Legal councillor struck off after more than £40000 of fraudulent claims
Muhammed Asif Din who was an award winner of the solicitor award has been removed from his position. This incidence comes after the solicitor was discovered to have forged payments exceeding £40000. He moved money from companies in the field of law which he had partnered with into his personal accounts that he had full control over them.
Muhammed managed to transfer the funds into these bank accounts by assigning the accounts with the names of contractors that had earlier offered services to those law firms that he had partnered with. These were the sovereign solicitors situated in Bury and the Rochdale dean solicitors.
Based on the evidence tabled to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, facts show that more than £ 42500 cash was received in two bank accounts which had the names of two contractors that had earlier provided various services such as marketing, costs and crime investigation. This happened in the period between the year 2013 September and the year 2015 September.
However, Mr Din, the accused person denied the charges terming them as mere allegations since he is an honest, reliable and a trustworthy professional, one of the most respected conveyancing solicitors in Manchester and around the UK.
Mr Dins lawyer defended him by telling the tribunal that his client had given a considerable amount of loan to the named contractors through local arrangements. He further said that as part of the terms of the loan, the two contractors were repaying their loans through provision of services to Mr Dins law firms while their funds were being delivered to their respective accounts.
Findings by the tribunal shows that Mr Din created accounting records that were false in the name of paying the contractors while in real sense he was transferring money to his accounts.
The false explanation given by Mr Din regarding money transfers was realised since it relied on the availability of loans. Furthermore, the tribunal found out that there was no mention of the loaned amount or even the repayment dates that were stated.
The whole issue looked unbelievable and the tribunal declared Mr Dins defence baseless because it proved to be a lie. Further evidence from the tribunal showed that Mr Din who emerged as the winner of the entrepreneur excellent award in the year 2007 had earlier on provided false information to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for eight months.
The tribunal declared that Mr Din was guilty and he should be removed from his position. Nevertheless, he had to pay a fine of £ 2600 for covering the costs. The examination of Mr Din’s conduct was specially conducted on him not any other parties.