Article

Note: Paul Francis Simms, a solicitor with Bower Cotton (before 1999) and Bower Cotton Partnership (after 1999) was involved in numerous investment scams, including "Prime Bank Guarantees" and "Prime Bank Letters of Credit" utilizing Hackar Funding Corporation NV, in which Simms had an interest. "The firm [of solicitors] had received in excess of $50,000,000 into its client bank account on behalf of clients and potential investors between December 1997 and September 1998." In response to an audit by the investigative unit of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), Simms replied that the firm would not accept any further instructions for such work. A further inspection, however, revealed continued involvement.

Simms was charged before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The allegation stated that "[a] substantial part of Mr Simms' practice concerned pseudo-commercial activity of various kinds, including:

13.1 Bogus investment schemes promising fantastic returns (e.g. 70% per week); 13.2 Bogus project finance transactions, usually involving:

13.2.1 Ill defined and implausible infrastructure projects

13.2.2 Funding proposals for the 'projects' that lacked commercial reality - typically 'reserving' money in an account say $10M, to generate a much larger sum, say $100M in a short period of time, although there were many variations on this basic model;

13.3 Many other fanciful transactions which lacked an honest commercial purpose (for example, attempts to sell bogus...bonds) and transactions based on bogus documents...below which purport to authentic the existence of valuable property."

He was found guilty of dishonesty and conduct unbefitting a solicitor and stricken from the Roll. Simms appealed the conviction on the grounds that the decision was procedurally unfair, had relied on privileged evidence, and was incorrect. The Queens Bench Division (Divisional Court) Latham, LJ., Curtis and Newman, JJ., dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision and sentence.

[JEB/ees]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.