Deleted

MR_Blg

Do we know if Mr Platt attended at all ?

MR_Blg

Would the removal of the names of the partners of Devita platt by the forum team ,be at the request of the said partners of Devita Platt , if so I hope they have enjoyed reading these posts.
It may become apparent that the unethical business practices at Devita Platt were learnt in their previous directorships ( pending the results of the forthcoming trial of course ).

Minit

Are we expecting any of them to be convicted of anything serious and face jail time? Or is it too early to speculate?

MR_Blg

The statement below just about sums it up for me. Greed and desperation . Cant afford to live on less than £2000 a week !!

“Every week, I would be instructed to transfer between £2,000 and £10,000 in total to the First and Second Respondent’s personal accounts. I remember the Second Respondent saying he could not live on less than £2,000 per week. When there were large payments to be made, for example the VAT bill or staff wages, there would be a lot of pressure to ‘find’ the money and it was a very stressful environment to work in”.

SouthoftheHumber

I don't think i have read anything quite so disgraceful in my life; in fact i doubt the Solicitor Disciplinary Tribunal have had many cases so bad. So brazen, and the idiotic way they tried to cover it up was almost schoolboy in its naivety. The third respondant was the target of much of their disgusting blame (I really hope she can move on now), but the second respondant even tried shifting the blame onto the first. What an immoral pair corrupt individuals they are. They deserve everything that is going to come their way. Anybody knowingly benefitting from their crimes need to be part of the investigation too.

MR_Blg

I totally agree with your summary. Lets see what starts to unfold now that it has all become public, and their impending court case details become available.

Mr Platt appears to have played a much bigger part in the unethical practices at Devita Platt than Mr Devita ( although he is by no means innocent) that said they were in it together.

The “ it wasn’t me it was them “ approach by Mr platt was unsuccessful and the SDT had the evidence to confirm this and prove his guilt.

Ms Scott has to me also been a victim ,stuck in the middle of right and wrong .Young and naive maybe, pressured by her superiors yes.

Is there more to this story , I think so.

SouthoftheHumber

I appreciate what you are saying Paul, and i am sure there are more cases with a higher level of criminality. I would assume however that most of these operations whould have some degree of sophistication and planning.


These two morons couldn't even destroy a couple of files that they told the SRA had been stolen by the third respondant. The SRA must have been delighted to find that they left a massive trail of breadcrumbs to follow, and a stack of evidence all over everything. They may as well have taken photographs of themselves committing the deeds and posted them on Facebook. Then the only defence they could muster was "it wasn't me sir, it was him or her". How did they have the nerve to even call it a defence? Are they they that stupid to think that an organisation like the SRA wouldn't blow it out of the water in 5 seconds.


I just can't believe that the SRA or the SDT would often come across a case that is so cut and dry. I think even Inspector Clouseau would have had no trouble with this one.

SouthoftheHumber

Well, with coverage like that it should give them very few places to hide. That makes me happy.

MR_Blg

Emily Scott gained nothing yet lost her chance of a good lifelong career. As she stated at her disciplinary hearing it affected her employment after she left the practice and now she appears to be in low paid employment. Where as Mr Platt literally walked straight into a new job working as a HR representative for a company in Gainsborough.

If the SRA expect whistle blowers to help them expose rogue solicitors then they do need to protect them to some degree. A fine or conditions yes but a strike off no. The SRA will not get the support they need if potential whistle blowers suffer the same consequences as the people they report.

DavetheDog

I have followed this matter closely, read lots of comments and replies.
Where has all the money gone that Mr.P and Mr.DV filtered out of their clients??
It would seem that it was paid into their personal bank accounts, so where is it now?
Do they have to pay this money back to their clients? Will it ever be seen again?
Can the people that have been overcharged / had money taken from them etc etc get their money back?
Dave the Dog is angry.