Monday, November 21, 2011

Lord Advocate Mulholland in the dock as Crown Office dithers over prosecuting yet another CROOKED LAWYER who stole £116K from client accounts

Another case of “Inadmissible evidence” for the Crown Office ? SCOTLAND’S CROWN OFFICE & PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE, fresh from revelations they REFUSED to prosecute FOURTEEN lawyers who were reported to prosecutors by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) for stealing millions from Scotland’s taxpayer funded £160 MILLION legal aid budget under the former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, face allegations the same policy is continuing under Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC after a new case reported in the Sunday Mail newspaper revealed prosecutors in Hamilton are DITHERING over whether to prosecute yet another crooked lawyer Antony David Murphy, who stole £116,000 from clients accounts holding deposits from homebuyers.

Antony David Murphy, (55) was finally struck off last week by the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) after long running complaints were finally acted on by the Law Society of Scotland due to fears the clients who had lost much of their money with Murphy would turn to the media and generate a series of unwelcome headlines for the notoriously corrupt system of rubber-stamp self-regulation run by the Law Society of Scotland & Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

The full judgement and details of the complaints made against Anthony Murphy can be downloaded from the SSDT’s website HERE or viewed online here : Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Anthony David Murphy :

Edinburgh 14 September 2011; The Tribunal having considered the Complaint dated 11 May 2011 at the instance of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland against Antony David Murphy formerly of 31 Chapel Street, Hamilton. Lanarkshire now of 3 Chateau Grove, Hamilton, Lanarkshire;

;Find the Respondent guilty of Professional Misconduct in respect of his knowingly permitting a client to sell heritable property to a third party when his clients were contractually bound to sell to others,

;His knowingly falsely representing to his professional body that his accounting records had been destroyed when they had not and his acting recklessly by clearing monies out of his client account that he could not be sure were due to him as fees and in so doing his removing approximately £116,200 worth of clients monies to which he was not entitled, all in breach of Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002,

;His failure to account to the liquidators of Company A and Company E or respond to the reasonable enquiries of the liquidators and his breach of Rule 4 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Accounts Rules Etc 2001;

;Order that the name of the Respondent Antony David Murphy be struck off the Roll of Solicitors in Scotland; Find the Respondent liable in the expenses of the Complainers and of the Tribunal including expenses of the Clerk, chargeable on a time and line basis as the same may be taxed by the Auditor of the Court of Session on an agent and client, client paying basis in terms of Chapter Three of the last published Law Society’s Table of Fees for general business with a unit rate of £14.00; and Direct that publicity will be given to this decision and that this publicity should include the name of the Respondent.

However not all the heads of complaint were found by the SSDT to have been proven, and controversially the tribunal backed away from finding Murphy had defrauded the Inland Revenue, where in its judgement it stated : “The Tribunal is also not able to find, on the basis of the evidence led, that the Respondent acted dishonestly by not disclosing money to the Inland Revenue.”

A legal insider commenting on the decision said the Law Society of Scotland were reluctant to inform on or find in complaints that solicitors were defrauding HMRC due to fears it may encourage UK tax authorities to take a closer look at law firms, many of whose accounts are known to be a mess and “full of fraudulent activity”.

CLIENT ACCOUNTS AT SCOTTISH LAW FIRMS ARE DANGEROUS HAVENS FOR YOUR MONEY :

In a shocking example of the level of endemic fraud within the Scottish legal profession showing how solicitors steal from client accounts on a regular basis, just one of the cases brought to the attention of Diary of Injustice over the past year told the story of an apparently small but well known law firm in the Scottish Borders which was found to have dozens of bank accounts where client funds had been lost on a regular basis and worse still, one of the solicitors in the law firm, a well known fraudster, has, according to information seen by Diary of Injustice, 23 different bank accounts in different banks & different names, some using variations of his own name, others allegedly in his family members name with control signed over to him.

Legal insiders this afternoon have indicated the Law Society of Scotland are not eager to see Murphy prosecuted by the Crown Office. A decision is yet to be made by the Procurator Fiscal in Hamilton. Diary of Injustice can also reveal today another investigation being carried out by authorities into a well known advocate accused of legal aid fraud is said to be “going badly” with expectations of a prosecution diminishing due to “interference from legal circles in the investigation”.

The Sunday Mail reports :

No action taken against lawyer who swiped £116k from clients

Nov 20 2011 By Russell Findlay, Sunday Mail

A BENT lawyer who swiped £116,000 from his clients has not been prosecuted. Tony Murphy, 55, was struck off last week for raiding accounts containing deposits from homebuyers.The slippery brief from Hamilton, Lanarkshire, was first exposed by the Sunday Mail three years ago.

He was reported to the Crown Office last June. But they have taken no action against him. A Crown Office spokesman said: "The procurator fiscal at Hamilton has received a report concerning a 51-year-old male and it remains under consideration."

Murphy was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. He collected deposits from 29 buyers but then acted in the sale of the development to another company. Only part of the deposits were returned and Murphy also took a £50,000 fee after court action against the firm. He was also found to have failed to account to the liquidators of two companies and to have falsely represented to Law Society officials that his accounts had been destroyed in a flood.

Murphy was linked to dodgy builder Stephen Connelly who has been struck off as a company director until 2018. He left homebuyers and taxpayers £485,000 out of pocket when his Glen Isla Homes firm failed.

TRIBUNAL’S DECISION IN MURPHY CASE RE-WROTE COMPLAINT, BACKED AWAY FROM CLAIMING TAXMAN WAS DEFRAUDED

After hearing evidence from the complainers, some of which was reporter by the SSDT in the judgement Council of the Law Society of Scotland v Anthony David Murphy, the Tribunal found Ms Grandison and Mr Ritchie to be credible and reliable witnesses and accepted their evidence. The Tribunal found the facts in Articles 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 10.1, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.9 and 10.10 of the Complaint to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The facts in Articles 2.2, 3.2, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.8 of the Complaint the Tribunal found proved beyond reasonable doubt subject to the following deletions and amendments. With regard to Article 2.2 the Tribunal deleted the final two sentences as no evidence was led with regard to this. In connection with Article 2.4 the Tribunal deleted from “Enquiries were made” in line 12 to “Company D” in line 18 and from “Enquiries” in line 21 to “Company D” in line 23, as the Tribunal was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that these facts were proved on the evidence. In connection with Article 3.2 the Tribunal deleted the last two sentences as no evidence was led to substantiate this. In connection with Article 3.3 the Tribunal deleted from “They delivered” in line 6 to “of another” in line 13 and from “It was clear” in line 18 to “number of years” in line 25, because the Tribunal did not consider the evidence sufficient to substantiate this and the Tribunal also made a number of minor amendments in this Article to reflect the evidence led. In connection with Article 10.2 the Tribunal deleted the sentence starting “The Respondent” in lines 5 and 6 as this was not borne out by the evidence. In relation to Article 10.3 the Tribunal deleted from the words “The Complainers” in line 2 to “Respondent” in line 6 as the Tribunal was not satisfied that this had been proved on the basis of the evidence led. In connection with Article 10.8 the Tribunal deleted the last three sentences as this was not spoken to in evidence. The Tribunal also deleted Articles 4.1 – 9.1 and 11.1 to 11.2 as the fiscal did not lead any evidence with regard to these averments.

On the facts found as proved the Tribunal had no hesitation in finding the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct. In respect of the Company A matter, the Respondent was aware that his client, Company A had concluded missives with a number of individuals in respect of the sale of units to them. Despite this knowledge and without advising the prospective purchasers or their solicitors, the Respondent acted on behalf of Company A when it negotiated and sold its interests in the development to a third party. The Tribunal considered that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by knowingly permitting his client to sell heritable property to a third party when his client was contractually bound to sell to others. The Tribunal also considered this to be a breach of Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors 2002. It is important in order to preserve the integrity of the conveyancing system in Scotland, that solicitors should not, where they are aware that a client has concluded missives with a number of purchasers, proceed to negotiate a separate transaction and act in the sale of a development site to a third party knowing that the client would be in breach of the various contracts with prospective purchasers. The Respondent should have refrained from acting for Company A in respect of the subsequent transactions. As a result of the Respondent’s actions a number of purchasers were financially disadvantaged in that they did not receive their full deposits back. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to decide whether the Respondent’s conduct in this matter also amounted to a breach of Article 1 and / or Article 5a of the Code of Conduct. The Tribunal however had no hesitation in finding that the Respondent’s conduct in acting in this manner amounts to professional misconduct in terms of the Sandeman test. (Richard Allan Sandeman-v-The Council of the Law Society of Scotland [2011] CSIH 24 P433/10).

The Tribunal also found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his knowingly falsely representing to the Law Society that his accounting records had been destroyed in a flood when they clearly had not been. Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Scottish Solicitors provides that “solicitors must act honestly at all times and in such a way as to put their personal integrity beyond question”. The Respondent was in breach of this code by providing false information to his professional body and the Tribunal consider that this would be regarded by competent and reputable solicitors as serious and reprehensible. The Tribunal was also extremely concerned by the fact that the Respondent acted so recklessly in clearing money out of his client’s accounts on 4 November 2008 when he could not be sure that these monies were actually due to him. The Tribunal was satisfied on the basis of the evidence from Morna Grandison that in doing so he removed approximately £116,200 of client’s money to which he was not entitled. The Tribunal consider this to be totally unacceptable and it puts the Respondent’s personal integrity in severe doubt.

The Tribunal also found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his failure to account to the liquidators of Company A and Company E and failure to respond to the reasonable enquiries of the liquidators concerning matters of importance identified by the liquidators. The Tribunal consider that it puts the Respondent’s personal integrity into question when he does not answer questions about client’s funds. The Tribunal also had concerns with regard to the apparent unlimited use of a credit card on the Company A and Company D accounts but the clients did not make a complaint about this and the Tribunal was unable to find it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent was not authorised to use this money.

The Tribunal also found the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of his breach of Rule 4 of the Accounts Rules due to the shortfall of more than £8,000 on his client account. The Tribunal was not able to find a breach of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct or find the Respondent guilty of professional misconduct in respect of misleading the solicitors acting for the purchasers of the properties at Property 2, because it is not clear to the Tribunal what the Respondent had been told by Company C. The Tribunal accordingly cannot find that what the Respondent stated in his letter of 10 September 2007 was dishonest. Company C were the finders for the purchasers and accordingly it is likely that the purchasers would have had some contact with Company C. No evidence was led with regard to what any of the purchasers were told. The Tribunal is also not able to find, on the basis of the evidence led, that the Respondent acted dishonestly by not disclosing money to the Inland Revenue.

27 comments:

  1. I should probably go down to Ladbrokes and place a bet on Murphy not being prosecuted.
    Anyone else want to join in?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the SSDT had the complaint magically rewritten and get to make lots of findings irrelevant or not proven.

    and they call this regulation!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having read the document on Murphy I must conclude if anyone hands over a single penny to a lawyer for safekeeping in these client accounts the client must be stark raving bonkers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I dont think there is any way out for the Crown on those 14 lawyers they let off for legal aid fraud.Job well done on that story Peter it has to be the best one this year from all the law blogs.Makes one wonder why no one else bothered to expose it but then your not one of the lawyer sponsored sycophants thank goodness!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A verdict tailored to suit the Law Society!

    If someone ever gave a statement to Police and it was read out in court like this the trial would be stopped in 5 minutes!!

    The SSDT are rubbish just another backup for the Law Society

    ReplyDelete
  6. So can someone explain to me why there is no tax fraud when a lawyer steals £116,000 from his clients?

    He just declared it somewhere else to the Inland Revenue?

    I don't think so.

    The Law Society and this SSDT are just a bunch of fucking crooks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Were the complainers happy at all this?

    It doesn't sound like people got all of their money back,why?

    Self regulation produces cases like this all the time and so far the thief has not even been charged.What a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Diary of Injustice can also reveal today another investigation being carried out by authorities into a well known advocate accused of legal aid fraud is said to be “going badly” with expectations of a prosecution diminishing due to “interference from legal circles in the investigation”.

    This would relate to a well known flasher at young boys does it?

    Have additional flashers of young boys in the profession come out to protection said alleged flasher from said alleged legal aid fiddling?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well if they use this as evidence they wont prosecute because the whole bloody report is a pile of crap.How is anyone supposed to trust a lawyer when all they do is cover up for each other in this way?

    Good to know they are afraid of the tax man getting them thank god someone has a power over them!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well what can I say,the Sunday Mail version is one million times better than the Discipline Tribunal report!

    Thank god a newspaper still stands up to these legal mafia thugs who are out rip us all off!WELL DONE SUNDAY MAIL!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well what is it to be Frankie boy?
    A lack of admissible evidence again for Mr Murphy?
    Are you going to make it an even 16 if the advocate also gets off the hook??

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'd like to know how much we are paying for these wasters at the SLCC to sit around talking a load of guff instead of getting all these crooks prosecuted BEFORE THE COURTS

    NOWHERE IN THAT REPORT IS THERE ANY MENTION OF GOING TO THE POLICE OR CROWN OFFICE NOW WHY IS THAT?

    BLOODY CRIMINALS PROTECTING CRIMINALS IS WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes there is no mention of the Police in that report well spotted so what is going on in the Hamilton PF's office?

    Another snow job in the making?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The SSDT are the same thugs who threaten to sue clients who pursue complaints for every penny they've got after the lawyer gets his legal hit team to buy them off.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I suspect the SSDT are just another extension of the Law Society in a way like the ALEOs were to Glasgow City Council - full of their political pals & spongers.

    The part about not wanting to find tax evasion smacks of more closed ranks regulation so much even a child could see it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Edinburgh Lunch Club at it again....

    Substatially rewriting the charge sheet to fit-to exactly the result that is required of them.

    That is to stop short of the charges that would lead to an automatic prosecution for Mr Murphy.

    How convenient for the Lawyers at the Crown Office, Lawyers at the SSDT and Lawyers at the Law Society of Scotland.

    This is defeating the ends of justice in action folks.

    I wonder who the Law Society's Prosecuting Fiscal was in this case, who was responsible for writing up the original Heads of Complaints, which the SSDT (Sorry ELC) put a red pen line through.

    It would be interesting if a member of the public put a third party complaint into the Law Society against this Prosecuting Fiscal Lawyer because clearly he/she is hopelessly incompetent, as shown by the ELC's rewriting of the whole charge sheet.

    If someone said that this was part of a Hollywood script, I probably would not believe it - IT IS THAT UNBELIEVABLE

    What gets me is these people at the ELC, Crown Office, Law Society of Scotland etc are so arrogant that they think they can get away with this behaviour with impunity because they feel they are above the law.

    But the Incidences and examples of illegality so casually committed by them are being piled-up and recorded and will be used against them and they will experience true justice properly served.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The function of the SSDT is not to regulate lawyers:-

    It is a streaming tool, whereby the Law Society of Scotland can effectively (not) be seen to legitimately eject those Scottish Lawyers who have 'crossed them' (not to'ed the party line or a Law yer who is too idealistic and fights for his client) and keep their 'friends' (the crooks or lawyers to whom they catch-out, then give a reprieve to, so they can hold them in abeyance to toe the party line - carry out favours for them for the rest of their career or risk the worst punishment of all...To be made a non Scottish lawyer)

    This is why when you look, there is absolutely no consistency in sanction, which again is proof positive that this process has been hijacked and twisted by the Legal criminals.

    eg. A Lawyer is struck-off for not responding to a Law Society letter (On the SSDT website)

    Compared with numerous examples of Lawyer deception and theft of many thousands of pounds, which ends up with a minor slap-on-the-wrist.
    (To test this, go to the SSDT website and search under Professional Misconduct (notice the heading here, serious stuff) Now put your finger on the screen close your eyes and run your finger down and stop at random and look at the particulars of the case and see if the sanction fits the crimes committed by the lawyer?)


    Told you!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The SSDT is effectively a Court.

    Higher than the Court of Session and lower than the High Court.

    It is also governed by Statute.

    Who audits the SSDT?

    Who is responsible for ensuring it is fit for purpose and how is this practically achieved on an ongoing basis?

    Do panel members undergo any form of training before taking up their positions?

    What specifically qualifies them to be able to be proficient as a panel member?

    Are the proceedings capable of being digitally recorded as in every Sheriff Court and Higher Court?

    Is due process followed with respect to SSDT rules, case Precedent, vulnerable witnesses, comparisons with decisions and conventions in similar cases etc?

    Hmmmnnn

    KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanagarooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous said...
    I should probably go down to Ladbrokes and place a bet on Murphy not being prosecuted.
    Anyone else want to join in?

    21 November 2011 15:12
    -----------------------------------

    Well you know how these Bookies are fast and well informed and keep up-to-date with all the best information sources to get the best insider information so that they don't get caught out....?

    Well after your post above, I nipped down to Ladbrokes in the High Street and you're not going to believe this....?

    By the time I got there at 1530 the odds were 1-Gazillion that Mulholland will prosecute Murphy!

    Nightmare!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Someone has just informed me that the Lord Advocate is to be in the dock

    Is this true?

    What size of yacht has he chosen?

    He'll be hoping that none of the ordinary folk drill a hole in its hull.

    You know what they say about a captain and a sinking ship?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yet another example of the Law Society of Scotland (they prosecuted him BADLY before the SSDT), the SSDT and the Crown Office colluding in order to keep one of their own out of PRISON.

    Once again they flout the fact that they are acting ABOVE THE LAW.

    What are the Police doing about this.

    This is a newspaper reporting INSTITUTIONALISED CORRUPTION to SUBVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.

    Mr Policeman, I will meet you and your mates at the front door of the Crown Office in the morning to watch you make your arrests

    Our Servicemen and women are laying down their lives to fight for our rights and freedoms and these Legal creeps are shitting all over them.

    This has got to stop!

    This is Scotland not Zimbabwe!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kenny MacAskill must resign or be sacked straight away.

    The Scottish people do not want to be lorded over by a bunch of fat-cat lawyers who act as if they are above the law.

    the sooner the whole lot are cleared out the better and let some new non Megrahi-case faces in who are incorruptible

    ReplyDelete
  23. It seems that there is a 'public interest test' being used by the crown office in them refusing to prosecute crooked Scottish lawyers

    That is to say, 'it would not be in the public interest' for all of the crooked lawyers to be prosecuted and sent to jail because this would lead to a drastic shortage in the number of Scottish lawyers left.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous said...
    I should probably go down to Ladbrokes and place a bet on Murphy not being prosecuted.
    Anyone else want to join in?

    21 November 2011 15:12


    Great Idea. or so I thought. By the time I reached Ladbrokes at 1600hrs, they were no longer taking money bets.

    However, when I was there Hu Jintao (The President of China) called Ladbrokes to say that he wanted to bet, 'all the tea in China on Murphy not being prosecuted' (in a Chinese accent of course)

    It seems international political leaders too are reading your Blog Peter, to keep themselves informed as to what is really going on in Scotland!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous said...
    So the SSDT had the complaint magically rewritten and get to make lots of findings irrelevant or not proven.

    and they call this regulation!

    21 November 2011 15:50
    -----------------------------------

    I am certain that this practise adopted by the SSDT is unlawful and is contrary to natural justice.

    This may be prime facie evidence of a criminal offence having been committed and by operation of law should lead to a prosecution

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why is it that as soon as you cross the threshold of a Scottish lawyers office, they automatically assume ownership of all of your assets as their own?

    If the Law Society of Scotland's inspection and regulation system actually worked, then how is it possible for these cases to occur and given that the SSDT water down the severity of the sanctions versus crimes committed the problem is much worse than the Law Society and the SSDT would like us to believe.

    It is pretty clear that both the Law Society of Scotland and the SSDT are consistently anti client driven and as such are not fulfilling there statutory role and should be terminated as soon as possible

    ReplyDelete
  27. The scandals surrounding the Scottish justice system are so severe that it is going to cost Alex Salmond his chance for Scotland to vote for independence.

    He needs to be strong and show leadership.

    Step up to the plate and sythe through these corrupt institutions to cut away all of the corrupt practices and individuals long before the prospect of any referendum.

    Salmond, the time for change is now.

    Any delay will be terminal for the SNP and for Scotland's ability to be a bone fide country with a bone fide justice system.

    ReplyDelete

Comments should encourage & promote an acceptable & respectful level of public debate on law & legal issues, the judiciary, courts & justice system.

All comments are subject to moderation. Anonymous comments are enabled.
Abusive or unacceptable comments will not be published.
Comments & links to material may not always be published but will be noted and investigated.

Sourced information, news leaks, or cases with verifiable documentation for investigation should be emailed to blog journalists.