Attorneys also money launderers?

kaspaas

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,732
Reaction score
6
Location
Home: Wapadrant Office: Lyttelton
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page91?oid=188856&sn=Detail

Let us see how well the "Law Society" protects its buddy attorneys.

Fidentia: how deep was Bowman’s involvement?

New documents accuse one of SA’s top law firms of money laundering.
Julius Cobbett
28 Jan 2008 00:41

Bowman Gilfillan, one of South Africa's premier law firms, stands accused of money laundering. The allegation is contained in a 31-page complaint made by former Fidentia director Rudi Bam to the Cape Law Society. Bam was possibly the first whistleblower in the Fidentia scandal.

It is already no secret that Bowman counted Fidentia among its clients, and helped fend off a Financial Services Board (FSB) investigation into the crooked financial services group. Bowman partner James McKinnel also helped kick dirt in the eyes of journalists from Moneyweb and other media companies who asked questions about Fidentia.

In his complaint, Bam provides a copy of a letter dated May 11, 2006 penned by Bowman partner James McKinnel and addressed to Bam's attorney, Daan Ribbens.

The letter offers R9,9m to Bam on behalf of J Arthur W Brown. In a later affidavit, McKinnel states that Bowman received the R9,9m by way of electronic funds transfer from the "Brown Family Investment Trust."

Bam refused the R9,9m, which was offered to him by Brown in an attempt to conclude a share-sale agreement.

Bam's attorney responded to McKinnel in a letter, stating that the Brown Family Investment Trust had submitted no tax returns to the Receiver of Revenue. He argued that this "as well as the mere size of the proposed transaction, raise questions and necessitate diligent and careful consideration."

Bam requested certain "know your client" documents from McKinnel, including copies of the relevant trust deeds and a certificate from the trustees specifying the source of funds.

Bam alleges that none of these documents were forthcoming from McKinnel.

Under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica), attorneys are required by law to report suspicious and unusual transactions to the authorities.

Could it be that McKinnel thought the source of the R9,9m paid by Brown into Bowman's trust account was as pure as the driven snow? Brown has been accused of looting hundreds of millions of rand from a trust fund that benefits widows and orphans.

Moneyweb has tried several times to contact Bowman chairman Jonathan Schlosberg. He has not returned calls nor has he responded to e-mails.

In an e-mail Moneyweb asked Schlosberg what steps Bowman took to make sure that the deposit from Brown complied with the relevant legislation. We also asked if Bowman discovered anything suspicious or irregular about the sum, and if so whether it alerted the relevant authorities.

In his complaint to the law society Bam states that he suspects "the money repeatedly pushed down my throat by Bowman Gilfillan" belonged to widows and orphans and was looted from the Living Hands Trust.

Bam alleges that Bowman did not comply with legislation and helped "sanitise" Brown's money by investing it with Investec on his behalf.

An electronic copy of Bam's complaint is available on request.
 
Misleading topic headline. Perhaps next time you should take care to stipulate which attorneys are [possibly] involved in your story. Just generalising the way you just did is misleading and just plain silly.
 
ouch

the headline is a generalisation but there is little doubt that legal ethics are susceptible to compromise through greed..

in this specific case the source of the allegations is hardly as pure as the driven snow so we will just have to wait for more info (hopefully from Noseweek)
 
ouch

the headline is a generalisation but there is little doubt that legal ethics are susceptible to compromise through greed..

in this specific case the source of the allegations is hardly as pure as the driven snow so we will just have to wait for more info (hopefully from Noseweek)
The actual article's headline was "Fidentia: how deep was Bowman’s involvement?".
 
Misleading topic headline. Perhaps next time you should take care to stipulate which attorneys are [possibly] involved in your story. Just generalising the way you just did is misleading and just plain silly.

I didn't notice any generalisation - just a question. And probably a fair one at that. But maybe he ought to have gone further and asked if the clients of lawyers also need to be FICAd when money goes into the trust accounts, or is it only the attorney.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X