An equity partner has been fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 costs for breaches of anti-money laundering regulations.
Jonathan Richard Maurice Gerber, of Paddington, London, firm WGS Solicitors, admitted the allegations against him. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found those admissions to have been properly made.
Gerber, admitted in 1991, accepted that between 3 May 2019 and 15 August 2020, he caused or allowed receipts to and payments from the firm’s client account in matters for a client or entities connected to the client, in circumstances other than in respect of an underlying legal transaction being undertaken by the firm or in respect of the delivery by the firm of normal regulated services.
He also admitted that between the same dates, and being at all relevant times a member of the firm and the partner with primary responsibility for its relationship with the relevant client, he materially contributed to the firm’s anti-money laundering failures. The client, who is not named, was a high-net-worth individual. Following a request on behalf of the client, the firm allowed its client account to be used to facilitate purchases of art.
Read more
The three-person panel found Gerber’s motivation ‘was to ensure that he retained the client’. His conduct was repeated over a ‘significant period of time in circumstances where he failed to make proper enquiries as to his regulatory obligations, notwithstanding his awareness that he should make such enquiries’.
Gerber ‘ought reasonably to have known or discovered that the conduct complained of was in breach of his professional obligations’.
The judgment noted no loss was suffered by any client. Gerber had made ‘open and frank admissions’ and demonstrated ‘genuine insight’ into his ‘very serious’ misconduct.
Fining Gerber, the SDT said: ‘Mr Gerber had direct control and responsibility for the circumstances giving rise to the misconduct. He was the lead solicitor on this matter, and was the person dealing with the payments.
‘Whilst the firm had admitted its systemic failings, Mr Gerber was one of three equity partners at the time, and was thus responsible for ensuring that there were no systemic failings. He was an extremely experienced solicitor at the time of his misconduct. In conducting himself as he had, Mr Gerber (as admitted) had caused damage to the reputation of the profession.’
WGS itself, and a salaried partner at the firm, were dealt with separately by way of agreed outcomes on the first day of the substantive hearing, as reported by the Gazette here.
