Between
| Applicant | Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd |
|---|---|
| Respondent | Rory Peter Heddle Fordyce |
Case details
| Allegation | Breaches, Client Money, Code of Conduct 2011, Money Laundering Regulations, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2011, Solicitors Accounts Rules 2019, SRA Principles 2011, SRA Principles 2019 |
|---|---|
| Outcome | Fine |
| Executive summary | The Tribunal found allegation 1.1 proved in its entirety. The Tribunal considered that Mr Fordyce’s failure to conduct adequate checks as to the source of wealth and funds of Mr Mahmudov in circumstances where he had conflicting information was sufficiently serious, culpable and reprehensible as to engage Principles 6 and 8. The Tribunal found the admissions made to breaches of Principle 7 and failure to achieve Outcome 7.5 were properly made. Allegation 1.1 – PROVED The Tribunal found allegation 1.2 proved in its entirety. Mr Fordyce had allowed the Firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility as monies were transferred in the absence of any underlying legal transaction. Allegation 1.2 – PROVED The Tribunal found allegation 1.3 proved in its entirety. The Tribunal found Mr Fordyce’s admissions to have been properly made. Allegation 1.3 – PROVED The Tribunal found allegation 1.4 not proved. The Tribunal determined that the particular circumstances of the loan did not give rise to an actual own interest conflict or a significant risk thereof. Further, the Tribunal did not find that in the particular circumstances, the alleged Principles were engaged.• Allegation 1.4 – NOT PROVED The Tribunal found allegation 1.5 not proved on the basis that at the time Mr Fordyce loaned monies to Client B, Client B was not a client of the Firm. Accordingly, the allegation was dismissed. Allegation 1.5 – NOT PROVED |