The Solicitors Regulation Authority has decided not to appeal the High Court’s decision to throw out a case against a solicitor whom it accused of failing to follow its money laundering rules.

In the case, the regulator failed to overturn a disciplinary tribunal’s decision to clear George Fahim Sa’id of any wrongdoing.

Sa’id had ‘admitted failings in due diligence’ when he assisted a wealthy Iraqi family in a transaction involving the purchase of a £27 million hotel and an £8.5 million house, both in London. 

The sole practitioner, operating as George Anthony Andrews, accepted that his money laundering systems had let him down on the two transactions. His own inquiries had failed to identify that one of the members of the family was a minister in the Iraqi government and who was therefore classed as a politically exposed person (PEP) under money laundering regulations, the court heard.

He had also used a company called Veriphy to conduct a PEP questionnaire and a Veriphy printout showed the client as a ‘pass’.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had found Sa’id’s actions did not breach the SRA Principles or the Code of Conduct. The SRA appealed to the High Court, arguing the SDT had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

Mrs Justice Thornton dismissed the appeal last month, ruling that the SDT had been entitled to conclude Sa’id had not breached the Money Laundering Regulations and was not therefore in breach of the SRA Principles or Code of Conduct.

The SRA confirmed on Friday that it had been ‘reviewing the judgment’, but when asked on Tuesday - the last day on which it had to appeal - the regulator confirmed it was not submitting an appeal.

 

This article is now closed for comment.