11 / 22
11
Issue 26 April - June 2014
LEGAL c o n t .
SECONDMATTER
On 10 March 2014 the comittee convened again in a matter
which was part heard, to hear arguments on sanction.
Judgement was handed down on 28 June 2013 however
sentence is reserved.
THIRDMATTER
On 12 March 2014 the Committee considered the matter of Mr
M. The Respondent was present and unprepresented. The
Respondent pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, six
charges levelled against him, involving an element of
dishonesty.
THECHARGES
Charge One
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening the rules
regarding improper conduct 2.4.1, 2.6, and 2.17.
In respect of the first charge, the respondent fraudulently
misrepresented to his client, that the latter had signed a
resolution as a director of a company, when the truth of the
matter was that the respondent had falsified the signature of
his client on the resolution.
Charge Two
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening the old
disciplinary rules 2.1.4.1, 2.1.20, and 2.1.21.
In respect of the second charge, the respondent had
completed and signed several application documents to open
a bank account with a bank in Mauritius by misrepresenting to
the bank that he was authorized to sign the relevant
application documents, when in fact he was not so authorized.
Charge Three
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening the old
disciplinary rules: 2.1.4.1, 2.1.20, and 2.1.21.
In respect of the third charge, the respondent had submitted
several documents to the Mauritius Financial Services
C omm i s s i o n ( “ t h e C omm i s s i o n ” ) b y ma k i n g
misrepresentations to the Commission that those documents
were regular and authentic, when in truth and in fact, they were
not.
Charge Four
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening rules
regarding improper conduct 2.4.1, 2.6, and 2.17.
The fourth charge was based on the fact that the respondent
had misrepresented that an order form issued by an entity
which provided assistance to persons who wished to register
off-shore trusts in the Isle of Man, as well as a Declaration of
Trust were signed by his client and that he had authority to act
for him in the registration of a trust, when in truth and in fact the
order form and the Declaration of Trust were not signed by his
client and the respondent did not have the authority to act for
him.
Charge Five
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening the old
disciplinary rules 2.1.4.1, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21.
The fifth charge dealt with a misrepresentation made by the
respondent to his client that the latter had signed a Declaration
of Trust when in truth and in fact the Declaration of Trust was
signed by the respondent.
Charge Six
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening old
disciplinary rules 2.1.4.1, 2.1.20, and 2.1.21.
In respect of the sixth charge, the respondent had directed an
email to several persons in which he misrepresented that that
email emanated from an official of the bank in Mauritius, and in
which confirmation was given that an account was opened by
the bank for the company concerned, when in truth and in fact
the said email did not emanate from the bank and the contents
of that email were not true.
SENTENCE
The Committee concluded that the suspension was
appropriate having regard to the nature of the charges of
which the Respondent has been convicted, and his response
thereto. Although the charges were multiple in their nature
and comprised a series of fraudulent activities perpetrated
against several individuals and entities, they related to the
same client whom the Respondent had sought to please.
The Committee placed emphasis on the seriousness of the
charges concerned and accepted that all of them involved an
element of dishonesty, which strike at the heart of the integrity