Ming Fai Tam fined after clients suffered losses in failed overseas property investment schemes
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has fined a London solicitor more than £17,000 after clients lost money in failed overseas property developments where he provided inadequate advice.
The regulator confirmed that Ming Fai Tam, also known as Matthew Tam, has agreed to pay a penalty of £17,083 and investigation costs of £1,350 under a regulatory settlement agreement. The outcome was published on 29 September 2025, following a review of his former firms’ involvement in property transactions between 2017 and 2020.
Tam, previously a partner at Batchford Solicitors before later running MFT Solicitors as a sole practitioner, acted for overseas investors in around 312 property purchases. The deals were part of development schemes marketed largely in the Far East. Buyers were promised refurbished or newly constructed flats, student accommodation, hotel rooms and other units, with guaranteed rental income and buy-back arrangements.
Embed from Getty Images
Clients paid deposits ranging between 30% and 100% of the purchase price. They were charged fees of around £1,295 per transaction, excluding disbursements. Despite the assurances, the projects collapsed. In many cases, construction work either never started or was completed after long delays, and investors did not receive the returns that had been advertised.
The SRA’s forensic investigation examined 14 files across six developments and later reviewed a further 18 files in four more schemes. The regulator found that Tam failed to properly advise clients of critical risks. These included the dangers of purchasing from special purpose vehicles without trading accounts, the unusually high deposits that could result in a total loss, and the fact that buy-back and rental assurance provisions were only viable if the developers had sufficient funds and completed the projects.
The regulator also concluded that rental agreements would have been unenforceable if the lessee companies failed, which they ultimately did. Tam, who had engaged a barrister working as a part-time consultant and paralegal to assist with the work, was also found to have failed in training and supervising that individual.
The SRA said the failings demonstrated a “pattern of misconduct” across multiple files and developments. Warning notices issued by the SRA in 2016 and 2017 had already highlighted the risks of such investment schemes, but Tam said he was unaware of those notices at the relevant time.
In reaching the settlement, Tam admitted that he had failed to provide competent and timely advice to clients, had not maintained adequate supervision, and had therefore breached multiple principles of the SRA Codes of Conduct 2011 and 2019. These included acting in the best interests of clients, providing a proper standard of service, and upholding public trust in the profession.
The SRA considered that a financial penalty was the most appropriate sanction. It noted that the misconduct caused actual harm, with clients reporting losses that might have been avoided had proper advice been given. Although Tam had not personally profited from the schemes beyond normal fees, the regulator stressed that public confidence required solicitors to demonstrate rigorous standards when advising on investment opportunities.
In mitigation, Tam cooperated fully with the investigation. He has since joined Chan Neill Solicitors LLP in London, where partners review his files. He no longer accepts work involving the sale of fractional investment units such as hotel rooms or offices, and limits his conveyancing work to projects where deposits are capped at 10% and protected. He also undertakes training to maintain his knowledge.
The SRA said the sanction balanced accountability with deterrence. “Clients lost money following their investments in the development schemes which they may have reconsidered had they received proper and adequate advice,” the decision stated. The regulator added that the fine serves as a clear warning that solicitors must maintain proper standards, especially in high-risk property transactions.