The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal involving breaches of anti-money laundering requirements has recorded the following cases.

SRA v Michael Gerald Dotchon

Summary: The Respondent witnessed signatures on a transfer document of two people he had never met or identified as the true owners of the property.. After completion, he realised that the sale was a false transaction. He also arranged transfer of client monies to an account in a different name.

In separate proceedings relating to the same transaction, the Respondent admitted that he had failed to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations and/or the policies and procedures which he had put in place to comply with them.

Sanction: The tribunal found that the Respondent had been dishonest in purporting to witness signatures he did not in fact witness. In this case the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was to strike the Respondent from the Roll of Solicitors.

The Respondent was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and ordered to pay costs of £24,380. Decision number: 11153-2013/Decision date: 28 April 2014

Read the full decision (PDF) – http://bit.ly/1w3vpV4

SRA v Salina Jayne Yildi

Summary: The Respondent was the firm’s appointed MLRO. The Tribunal found that she acted in certain transactions contrary to the Applicant’s warning card dated April 2009 on money laundering and these were transactions which bore the hallmarks of money laundering. Further, the evidence demonstrated that the Respondent was grossly reckless in her actions.

Sanction: The Tribunal considered that she had departed from the ‘complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness’ expected of a solicitor and her actions had harmed the reputation of the profession. This was clearly a far too serious matter for a fine, having regard to the breach of undertakings and the extent of the findings of gross recklessness, including the failure to take account properly of the warning cards in respect of money laundering and financial fraud. The Respondent was completely out of her depth and acted in disregard of her professional obligations, but she was not found to be dishonest or lacking integrity.

The Respondent was suspended for three years and then restricted to only working as a solicitor in employment. She was ordered to pay £110,000 in costs. Decision number: 10997-2012 / Decision date: 28 May 2014

Read the full decision (PDF) – http://bit.ly/1Ako3ul