Sole principal struck off for raiding client account as £198k vanishes in six weeks
A solicitor has been struck off after the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found he dishonestly caused or allowed at least £198,000 of client money to be improperly transferred and misused over a six-week period.
Aziz-ur Rehman, admitted in 2009 and sole principal of Morgan Mark Solicitors, held every key compliance role at the firm — COLP, COFA and MLRO. The SDT heard that between 8 July and 20 August 2019, client funds paid in to complete property purchases were siphoned out of the client account and not used for their intended purpose. As at 20 August 2019, the firm’s client account balance stood at only £3,203.28, when it should have held at least £201,817.84 for seven live matters.
The tribunal proceeded in Mr Rehman’s absence after finding he had been properly served and had deliberately chosen not to engage. A Forensic Investigation Officer (FIO) told the panel that Rehman alone controlled the firm’s banking. Staff had no access to accounts, could not move money, and were left paralysed when he went to Pakistan in May 2019 without providing cover.
Embed from Getty ImagesInvestigators found that clients — largely overseas investors buying units in hotels, student blocks and care homes — had remitted completion monies which were never sent to vendors. In one example, a buyer transferred £20,600.99 on 22 July 2019 to complete the purchase of a Blackpool hotel unit. The money was not used to complete; instead, within weeks, £270,433.68 was paid out of client account for unrelated purposes, including £15,723 to office account. Parallel payments left the office account overdrawn.
The SDT accepted evidence that, by 20 August 2019, a client-account shortfall of at least £198,614.56 existed. Later enquiries showed the fallout was even wider: by 2 December 2021, the SRA had received 25 Compensation Fund claims totalling £751,989.30 from former Morgan Mark clients.
Applying the Supreme Court’s test in Ivey v Genting, the tribunal found that Rehman — an experienced solicitor and the only person with banking control — knew client monies were being moved for purposes unconnected with the transactions and that ordinary, decent people would consider that dishonest. Allegations of dishonesty were proved on both:
- Improper transfers from client account (Accounts Rules r.20.1 breach), and
- Misuse/misappropriation of client money.
Principle breaches included integrity (P2), best interests (P4), public trust (P6) and protection of client money (P10).
The tribunal noted that Rehman ignored a s.44B Solicitors Act production notice and failed to engage with two investigations. The SRA intervened into the practice on 19 August 2019, automatically suspending his practising certificate.
On sanction, the SDT cited the profession’s core duty to safeguard client money and the gravity of sustained, dishonest misuse across multiple matters. With no exceptional circumstances, outcomes short of removal — reprimand, fine, conditions or suspension — were inadequate to protect the public and the profession’s reputation. Rehman was struck off the roll.
The tribunal ordered him to pay £25,314 in costs (reduced slightly to reflect a shorter hearing). No mitigation was advanced.
The decision is a stark reminder: when a sole principal centralises control of accounts and compliance, the risk concentrates with it. Failure to segregate duties, reconcile accurately and release funds only in line with the SRA Accounts Rules can rapidly escalate from administrative error to dishonesty and strike-off — particularly where clients’ completion monies are diverted, even briefly, from their proper purpose.