Article

Note: Beginning in 1996, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors made several warnings to Mr. Harvey, a solicitor, regarding his involvement in fraudulent investment schemes which had started in 1995. The first warnings went unheeded, and Harvey's involvement in questionable schemes continued through Mr. Fraser and Mr. Brook, of Imperial Consolidated Limited, Fraser Brook Corporation Limited, and Imperial Consolidated Group of Companies. The types of fraud were varied, but many involved LCs and negotiable instruments and all were types of "prime bank guarantee" or "prime bank letters of credit" schemes considered by the Law Society to be invariably fraudulent. Many of the LCs were to have been issued by Russian banks. In some instances, clients seeking loans from Fraser Brook Corporation deposited trust monies in Harvey's client account. However those funds were wrongfully appropriated by Harvey and Fraser Brook Corporation to buy, among other things, LCs issued by a Turkish bank.

Another fraudulent investment scheme involved a contract containing language stating that it was subject to "the force majeure and hardship provisions of the latest I.C.C. Publication/Revision and shall be deemed incorporated herein by reference." The reference to the I.C.C., however, was agreed by both counsels to be unintelligible, and the appellate judge suggested that it was likely included simply to make the fraudulent document appear more legitimate.

The opinion referred to a yellow card distributed by the Law Society and made available to the solicitor containing a detailed warning and examples of terms and claims made in the schemes.

In 2001, the Law Society, alleging that Harvey was continuing involvement in various dishonest investment schemes run by Fraser and Brook, intervened, taking control of Harvey's business and suspending his license to practice law. Harvey applied for an order directing the society to withdraw the intervention on the ground that he was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the various investment schemes. In dismissing Harvey's application, Patten, J., Chancery Division, citing evidence presented, ruled that in his capacity as a solicitor, Harvey knew or should have known that the documents and practices relating to the various schemes were obfuscatory, fraudulent, or dubious at least. The judge found no reason to disallow continuance of the intervention, as the Law Society had reason to suspect dishonesty in light of Harvey's actions assisting Fraser and Brook.

[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.