SINGAPORE: A disqualified attorney started a consulting business and finally took money from a customer.
Soraya Hafsa Ibrahim, 58, extorted money from a customer who had borderline academic working, requesting that he mark checks for money that she used to pay off her debt.
On Monday ( April 22 ), Soraya admitted guilt to two of her three criminal breaches of trust as an attorney, as well as one count of accepting fees while being unauthorised while preparing legal documents.
The attorney’s sentencing cost for the remaining count of unlawful breach of trust may be taken into account, which has been postponed.
In total, the charges involve about S$ 527,000 ( US$ 386,900 ).
According to the court, Soraya was summoned to the table in 1994 but was expelled on January 20, 2020 for a problem separate from the recent legal fees.
Soraya was Soraya H Ibrahim &; ultimate attorney at the time. Co.
She deregistered the legislation firm a fortnight after being removed from the roll, but she opened SHI Consultancy on October 21, 2020.
While at the firm, Soraya received a consumer who needed help with managing his dying mother’s estate. A cover board level, an insurance policy scheme, and bank records were included in this.
The buyer, a 34-year-old guy, was deemed to possess borderline academic functioning. The Institute of Mental Health, but, determined that he was fit to manage the property of his late mother.
After being unhappy with the primary law firm working for the same company, the lawyer’s caregiver introduced him to Soraya. Soraya was well aware of this lawyer’s mental incapacity.
The customer then retained Soraya to assist him with property law issues involving his late family’s estate from April to May 2019.
She made arrangements to open an house bank account for this purpose. Money from the landowner’s assets were deposited into this accounts, with the customer as the ultimate member.
Soraya began considering using the money from the bank account to relieve her economic woes after opening the bill.
She asked the client to sign cheques and used them to make withdrawals, depositing more than S$ 527,000 of the ill-gotten gains into her own bank account.
Trusting Soraya, and believing that she had his best interests at heart, the person signed the payments.
Eventually, Soraya used the majority of the money to pay off her personal expenses, including bank bills and friend loans.
In August 2019, the gentleman reported to the authorities.
The client later sued Soraya, who was ordered by the High Court to pay S$ 456,473. 21 to the consumer. Soraya paid the sum at some point after the final verdict was rendered, and she has since made whole compensation.
Individually, a 36-year-old guy engaged Soraya in September 2021 to help reveal his family as the legal owner of his late father’s level.
Soraya, who had already been struck off the roll, collected a fee of S$ 10,000 from the man. She informed him that she was operating a consulting and not practicing law.
She did not inform him that she had been unfair, and she was therefore unable to handle the situation.
Additionally, Soraya created the necessary paperwork to request letters of administration from her client. The client presented these with their signed copies in front of a commissioner of oath.
After learning that Soraya had been charged in court with embezzlement, the man made a police report on October 28, 2022.
He also felt that despite paying the fee, there was little progress in the matter for which he had engaged Soraya. For about two months, Soraya had been neglecting to update his case properly.
” LOOK AT ACCUSED AS A MOTHER”: DEFENCE
The prosecution requested an unspecified “high” fine and a jail sentence lasting between 60 and 80 months.
Soraya was described by deputy public prosecutor Gladys Lim as a” seasoned lawyer” who disregarded the high standards of trust, honor, and integrity that a legal professional should a lawyer have.
In court documents, Ms. Lim and Deputy Public Prosecutor Niranjan Ranjakunalan claimed that the accused’s crimes were grave, showed a complete disregard for the very interests her lay clients had trusted her to protect, and disregarded the legal profession.
Ms. Lim cited the abuse Soraya had made of a vulnerable victim who she knew had a borderline intellectual functioning.
Soraya’s lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, made an impassioned plea for the court to consider Soraya’s personal circumstances, for which he said differentiated her case from others.
” Greed is often a motivation but in the present case, this is not here,” said Mr Nathan.
He said that Soraya had three children, two of whom had done well but the third, a son, fell on “bad times” and mixed with the wrong company.
This son fell into debt “in excess of S$ 600,000”, said Mr Nathan.
” This is not Soraya as a lawyer, this is Soraya as a mother. She looked at what was happening to her son, she looked out at her (other ) two other children, she felt compelled to do something,” said Mr Nathan.
She pondered how do I save my son, and this is why she committed this crime. She was having guests enter the house and bother her and her family. As his client looked over to her family in the gallery and wiped her tears, Mr. Nathan declared,” She was genuinely concerned about her family.”
Soraya had handled hundreds of pro bono cases before she became a prominent lawyer at Syariah Court, according to Mr. Nathan.
She lived in a very comfortable house. She did n’t have to get into this situation. She never sought to accept client funds, but a family tragedy altered everything. Perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of a need to survive,” he added.
Mr Nathan sought no more than 34 months ‘ jail and a fine of S$ 3,000 for his client.
Judge Jill Tan, the first district judge, adjourned the case until May 3 because she felt the sentencing would need some time.
A criminal breach of trust as an attorney could result in a 20-year prison sentence and a fine.
For preparing legal documents while unauthorised, a person could be fined up to S$ 10,000, or in default of payment to imprisonment, be jailed up to three months on a first offence.