Solicitor fined £10,500 over accounts and anti-money laundering failures

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has fined Musa Audu £10,500 after finding he breached the SRA Accounts Rules and failed to ensure his firm complied with anti-money laundering regulations, while dismissing allegations that he acted dishonestly or disclosed information to a client against police instructions.

The tribunal’s judgment, dated 23 October 2026, recorded that Mr Audu, sole manager, COLP, COFA and money laundering reporting officer of Audu & Co, admitted authorising five transfers totalling £10,100 from client account to office account between April 2022 and May 2023, admitted multiple breaches of the Accounts Rules at the firm, and admitted failing to ensure the firm complied with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and 2017. The tribunal also ordered him to pay costs of £46,620.65 and imposed conditions on his practising certificate, including bans on holding client money, acting as a signatory on client or office accounts, and acting as COLP or COFA for any authorised body.

Key points

• The tribunal found an allegation that Mr Audu disclosed information to a client against police instructions, on 11 August and 17 October 2022, was not proved on the balance of probabilities and dismissed it.
• Mr Audu admitted breaching the Accounts Rules by authorising five transfers totalling £10,100 from client to office account, but the tribunal found he was not dishonest because he genuinely believed the money belonged to him.
• The tribunal found proved, on admissions, that Mr Audu allowed the firm’s client account to be used as a banking facility, failed to keep proper accounting records, failed to undertake proper client account reconciliations and submitted the firm’s accountant’s report late.
• The tribunal found proved, on admissions, that Mr Audu failed to ensure the firm had a compliant firm-wide risk assessment and policies, controls and procedures, and failed to undertake adequate customer due diligence and source-of-funds checks for two clients.
• The tribunal fined Mr Audu £10,500, forfeit to the King, and ordered him to pay costs of £46,620.65.

What the tribunal found

The tribunal found that Mr Audu’s admissions on the Accounts Rules and money laundering allegations were properly made and proved them on the balance of probabilities. It said his motivation was laziness, that he had “a disregard for due process and sought out short cuts”, and that his conduct was planned rather than a moment of panic. The tribunal found there was no actual loss to clients but said the administrative systems he operated created a risk of harm and damaged the reputation of the legal profession.

On the disclosure allegation, the tribunal accepted the Respondent’s case that he had not disclosed information to Client A against police instructions and had instead been complying with his duty of care by advising the client to offer up a conveyancing file voluntarily. It found he had not acted recklessly.

On the transfers, the tribunal accepted he had a genuinely held belief that the money, representing unbilled fixed fees, belonged to him, so the first limb of the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos was not met, and the dishonesty allegation failed.

Mitigation

The tribunal recorded that Mr Audu was 74 years old, had practised for 29 years with no prior disciplinary matters, and had provided testimonials from legal professionals describing him as honest. It noted he had shown insight and remorse, cooperated with the SRA, made good the transfers promptly, and closed his practice in May 2024 in an orderly manner.

Sanction and costs

The tribunal said the seriousness threshold for professional misconduct was met and imposed a fine within level 3 of its guidance. It continued the conditions already on Mr Audu’s practising certificate, restricting him from acting as a manager or owner of an authorised body, practising on his own account, holding or receiving client money, or acting as COLP or COFA. The tribunal reduced the SRA’s costs claim of £64,203.80 to £46,620.65, citing shortcomings in the forensic investigation and a reduction in hearing length from five days to two.

Mr Audu may appeal the tribunal’s decision to the High Court.