Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited v George Fahim Sa’id

The Money Laundering Regulations adopt a risk-based framework. They leave the nature and extent of enhanced due diligence to professional judgment, subject to the statutory requirements and the circumstances of the case. A disciplinary tribunal must first decide whether the regulations were breached and then consider any consequential breach of professional principles or conduct rules. It must not impose a free-standing seriousness threshold described as professional misconduct. On appeal, the court reviews rather than rehears the tribunal’s evaluative decision and should respect the specialist tribunal’s assessment unless affected by legal error or a conclusion outside the permissible range. Legally privileged communications disclosed in disciplinary proceedings must be protected. Anonymisation should extend no further than necessary, assessed through the least restrictive and fact-sensitive approach consistent with privilege and open justice.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority appealed against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s dismissal of four allegations concerning a solicitor’s money-laundering due diligence and risk-management arrangements in two London property transactions. The allegations relied on regulations 33 and 35 of the Money Laundering Regulations, the SRA Principles 2011 and Outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011.

The SRA also appealed against the Tribunal’s refusal to anonymise clients, family members, companies, properties and the relevant country. The central issues were whether the Tribunal had applied the correct legal test, made adequate findings and given sufficient reasons, and whether publication would disclose legally privileged or confidential material.

1. Substantive appeal dismissed. The Tribunal had not imposed an impermissible threshold requirement of professional misconduct. Read fairly, its conclusion was that the proven facts did not amount to breaches of the relevant Principles or Code of Conduct. The Tribunal’s later clarification during submissions on costs confirmed that it found no breaches.
2. The allegations required the Tribunal first to determine whether regulations 33 or 35 of the Money Laundering Regulations had been breached, and then to consider any consequential breach of the professional rules. The Regulations adopt a risk-based approach. Regulation 28 does not prescribe a single method of compliance, and regulations 33 and 35 leave the extent of enhanced measures to the requirements of the case and professional judgment.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to conduct an evaluative assessment of whether the solicitor’s procedures and transaction-specific due diligence were adequate and appropriate. It found that his system had generally worked adequately, that he had conducted customer due diligence, and that he had proceeded cautiously in light of his longstanding knowledge of the clients and the source of their wealth. Those findings supported its conclusion that the allegations were not proved.
4. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate when read as a whole with its detailed summary of the evidence and submissions. Reasons need not be elaborate, but must enable the parties and an appellate court to understand the main conclusions and identify any error of law.
5. Anonymity appeal allowed in part. The Tribunal was bound to follow the ratio in SRA v Williams and erred by balancing open justice against legal professional privilege where privilege applied. Communications forming part of the continuum of a conveyancing transaction, made confidentially for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, were privileged.
6. The scope of anonymisation nevertheless required a separate, fact-sensitive assessment. The country could be named, and descriptive references such as “London hotel” and “London home” could be used. The remaining necessary anonymisation was to be reflected in an appropriate order drawn up by the SRA.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — dismissed the SRA’s substantive appeal against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s dismissal of the allegations; allowed the anonymity appeal in part and directed the SRA to draw up an appropriate order.
• Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal — dismissed all four allegations and refused the renewed application for anonymisation.