offered the Applicant significant sums of money which he said would be payable in
cash at such location or in such manner as he chose. The highest and final offer made
to the Applicant was in the sum of US$250,000, which the Applicant rejected.
54. The City of London Police commenced an investigation into C Limited early in 1985
which resulted in the Chief and certain former directors being arrested and some
charged with fraud. The actions taken by the Applicant prior to the involvement of
the police formed a significant part of the prosecution evidence and he appeared as a
prosecution witness at Wallington Crown Court.
55. Whilst engaged in the affairs ofC Limited the Applicant was called as a prosecution
witness at a trial held at the Old Bailey in relation to a group of Italians who had
sought, fraudulently, to purchase C Limited's office premises in London. The
Applicant appeared in the witness box for three and a half days, the majority of which
time was spent seeking to rebut allegations put to him by two defence Counsel that
owing to the fact that he was a struck off solicitor, he was either a co-conspirator with
the accused or that he was a liar and that his evidence could not be relied upon. The
jury accepted the Applicant's evidence; the accused were convicted.
56. Following the termination of his employment and until the C Limited trial, the
Applicant was again without regular employment and could only manage to get by as
a result of undertaking various consultancy retainers on behalf of a number of
companies and individuals with whom he had become acquainted during his
employment with C Limited. Possibly because of his employment with C Limited,
no-one was prepared to offer full time employment to him.
57. The Applicant had come to form the view that he had been employed by C Limited
because there was an expectation or a hope that would be able to assist in veneering
frauds because of his perceived dishonesty. He believed that this was why he had
been talked out of pursuing his appeal against the Tribunal's Order.
58. For the ten year period which began with the conclusion of C Ltd's criminal trial
until August 1997 when the Applicant commenced his current employment he worked
variously for firms of solicitors (with the consent of The Law Society) and for
commercial companies. (See: Solicitors Lie Detector. The Law Society gave no such consent. UJ)
59. Although the Applicant enjoyed periods of employment with those firms of solicitors
who had agreed to employ him, he always felt that his employment was never
destined to be long term owing to what he saw as enormous reservations in relation to,
not only the manner in which he was represented to clients of those practices, but also
those areas of work he was allowed to undertake. He fully understood why a firm of
solicitors should hold those reservations but having always wanted to be a solicitor
and to practise law, the Applicant for many years felt frustrated, believing that he
would never be given the opportunity to demonstrate or realise his full potential for
the benefit of those practices, their clients or indeed himself. His employment with
each of those practices was terminated by mutual consent.
60. In 1991 the Applicant accepted a retainer to work on a part time basis with an
American oil company. He was required to visit Siberia and Kazakhstan on
occasions. He studied the Russian language.
61. During the early part of 1990 the Applicant had met and became friendly with Mr S,
the Managing Director of the London office ofOCRA.
62. OCRA was established some 27 years ago initially as an international company
formation agent but had developed into an international corporate service provider
with a significant international tax and corporate practice. In the majority of cases,
OCRA's offices were staffed, managed and controlled at a senior level by lawyers and
accountants qualified in the jurisdiction of establishment. It generated a substantial
income.
63. Between 1990 and 1997 the Applicant became increasingly familiar and friendly with
the main Board of Directors of OCRA both in London and elsewhere and by the time
his retainer with the American oil company had ended in late 1996 he was spending
an increasing part of his working week assisting OCRA. (What, then, was Daultrey doing at the offices of Donnellan & Co,
from where he pretended to be a solicitor of 20 years' standing? UJ.)
64. In 1997 the Applicant was asked to commit to OCRA three days each week in order
to oversee the continuing development of its professional and compliance divisions.
At that time the Applicant was in the final stages of registering to become a part time
student and to study for a PhD. (At OCRA Daultrey continued to pretend to be solicitor of 20 years' standing)
65. The Applicant commenced part-time employment on a formal basis with OCRA in
August 1997 and within a matter of months found that he was working five days each
week on OCRA's business and spending little or no time on his intended PhD. After
12 months he was offered the opportunity to work full time with OCRA which he
agreed to do. He has remained there rising to Group Director.
66. At the time of the hearing the Applicant was one of five executive directors sitting on
the boards of the two holding companies. Estate and General (IOM) Limited and
Estate and General (International) Limited which control OCRA's business
throughout the world. In that capacity he was charged with particular responsibility
for compliance and was the Group MLRO. He was a signatory on a number of
OCRA's bank accounts. OCRA has client account rules and is subject to review and
scrutiny by Government Regulators.
67. The Board of Directors of OCRA had at all times been fully aware of the Applicant's
professional position. It had during the previous 23 years been the Applicant's
invariable practice, however difficult or embarrassing to tell third parties of those
events which took place in 1980 and 1982 and to explain his position to those with
whom he had professional or business dealings. It was also known by OCRA that the
Applicant had "blown the whistle" while at C Limited.
68. By the very nature of OCRA's and other international advisory and consultancy
businesses there will always be a risk of exposure to criminal activity by others and in
particular to money laundering and tax evasion and having a worldwide client
portfolio numbering in excess of 10,000 the task of regulating that business is
significant. Those tasks fall within the remit of a Compliance Officer and MLRO.
The Applicant had faced significant pressure in that role. His bona fides had from
time to time been challenged on the basis that he was a struck off solicitor in an
attempt he assumed to coerce him to change his mind. On no occasion had he
succumbed.
69. The Applicant had developed a relationship with a number of police forces around the
country in particular with the Metropolitan Police, the National Criminal Intelligence
Service ("NCIS") and the National Crime Squad ("NCS"), HM Customs & Excise
and the Inland Revenue and also with other Government law enforcement agencies.
70. Within a short time of his commencing employment with OCRA, the Applicant had
formed the view that it would be necessary in the light of the increasing regulatory
legislation being enacted, for example, the Criminal Justice Acts, Anti Money
Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime Act for OCRA to develop further its
relationship with "the authorities".
71. The Applicant had approached the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad and introduced
OCRA and its business. He was invited to make an informal presentation to a
division of the Fraud Squad describing the international aspects of OCRA's business,
accompanied by a general summary of the rules of international trading and taxation.
In November 1998 he was invited to be a guest speaker at the Metropolitan Police
Feedback Forum which is an annual conference organised by the police and held at
Scotland Yard. On the first occasion at which the Applicant spoke the conference
was attended by 126 compliance/MLRO's from almost all the major international
banks based in central London. Since that time the Applicant had been invited to
speak variously at a number of police and other regulatory authorities conferences and
also to run training courses for many divisions of those authorities. In February 2001
he was a guest speaker at the Annual NCIS Conference held at the Belfry.
72. Over the past few years the Applicant had variously been called upon to give opinions
and to advise in respect of a number of intended or current police prosecutions where
international issues arose and to train in some cases on a one to one basis, police
officers from certain specialist divisions. He regularly received telephone calls and
requests for assistance or advice from police forces around the country many of whom
he had not met personally but to whom his name had been introduced by other
officers who had become acquainted with the Applicant.
73. One of the more difficult aspects of the Applicant's role as Compliance Officer and
MLRO arose when he was required, usually only for the purposes of presenting a file
to court, to attend and give evidence before the Crown Court on behalf of the
prosecution. Each time he entered court, for what he knew to be usually only a
routine matter, he was concerned that as had sometimes been the case, his
professional history would be raised in an endeavour to discredit the evidence he
might give and that this would in some manner adversely affect the prosecution case.
74. For many years the Applicant had resigned himself to remaining as a businessman
and his love and enjoyment of the law notwithstanding, he had put out of his mind the
possibility of being restored to the Roll of Solicitors. He knew that applications for
restoration were rarely granted.
75. The Applicant had always believed that he was an honest person both in his personal
and professional dealings. He invited the Tribunal to conclude that his behaviour
when he was immature and under stress during a few months in late 1980 was wholly
out of character both before that brief period and during the subsequent 23 years.
76. It was only recently that the Applicant had come to realise that the possibility of his
restoration to the Roll of Solicitors existed in the minds of a number of clients,
professional and business contacts and valued friends who had expressed confidence
in him, his character and professionalism and who questioned why he had never
sought to be restored to the Roll.
77. It is for those reasons and based largely upon the encouragement he received, much of
it from solicitors and barristers in private practice, that the Applicant began to
consider whether or not his name might be restored to the Roll. He had been
encouraged by his employers. More widely and with a view to his becoming an
expert prosecution witness the Applicant had been asked by the police to consider
seeking the restoration of his name to the Roll. Restoration would also enable him to
assist the authorities more effectively.
78. The Applicant would also like to return to voluntary work at the CAB but he had no
real value to the CAB except as a practising solicitor. He would wish to become more
involved with charitable matters as an honorary solicitor and in particular with a
breast cancer charity in which his wife was a significant participator.
79. The Applicant had been advised that restorations to the Roll are extremely rare and
only occur when an Applicant can show that wholly exceptional circumstances
applied at the time of the commission of an offence which gave rise to a striking off
and where there was also convincing evidence that the Applicant had been fully
rehabilitated and would be an asset to the solicitors' profession if restored to the Roll.
80. In presenting his application the Applicant wished to reiterate that he was not seeking
to appeal against his striking off but he respectfully submitted that the circumstances
of his application met both criteria.
81. The Tribunal was invited to give due weight to the written letters of support which
included letters from senior members of the legal profession, bankers, police officers,
a member of the House of Lords and a non-executive Chairman of OCRA, a chartered
accountant, financial regulators and the Group Financial Director of OCRA, all of
whom spoke highly of his integrity, trustworthiness or good character and confirmed
his competence and ability in the field in which he works.
82. The nature of the position which the Applicant had in his employment and the trust
which he enjoyed both from his employers and regulatory authorities in the UK and
elsewhere, demonstrably showed that he had not re-offended during the past 22 years
and was most unlikely to do so in the future.
83. The standing in which the Applicant was held in the minds of professionals with
whom he worked and who were aware of his rehabilitation, demonstrated that those
actions which he undertook during a short period in 1980 were wholly out of
character.
