce written instructions from Mr B in relation to the transfer, but produced a letter from Mr C to Mr B acknowledging receipt of 9,500. Allegations 1.3, 1.4 and The FI Report identified numerous transactions in relation to various client ledgers in which the Respondent was involved in transactions which bore the hallmarks of money laundering. There were payments from a third party where the Respondent could not verify the source of the funds, payments were made to unrelated third parties and the Respondent accepted instruction to act where there was no underlying legal transaction. The relevant Money Laundering warning card, dated 2009, was exhibited to the Rule 5 Statement. 26. Two of the transactions in which the Respondent involved himself and which bore the hallmarks of money laundering were exemplified. The BLR/Dr AS ledger 27. On 8 and 12 March 2012 the ledger for BLT/Dr AS recorded payments into the client account of 20,000 and 10,000 respectively. The ledger entries for those payments were blank. 28. The same ledger recorded payments out of 17,500 and 10,000 on 23 March 2012 but the ledger entries were blank. A further payment, of 2,410 was made to F Ltd on 23 March The Respondent told the FI Officer that 17,500 had been transferred back to BLT and 10,000 had been transfer to a sister company, S de A. The Respondent stated that at the time of the transactions, he did not consider them to be suspicious transactions and also stated that the payment to F Ltd was due to inconvenience caused to Mr C. The Respondent stated that he had been informed that the money had been paid by mistake by both Dr AS and Mr C. The Respondent stated that he had not considered the possibility that he could have been involved in money laundering. The Respondent could not produce any documents regarding the matter and admitted there was no underlying legal transaction. The Respondent also stated that he had taken identity documents for Dr AS, but could not produce them. O EC SRL ( O SRL ) Ledger 30. Sometime during May 2014 the Respondent was contacted by Mr C, who informed the Respondent that he was putting a deal together relating to the purchase of a bank guarantee. The parties involved wanted their funds held securely until the recipient bank had confirmed that the bank guarantee was correct, and that it would be utilised to open a line of credit. The purchasers of the bank guarantee were to be Mr O and Mr V, the agent of Mr O.

8 8 31. On 20 May 2014 Mr V contacted the Respondent by and provided written instructions outlining the intended transaction, which he stated had been prepared by Mr O. In summary, it was stated that Mr O was interested in the evaluation and refinement of a financial transaction banking liquidity line, assisted by a bank guarantee with A Bank, in Bucharest, Romania. Mr O would transfer 50,000 to the Respondent as an advance to confirm the interest in the operation. There would then be a further transfer of 350,000 for the uptake and activation of the line of credit. The Respondent would receive 3,500 for his services. 32. On 20 May 2014 the Respondent informed Mr V that he was unable to check banking documentary evidence and his role would be limited to holding the money until instructions were received to release the money. The Respondent confirmed that he would receive 50,000 as a deposit and 350,000 at a later date, and would be paid 3, On 21 May 2014 Mr V provided a copy of a passport in the name of Mr O and a document titled Client information sheet. Anti money laundering identification. The document contained details of a company owned by Mr O, O SRL, and Mr O s home address. 34. On 27 May 2014 the Respondent met with Mr C, Mr O, Mr V and a Mr F, where his instructions were confirmed. The Respondent indicated to the FI Officer that he considered that he was acting for Mr O. There was, however, no client matter listing for Mr O, his associates or his company. 35. In an undated letter, which bore no name of the proposed recipient nor an address, the Respondent provided his Euro client account details. 36. The FI Officer could find no evidence of a client care letter, or any record of the Respondent advising other parties to the transaction of his obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations The O SRL ledger recorded the following Euro payments into the ledger: Date Narrative 23/5/14 On acc re [O SRL] 50,000 23/5/14 On acc re [O SRL] 4,325 5/6/14 On acc re VI 50,000 6/6/14 On acc re [O SRL] 120,000 9/6/14 On acc re [O SRL] 149,991 10/6/14 On acc re [O SRL] 30,000 10/6/14 On acc re [O SRL] 55, The O SRL ledger recorded the following Euro payments out of the ledger: Date Narrative 6/6/14 Transfer to [Mr CC] 3,000 10/7/14 MK re [O SRL] 400,000 6/6/14 Transfer to [F Ltd] 12, /8/14 Transfer to [Mr CC] 5,000

9 9 39. One of the payments of 50,000 on the O SRL ledger was made by IV. In an interview on 9 September 2014 the Respondent accepted that he did not know who Mr IV was at the time the payment was made. When asked about the identity of Mr IV, the Respondent said that he had missed the scrutiny of that detail, but later found out that he had loaned the money to one of the participants. The Respondent accepted he did not have any information about Mr IV. 40. Examination of the credits of 149,991 on 9 June 2014 and 30,000 on 10 June 2014 indicated that these were sent by a Mr DS, who did not appear to be a party to the transaction for the bank guarantee. On the initial transfer receipt on 9 June 2014 on the ledger, Mr DS gave an address which included the term consulting. On the transfer receipt on 10 June 2014 Mr DS gave an address including the term capitalmoney. In interview on 4 November 2014 the Respondent stated that he did not know who Mr DS was, had not heard of either of the two companies from which the s were sent and had not carried out any due diligence with regard to Mr DS. 41. By letter dated 26 June 2014 the Respondent confirmed to Mr O that I will now release the four hundred thousand euros that I am holding on your behalf to whoever I may be instructed by [Mr CC]. 42. An undated priority payment form from HSBC bank instructed the transfer of 400,000 from the Euro bank account of the Firm to an individual, Mr MK, with an account at A Bank in Russia. 43. The Respondent informed the FI Officer that he did not have any documentation in relation to Mr MK, and stated that he knew that Mr MK was organising the bank guarantee through A Bank, as he had been told this by Mr V and Mr O. 44. In relation to the 5,000 paid to Mr C, the Respondent stated that it was paid to him in cash, as this was what Mr C requested and that he did not know for what Mr C was being paid. The Applicant s Investigation 45. On 27 May 2015 the Applicant wrote to the Respondent setting out allegations against him and requested his response. 46. The Respondent replied in an undated letter as follows: 46.1 Acting where there was no underlying legal transaction There was never any intention, consideration or request to become involved in any money laundering deals or schemes or scams; He believed that all his dealings with his clients or those instructing him were at all times on the basis of an underlying transaction; He believed that the insinuation that there was a blatant disregard for this concept (i.e. of an underlying legal transaction) was not true, and was certainly not intended or connived;

10 With regard to Mr C, he had been asked to assist him in the recovery of commission payments which he had earned from prior commercial transactions. The Respondent stated that he was not involved in those prior commercial transactions; As part of his due diligence, he made a point of meeting the parties or their representatives who were involved in the outstanding commission payments; As a consequence of accepting the instruction to assist with the commission payments he agreed that the payments should be made to his Firm; In relation to the Mr O escrow account, the Respondent stated that this had been fully documented in the FI Report and in his own statement Transfer of funds All the transfers of client funds were for clients for whom he had acted for many years, which resulted in a degree of familiarity and informality as to how instructions were received and executed, and as a consequence the manner in which the transfers were made; All instructions were discussed either at meetings or over the phone and then carried out; With regard to Mr C and the payment to him of 5,000, this had been discussed with Mr C personally; The transfer in respect of Mr B (re the watch) had been personally discussed with Mr B; In the matter of (a different) Mr B, he had known Mr B for over 30 years and was used to receiving verbal instructions; With regard to Mr OB, he met with Mr OB on many occasions, and the funds transferred had been discussed with him prior to the completion of the transfer of funds Books of account The books of account had not been completed at the time of the interview; All the books of account had been completed up to and including 30 May 2015; There was never any discrepancy in the client balances tallying with the Firm s liabilities to clients. 47. A decision was made to refer the Respondent s conduct to the Tribunal on 8 October 2015.

11 11 Witnesses 48. No oral evidence was heard and the case proceeded on the papers and submissions. Findings of Fact and Law 49. The Applicant was required to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal had due regard to the Respondent s rights to a fair trial and to respect for his private and family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 50. The Respondent had admitted all of the allegations, in full, in his Answer to the allegations. The admissions were confirmed by counsel. 51. The Tribunal considered all of the documents presented in the case. 52. Allegation He used, or permitted the use of his client bank account and Euro bank account, for ten clients to be used as a banking facility between 20 April 2011 and 21 August 2014, where there were no underlying legal transactions and thereby: failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 ( the 2007 Code ) and/or Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2011 ( the 2011 Principles ); behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles; breached Rule 15(ix) of the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1998 ( SAR 1998 ) and/or Rule 14(5) of the SRA Accounts Rules 2011 ( AR 2011 ). 1.2 He made transfers and withdrawals from client bank account and Euro bank account without instructions, confirmation or authority, between 20 April 2011 and 21 August 2014, and thereby: behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles; breached Rules 22(1)(e) and 30(1)(a) of the SAR 1998 and/or Rules 20(1)(f) and 27(1)(a) of the AR He involved himself in transactions that bore the hallmarks of money laundering, and thereby:

12 failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the 2007 Code and/or Principle 2 of the 2011 Principles; behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles 1.4 He failed to follow the guidance in the Money Laundering Warning Card when allowing his client account to be used as a banking facility, and thereby: failed to act with integrity, in breach of Rule 1.02 of the 2007 Code and/or Principle 2 of the 2011 Principles; behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles. 1.5 He breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 with regard to the customer due diligence undertaken by Archer and Wilcock (firm), its retention of identity documents and his failure to monitor ongoing business relationships, and thereby behaved in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him and the legal profession in breach of Rule 1.06 of the 2007 Code and/or failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and the provision of legal services, in breach of Principle 6 of the 2011 Principles The Tribunal was satisfied to the required standard, on the facts and on the admissions, that all of the allegations had been proved. Previous Disciplinary Matters 53. There were no previous matters in which findings had been made against the Respondent. Mitigation 54. Mr Ferry-Swainson made submissions in mitigation on behalf of the Respondent. 55. The Respondent apologised for his absence; he had hoped to be present but his health had suffered and he was not well enough to attend. The Respondent understood the importance of these proceedings and intended no disrespect to the Tribunal. 56. The Respondent was now 65 and had been admitted as a solicitor in He had an unblemished record in the profession until this point. He had worked with and been the senior partner of a respected firm in Norwich and later worked as a consultant.

13 13 The Respondent set up the Firm, of which he was the sole principal, in The Respondent had decided to retire and the Firm had been closed in March The Tribunal was told that the Respondent had transferred the Firm s files to other firms, had arranged storage of archived files and had appropriate insurance run-off cover. There were no outstanding complaints from clients. All client money had been accounted for. The accounts had been up to date and no intervention into the Firm had been necessary. 57. The Respondent had provided a full Answer to the allegations. In short, in relation to the individual clients and others named in the case the Respondent either knew them well or had met them through well-established clients. The Respondent accepted that he had acted in the ways described in the factual background, and that his conduct had lacked integrity. At the relevant times he had thought he was acting in the best interest of his clients and their associates, but now accepted he may have trusted them too much. 58. It was submitted that the Respondent had had no intention of breaching any of the relevant professional regulations. However, he accepted that he had let his standards slip as he had relied on his judgement of character rather than carrying out the required checks. In particular, he had relied on verbal confirmations rather than instructions confirmed in writing to make transfers, and had become too informal in dealing with clients for whom he had acted for many years. The Respondent accepted that his conduct had diminished the trust the public would place in the profession. 59. It was submitted that the Respondent had been open, honest and frank in the admissions he had made. He had had a long and distinguished career. The references provided, from some long-standing clients, showed how he was viewed as a solicitor. All of the references were in glowing terms and expressed surprise at the Respondent s behaviour, which appeared to be out of character. It was submitted that the Respondent was facing a sad end to a long career. He was very sorry to have let down his profession, and his family. He appreciated the importance of acting with integrity and the need to uphold professional standards, including acting in accordance with the anti money laundering guidance. 60. Mr Ferry-Swainson referred to the Tribunal s Guidance Note on Sanction. It was accepted that an aggravating factor which was present was that the conduct had been repeated over a period of time, and the Respondent should have known he was acting in breach of his professional obligations. A mitigating factor which was present was that the Respondent had shown genuine insight into the misconduct and had made open and frank admissions. The Respondent accepted that his misconduct was serious and he could expect a serious sanction. 61. The Tribunal s attention was drawn to the final section of the Respondent s Answer, dated 23 March 2016, which (after confirming the admissions) read: I would hope and ask in understanding and acknowledging my admission to the allegations arising from my failures and shortcomings that at no time was there ever any blatant or intentional attempt to ignore or not follow the SRA rules. The result of these allegations is most distressing and unbefitting end to a forty-year career as a practising solicitor. I am very sorry that my

14 14 naivety and inadvertent actions have brought this situation on the profession and myself. This is not how I would have intended to end my career as a solicitor, and it has never been my intention not to act with integrity at all times in accordance with our rules and never ever the intention to behave in any manner likely to diminish the trust the public places in me as a solicitor. I have always endeavoured to act in the very best interests of my clients, putting my clients at the heart of my practice. I have acted in some cases for three generations of a family, surely a testament to the care and dedication I have always shown my clients. I have now retired from practice and ceased to hold a practising certificate. 62. Mr Ferry-Swainson again told the Tribunal that the Respondent apologised for his behaviour. Sanction 63. The Tribunal had regard to its Guidance Note on Sanction (December 2015), to all of the facts of the case and to the submissions of the parties. 64. The Tribunal read and considered the testimonials which had been submitted on behalf of the Respondent. These were, as described by Mr Ferry-Swainson, glowing references from clients who had relied on and trusted the Respondent over a long period. All of the referees had expressed surprise that the Respondent had found himself before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted and took into account that the Respondent had four decades of unblemished professional conduct prior to these proceedings. 65. The Tribunal found that the Respondent was culpable for his actions in that he had been in control of the relevant accounts, and of the Firm. He had gone along with what his clients wanted, without regard to his professional obligations. He had not intended any harm, but as an experienced solicitor he knew or should have known that he was becoming involved in unusual matters; he should have been at least suspicious enough to recognise that he ought fully to implement and act on the very well-known guidance which had been issued to the profession. The harm which would be done both in terms of being involved in unusual transfers and to the reputation of the profession was clearly foreseeable. The Respondent had casually allowed the use of his client bank account, for the convenience of his clients, in particular Mr CC and his associates. The sums of money which had been transferred, either without proper instructions or in unusual circumstances, to or from unknown persons were very large. The conduct had continued over several years and there were a number of opportunities for the Respondent to notice he was falling foul of the rules. He was aware of each of the transfers or transactions, and that he was not carrying out legal work in relation to the matters where money was being transferred. 66. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had an unblemished professional record and that he had admitted the allegations, once formulated. To that degree, he had shown insight into the misconduct.

15 The relevant rules were in place to protect the public and the reputation of the solicitors profession, as one whose members could be trusted to deal carefully and properly with client money. There was no complaint in this instance from the clients involved; the Respondent had done as they wanted, for their convenience. The Tribunal had also heard that there had been no claim on the Compensation Fund arising from this matter. However, the reputation of the profession would be significantly harmed, and trust would be diminished, if a solicitor allowed his client bank account to be used in transactions which bore hallmarks of money laundering. There would be particular concern at the receipt of money from an unknown individual (Mr IV) and transfer to another unknown individual (Mr MK), which included a transfer to an account in Russia. It was essential to ensure that one knew where money was coming from or going to in order to avoid the risk of becoming engaged in money laundering. The Respondent had allowed his systems to be set up and operated in such a way that his casual dealings with Mr C paved the way for even more concerning transactions. 68. The Tribunal assessed the Respondent s conduct as serious. He had completely failed to carry out money laundering checks or prevent his client bank accounts from being misused. He had shown a lack of integrity in his conduct, showing a blatant disregard for the professional rules over a period of about three and a half years. The Tribunal s sanction had to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The Tribunal noted that the fundamental purpose of its sanctions was to maintain the trust of the public in the profession rather than to punish a Respondent, although an element of punishment could be included in a sanction. 69. The matters in question were clearly too serious to allow for either no order or a reprimand. The Tribunal determined that a fine would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the misconduct but striking the Respondent off the Roll would be excessive and unnecessary. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent had already retired from practice, but sanctions should reflect the misconduct and not the personal circumstances of an individual solicitor. In this instance, the Tribunal determined that the reasonable and proportionate sanction was to suspend the Respondent from practice as a solicitor. 70. The Tribunal considered the length of suspension required and determined that 12 months would be reasonable and proportionate. It was important that the profession should recognise the seriousness of these matters and that suspension was required for such serious matters. The Tribunal determined that no punitive element was required in addition to suspension. However, the Tribunal determined that in the event the Respondent sought to practise again, for example as a consultant solicitor, he should be subject to restrictions which would have the effect that he could not be a principal of a firm, be a COLP or COFA or deal with client money. Whilst the suspension would last for 12 months, the conditions would remain unless and until varied by the Tribunal on the application of a party. Costs 71. Mr Gibson made an application for the Respondent to pay the Applicant s costs of and in connection with these proceedings and referred to a schedule of costs dated 7 July 2016 in the total sum of 14, That schedule included forensic

16 16 investigation costs of 8, and hotel and train fares in attending the final hearing of 358. The legal work by solicitors at the Applicant was charged at 130 per hour and was not subject to VAT. Mr Gibson told the Tribunal that in fact the train costs had been higher than claimed. 72. Mr Ferry-Swainson told the Tribunal that he had seen a schedule in the total sum of 11, It was noted that this was the figure as at the issue of proceedings. A copy of the final schedule was provided to him. Mr Ferry-Swainson submitted that the hearing had not lasted as long as estimated on the schedule, and so should be reduced. However, the Respondent accepted that he should pay the reasonable costs of the proceedings, and he would do so. The Respondent had not submitted his financial details as he was prepared to pay the costs ordered. 73. The Tribunal considered carefully the schedule of costs presented by the Applicant. It noted that the Respondent was willing to pay costs and that it did not have to take into account his financial position in awarding costs. 74. The Tribunal determined that the rate at which work was charged was reasonable. However, the time for which the Respondent should be liable should be reduced as the hearing had not lasted as long as estimated. Further, the time claimed for preparation for the hearing appeared high, where all of the allegations had been admitted. In addition, the time spent in preparation of documents was a little higher than might be expected. The Tribunal noted in relation to the disbursements claims that Mr Gibson had attended another Tribunal hearing on the same date and the travel/accommodation costs should be apportioned between matters. Finally, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had claimed both for overnight accommodation in London and a train fare which appeared very high for the Birmingham to London return journey. The Applicant should not be able to seek against a Respondent both what appeared to be a peak-time rail fare and hotel costs; if staying overnight, one could travel at a lower cost. 75. Taking into account the points noted above, the Tribunal determined that the reasonable and proportionate costs of these proceedings which should be paid by the Respondent should be assessed at 12,500. Statement of Full Order The Tribunal ORDERED that the Respondent, GAVIN CROFT WILCOCK, solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of 12 months to commence on 10 August 2016 and it further Ordered that he do pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of 12, Upon the expiry of the fixed term of suspension referred to above, the Respondent shall be subject to conditions imposed by the Tribunal as follows: 2.1 The Respondent may not: Practise as a sole practitioner or sole manager or sole owner of an authorised or recognised body;

17 Be a partner or member of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), Legal Disciplinary Practice (LDP) or Alternative Business Structure (ABS) or other authorised or recognised body; Be a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice or a Compliance Officer for Finance and Administration; Hold client money; Be a signatory on any client account; Work as a solicitor other than in employment approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. 3. There be liberty to either party to apply to the Tribunal to vary the conditions set out at paragraph 2 above. Dated this 9 th day of September 2016 On behalf of the Tribunal R. Nicholas Chairman