By Ashley Young-
A London solicitor caught in a television sting advising about sham marriages has been struck off for a second time and fined £26,500 in fines.
Disgraced, Zulfiqar Ali, a sole practitioner with ZA Solicitors Ltd, was banned by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal after he was found to have knowingly advised clients to get round UK immigration rules.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The 51 year old claimed that he could prepare and/or submit paperwork in support of Person A and/or others’ marriage and U.K. residency, despite full knowledge that ”the marriage would be bogus and arranged for the purpose of circumventing the UK immigration system”, parts of the judgement said.
In a separate allegation, the now struck off solicitor made payments out and facilitated transactions which were dubious and/or bore the hallmarks of fraud when acting on behalf of his client IC in relation to a property development scheme at Property .
It was concluded that the public would not expect a solicitor to accept instructions and continue to act in a property development when he was aware that buyer’s deposits were being placed at risk.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
By facilitating these payments, it was submitted that the respondent failed to behave in a way that maintained the trust the public placed in him and in the provision of legal services contrary to Principle 6.
Mr. Ali transferred a minimum of £828,796 of purchaser’s deposit monies to IC notwithstanding that he was aware that IC did not own Property P and that purchaser’s deposit monies were being placed at risk.
Contravention Of Rules
An SRA spokesman told The Eye Of Media.Com that he ”acted in contravention of SRA rules, and so was struck off. He appealed to the High Court which contended the process in which the ruling was arrived. The case was sent back for another hearing by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, and he was struck off again”.
Ali breached all of principle 1, 2 and 6 of the SRA Principles 2011. The crook had originally been struck off in April 2019, but the first order h subsequently quashed in the High Court was remitted for reconsideration. Following a three-day hearing in July, the latest tribunal came to the same decision.
The SRA submitted that Ali met an undercover reporter who was part of a television investigation into fake marriages. Most disturbingly,Ali was recorded saying he acted on clients’ instructions and added: ‘It’s not my job to find out whether they’re living together or not’.
The struck off former solicitor carried out immigration work, by making immigration applications to the Home Office and applications for judicial review to the Court, which had no legitimate
purpose in that they had no prospect of his client succeeding.
The SRA deemed his actions as dishonest, by providing a client with advice advocating a sham marriage, and to help with circumventing immigration rules to secure residency in the UK. Ali was ‘fully complicit’ in what was going on and unambiguous that what was proposed was a sham marriage, the regulator said.
Ali’s defence that he acted in good faith was dismissed . He had argued that the reporter had entrapped him by steering the conversation towards fake marriages. He maintained he was merely speaking about an individual’s right to stay in the UK and answering hypothetical questions from a client.
The tribunal said it was clear from transcripts of both meetings that everything required for a sham marriage was discussed. Ali’s explanation was judged to be ‘implausible and not credible’ and he was found not to be a compelling or credible witness.
The ruling said: ‘As a matter of basic principle, the tribunal did not consider that a solicitor could simply turn a blind eye where a client is proposing to take unlawful action. Whilst all solicitors act on instructions, they are not free to do so in all circumstances without regard to any wider professional obligations.’
Ali submitted in mitigation that the misconduct happened in 2015 and he had continued to practise since then. It was maintained this incident resulted from deception and entrapment and he asked the tribunal to consider a suspension.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar