London Capital & Finance solicitor no-shows at disciplinary tribunal

Robert Mannering Sedgwick, 77, who was involved in one of the UK’s largest Ponzi schemes – the failed investment firm London Capital & Finance – has declined to attend the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal amid accusations he “facilitated the preparation, execution and circulation of backdated documents“.

Reporting by freelance journalist and blogger Daniel Cloake
If you value this content you can buy me a coffee

Between 2013 and December 2018 LC&F raised a total of over £237 million from 11,600 bondholders. A 43-day-trial at London’s High Court established that the firm was in fact a massive Ponzi scheme with monies invested used to make payments to the defendants to use “as they wished”.

Mr Sedgwick was, at various times, a director and/or company secretary of the various companies that were direct and indirect recipients of sums from LC&F.

He was also responsible for drafting many of the documents used when borrowing companies acquired assets from individuals connected to LC&F.

He was also the owner and controller of LCF’s security trustee, Global Security Trustees, until 31 March 2018.

This created an “obvious” conflict of interest, the SRA say.

In a landmark 2024 judgment Mr Justice Robert Miles “found that at all material times Mr Sedgwick had actual or blind-eye knowledge of the fraudulent scheme carried on by LCF. His conduct was therefore objectively dishonest throughout.“

Sedgwick had denied accusations of wrongdoing throughout the trial.

In a recently published decision notice by the Solicitors Regulation Authority we’re told the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal:

Has certified that there is a case to answer in respect of allegations which are or include that, while a consultant employed at Buss Murton Law LLP and subsequently as an independent consultant:-

In March 2016, while acting as a consultant employed by the Firm, he facilitated the preparation and execution of a back-dated document;

In August 2017, while acting as an independent consultant, he facilitated the preparation, execution and circulation of a back-dated document purporting to be an assignment of loan;

In the period January – March 2019, while acting as an independent consultant, he facilitated the preparation, execution and circulation of backdated documents, being a call option agreement and a facility agreement.

In the period 30 December 2015 to 31 March 2018, he owned, controlled and was sole director of Global Security Trustees Limited (‘GST’), whose role was to act as security trustee protecting the interests of bondholders, notwithstanding an obvious conflict in doing so (or significant risk thereof) given his previous and ongoing instructions (as consultant employed by the firm and thereafter as an independent consultant) for borrowers and/or persons with an interest in these borrowers

Statement on the SRA Website

The statement records that the allegations are subject to a hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and are as yet unproven.

The mouseinthecourt published extensive documents from the LC&F High Court trial, including daily transcripts, witness statement, and written submissions.

Jim Armitage, contributing editor, The Sunday Times recently appeared in ‘INVESTIGATION: Inside Britain’s biggest Ponzi scheme‘, a 35-minute-podcast about the scandal, which is well worth a listen.

At the start of this two-day-hearing before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Andrew Tabachnik KC, acting for the SRA, referred to a letter sent by Mr Sedgwick the previous night stating he would not attend these proceedings.

Mr Tabachnik said the letter stated an “unwillingness” of Sedgwick to attend this hearing today, and should be treated as an application to stay, or delay, this substantive hearing. A previous application along the same lines had been refused by the tribunal, we were told.

The reason given by Sedgwick was that he has been identified as a suspect in an on-going Serious Fraud Office investigation into LCF, and that his participation in this hearing might prejudice his defence were the SFO investigation to result in criminal proceedings.

Mr Tabachnik dismissed this as a valid reason citing a letter sent by the SFO, setting out what they were investigating, submitting that “none of the matters investigated [by the SFO] form part of the allegations before the tribunal“. We were told that Sedgwick hadn’t been charged, and as he had only recently been interviewed, there would be “quite some distance in time” before a charging decision could be made.

In any event the panel, having considered the submissions made by the SRA, stated that “we will be proceeding in the respondents absence“.

It is beyond the resources of this site to comprehensively write up the entire tribunal hearing. Those with an interest in the issues to be determined can read the SRA’s written submissions, and Mr Sedgwick’s response below: