The Financial Conduct Authority has imposed a full ban on Mr Miah, a former non-legal manager at Kingly Solicitors Limited, barring him from any role in regulated financial services following one of the more striking cross-regulatory enforcement actions seen in recent years. The prohibition follows findings by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that Mr Miah dishonestly caused or allowed more than £28m of client money to be misappropriated from client accounts without authorization — a sum that underscores both the scale of the alleged misconduct and the systemic vulnerabilities that can exist at the intersection of legal and financial services.
The unauthorized withdrawals are reported to have taken place between April 2019 and July of the subsequent period under investigation, spanning a prolonged window during which significant sums were quietly drained from accounts that clients trusted to be held securely on their behalf. Client accounts maintained by solicitors' firms occupy a uniquely sensitive position in the British financial ecosystem: they are intended as ring-fenced repositories for funds belonging to third parties, not assets of the firm itself, and are governed by stringent professional and regulatory rules designed precisely to prevent the kind of conduct alleged here.
What makes this enforcement action particularly notable from a regulatory architecture standpoint is its dual-authority character. The SRA, as the frontline professional regulator for solicitors and the firms they operate within, conducted its own disciplinary proceedings against Mr Miah in his capacity as a non-legal manager — a category of individual who holds significant operational influence within a law firm without necessarily possessing a legal qualification. It was the SRA's findings of dishonesty that then furnished the FCA with the factual basis for its own prohibition order, demonstrating how the two regulatory bodies can function in tandem when misconduct bridges the legal and financial services sectors.
The FCA's decision to act on the SRA's findings, rather than conducting an entirely parallel investigation from scratch, reflects an increasingly joined-up approach to cross-sector misconduct in the United Kingdom. As financial products and professional services become ever more intertwined — with law firms routinely holding, transferring, and managing large pools of client capital — the relevance of FCA oversight to individuals operating within those firms has grown considerably. A prohibition order from the FCA carries lasting practical weight: it prevents the individual from performing any function in relation to regulated financial services activity, effectively closing off a significant portion of the professional economy.
The scale of the alleged misappropriation — exceeding £28m — places this case firmly in the upper tier of client money violations to have drawn regulatory sanction in recent memory. Client money protection rules exist across both the legal and financial services regulatory frameworks because the risks of commingling, misappropriation, or unauthorized use of such funds are well understood. When those protections fail, the consequences for affected clients can be severe: funds set aside for property transactions, litigation settlements, or business deals may be partially or entirely unrecoverable, depending on the firm's financial position and the availability of compensation mechanisms.
Kingly Solicitors Limited, as the firm within which the alleged conduct occurred, sits at the center of what appears to have been a sustained pattern of unauthorized fund movements. The length of the period during which the withdrawals are alleged to have taken place — spanning from April 2019 onward — raises important questions about internal governance, oversight mechanisms, and the adequacy of controls that should ordinarily detect anomalous movements in client account balances. Regulatory expectations around client money reconciliations and reporting are explicit; the existence of a prolonged gap between the alleged onset of misconduct and its identification will likely attract scrutiny beyond Mr Miah himself.
What This Means for the Industry
For compliance officers and senior managers at firms that straddle legal and financial services — a category that includes conveyancing practices, structured finance boutiques, and law firms with embedded financial advisory functions — this case carries a direct and uncomfortable message. Regulatory boundaries are increasingly porous when it comes to misconduct, and the FCA's willingness to translate SRA findings into its own prohibition orders signals that non-legal managers within solicitors' firms cannot regard themselves as operating beyond the reach of financial services regulation. The £28m figure at the heart of this case is large enough to constitute a landmark reference point in enforcement discussions, and both regulators have signaled that client money remains one of their highest-priority supervisory concerns. Boards and audit committees would be well advised to treat this action as a prompt for a thorough, independent review of their client account governance frameworks.
Written by the editorial team — independent journalism powered by Codego Press.
