Partnership and the proceeds of crime
Question
I am a partner in a firm of surveyors. One of the partners accepted bribes from a director of one of our corporate clients and fraudulently prepared valuations of properties enabling the company to obtain inflated mortgages.
The partner has been convicted of fraud, but he has not been convicted of defrauding our client. A restraint order has been made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) in relation to his home (which he purchased with money obtained from the bribes) and our client is going to try to recover against the property. If that is not successful, it will attempt to recover against my firm. Can the firm be held liable to the client and/or to the mortgage providers?
Answer
Since your partner knowingly received money paid out in breach of fiduciary duty, your client will have a proprietary interest in any property purchased with that money. If the client can prove that the partner’s home was purchased with that money, it will have an interest in the property which will take priority over any confiscation order.
Your firm is unlikely to have any liability to the client since your partner knowingly receiving the client’s money in breach of fiduciary duty is unlikely to be in the course of his role in the firm. However, the firm may be vicariously liable to the mortgage providers, though such liability would be reduced by anything the mortgage providers recover under the confiscation order against your partner.
Explanation
Money received by someone knowing that it was paid in breach of a director’s fiduciary duty is held on constructive trust for the company. The company can therefore trace the funds and obtain a proprietary interest in any property purchased with that money.
This in turn should allow your client to assert an interest in the partner’s home for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) (see Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc (in administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443). If your client can establish this interest, then it would take priority over the restraint or confiscation order (section 69(3) of POCA).
When determining the extent of the defendant’s interest in any property, the criminal courts necessarily have to determine the extent of third party rights. Therefore, the relatively new provision of section 10A of POCA, which came into force on 1 June 2015, entitles a third party with an interest in the property to make representations at the hearing of the confiscation order.
Any compensation order made to compensate victims of the partner’s criminal conduct will also take priority over any compensation order (section 13 of POCA).
In any event, the company’s losses are the misappropriated funds paid to your partner by way of a bribe. The claim against the partner would be that he knowingly received the client’s money paid out in breach of fiduciary duty. This is a proprietary claim against him personally, rather than a tortious claim, and so the client could not claim that you were vicariously liable. Moreover, the client cannot have believed that accepting a bribe was within the partner’s ostensible authority. It is therefore unlikely that the firm can be held liable for the client’s losses.
However, under section 10 of the Partnership Act 1890 the firm would be liable for any wrongful act of a partner acting in the ordinary course of business of the firm. Therefore, the mortgage providers are more likely to be able to recover against the firm. In Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards Ltd [2009] EWHC 254 (Comm); [2009] PLSCS 64, Nationwide made advances of £11.5m to a client of DHL’s on the security of a commercial property, based on a valuation by one of its directors. However, he had fraudulently overstated the value of the security, claiming that it was worth £16m when the true value was closer to £1.5m.
Nationwide obtained judgment for deceit against DHL on the basis of vicarious liability, due to the fact that the director knew his statements to be false, and the statements were made in the course of his employment. Such liability will, however, be limited if your partner has sufficient assets, and the mortgage provider is compensated through a confiscation order under POCA.
In the case of DHL, the director in question had insufficient assets to limit its liability and DHL failed to comply with the court order to make an interim payment to Nationwide of £10m on account of damages and £250,000 on account of costs. A winding-up order was made against DHL, which was put in to liquidation.
Finally, section 6(4) of POCA includes a consideration of whether the defendant had a “criminal lifestyle” and whether he has benefitted from his “general criminal conduct”. In Lexi Holdings the judge suggested that victims entitled to be compensated under a confiscation order under section 6(6) included victims of the defendant’s general criminal conduct, rather than just those of the particular conduct of which the defendant has been convicted. You may, therefore, also want to consider whether the firm is a victim of the partner’s general criminal conduct as well.
This article was written by Rachel Morrish, associate and Claire Thompson, barrister at Enterprise Chambers. For more information please contact Rachel on +44 (0)20 7427 6644 or rachel.morrish@crsblaw.com
This article first appeared in Estates Gazette on May 17th 2017
Our thinking
Amy Shuttleworth
Materialism in the metaverse: high street, meet blockchain
David Haines
New Arbitration Scheme for Commercial Arrears goes live
Everything you need to know about the new Arbitration Scheme for Commercial Arrears
Celine Jones
Levelling up or a barrier to house building?
Oliver Park
Building Safety Act 2022
Everything you need to know about the Building Safety Act 2022
Claire Fallows
CoStar quotes Claire Fallows on the new infrastructure levy announced in the Queen's Speech
CoStar quotes Claire Fallows on the new infrastructure levy announced in the Queen's Speech
Hope Wilson
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Hope Wilson writes for the EG Legal Q&A on qualifying criteria
Simon Ridpath
Simon Ridpath featured in the Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Simon Ridpath features in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: what’s been happening in the world of Essential Residential?
We discuss recent cases of interest to those dealing with residential property.
David Gregory
HS2: Community engagement back on track?
David Savage
David Savage writes for PBC Today on the end of rebated fuel
David Savage writes for PBC Today on the end of rebated fuel
Simon Green
International Bar Association quote Simon Green on the future of the legal sector in Hong Kong
International Bar Association quote Simon Green on the future of Hong Kong's legal sector
Rebecca Day
London’s Super Prime Resi-market Growth Continues
Bart Peerless
The Lawyer reports on the Firm's promotion announcement
The Lawyer reports on the Firm's promotion announcement
Bart Peerless
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes six to Partner
Charles Russell Speechlys promotes six to Partner
Lauren Spark
Q&A: Rent Review Formula
Everything you need to know about the Rent Review Formula
Emma Humphreys
Shopping is dropping - but does the government have the answer?
Rachel Morrish
Avoid Technical Arguments to Thwart the Eviction Process
Everything you need to know about avoiding technical arguments
Lesley O’Leary
Briefing publishes Lesley O’Leary 's comments on hybrid working and the impact on collaboration
Briefing publishes Lesley O’Leary 's comments on hybrid working and the impact on collaboration
Julie Sharpe
Top 10 Tips: Title Insurance
Everything you need to know about Title Insurance
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: Spring Budget 2022
Here we look at the Chancellor's recent Spring Statement and the key points which those with property interests will want to know about