Ex-Hogan Lovells partner jailed for three years over £1.27m fraud

  • Print
  • Comments (38)

Readers' comments (38)

  • Is it fair that this man should get three years for a pre-meditated 3-year fraud totalling over a million pounds, whilst many of those involved in the spur-of-the-moment London riots received 2 year sentences for handling low-value stolen goods (e.g. primark t-shirts and blu-ray players)?
    One rule for the rich.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes I fully agree it should have been a much longer sentence. Lets hope that he does actually serve three years.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 1128, you're clearly a commie. I don’t know about you, but I would feel a lot safe with a city full of Grierson’s, as apposed to a city full of rioting thugs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • no one was actually hurt, so a fair sentence

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So three years in jail but netting £1.2m (tax free) from the firm. An average of £400k per year....Gross that up with tax and it beats his salary...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Presumably he had to steal the money so that his wife wouldn't notice how much he was spending on the mysterious "Lebanese woman."
    There must be a moral in this.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank goodness he was given a nice lenient sentence for swindling his colleagues out of vast sums of money.
    Only a hateful communist would think he deserved anything more severe for his utterly dishonest thieving.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ 12:03
    A: doesn't have a stake in society
    B: has a £1m equity stake in Hogan Lovells
    A & B decide to loot. Who should the courts come down hard on, assuming they stole goods to the same value (even though on the facts, there's a massive disparity)?
    However, the public policy response is:
    A: emergency through-the-night courts to mete out OTT sentences
    B: an impotent (and soon to be defunct) SFO doing nothing & sympathetic courts giving a lenient sentence

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There can't be many roles outside Law Firm Partner where you could make false claims at that level for so long before anyone noticed. If the FD is still the same, hope he has his story well rehearsed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i actually agree with comment no.1 one and i am not a commie. Without knowing anything beyond what i've read about the case in the press solicitors command a great deal of public trust. As officers of the court and whether one does criminal, civil, contentious or non-contentious work the penalty should be heavy for such dishonesty. After all, although most of the time it does not seem it to those in the profession, solicitors and barristers enjoy a great deal more direct and indirect power than the everyday man in the street

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (38)