BSB probe could see VAT fraud barrister struck off
Convicted barrister Rohan Pershad QC could be struck off after the Bar Standards Board confirmed it is referring his case to a disciplinary tribunal.
Rohan Pershad QC
The former 39 Essex Street and Crown Office Row silk is facing prison after being found guilty of a £600,000 VAT fraud while practising as a barrister over 12 years.
He has been bailed for two weeks to put his affairs in order before sentencing on 26 February (11 February 2013).
A spokesman said: “The Bar Standards Board have raised a complaint against Rohan Pershad QC with a view to referring it to a five-person disciplinary tribunal, following an investigation which has the power to disbar.
“Rohan Pershad QC has agreed to give an undertaking not to practise until the conclusion of our disciplinary hearing.”
Following the prosecution, HMRC stated that Pershad used an invalid VAT number on his invoices when collecting VAT on his fees.
HMRC also stated that during interview, Pershad “wrongly assumed he could just get away with paying the VAT due and that no further action would be taken” - suggesting he offered to repay the amount back to the taxman.
Authorities have also confirmed that confiscation proceedings are ongoing under the Proceeds of Crime Act, where HMRC can seek to recover the outstanding amount from Pershad. Its powers include being able to seize his assets and sell property in order to realise the £600,000 owed.
Meanwhile, Criminal barrister Edward Agbaje, formerly of 1 Gray’s Inn Square, has been charged with an £81,000 VAT fraud and is facing trial in March (18 September 2012).
He denies the allegation and is being represented by 5 Paper Buildings’ Graham Trembath QC.
Readers' comments (7)
Ben Edict | 15-Feb-2013 12:54 pm
Yes, he could be struck off. The Pope could be Catholic also!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2013 1:34 pm
Solicitors are struck off; Barristers are disbarred!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jason | 15-Feb-2013 2:01 pm
we all know why he wouldn't be automatically struck off by the BSB but its the kind of thing which members of the public find hard to stomach about the legal profession
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
jason | 15-Feb-2013 3:13 pm
thanks anon at 1.34 pm
perhaps the le plaignant's disciplinary hearing will be heard in camera
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Wakash | 17-Feb-2013 9:54 am
Another contributing factor to the public's diminishing faith in the legal profession.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Feb-2013 10:13 am
Sentenced to 3 years 6 months..discuss!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 17-Mar-2013 12:06 pm
As a solicitor I am not familiar with the Bar requirements for professional indemnity cover but presume they are similar to Law Society/SRA rules and suitable insurance is an essential requirement to practise.
What chance does a barrister on release from a period in custody have of obtaining cover if full disclosure made? it would seem probable even if available the cost would be such as to make it impossible for someone not in work for sometime.
The decision of the disciplinary hearing is perhaps of little practical importance but critical to public perception of the integrity of lawyers. Any result other than "disbarred" would be hard to comprehend.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment