ismail

Not a problem, Ismail.


A banking solicitor who previously worked at K&L Gates, Latham & Watkins and Goodwin Proctor has admitted possessing thousands of child sex abuse images and videos of children.

Faliq Mohamed Ismail, who is understood to have been working at Coutts at the time of his arrest, admitted possessing 1,076 videos and 2,173 images of child sex abuse which fell into the most serious category A. 

The 35-year-old lawyer, who trained at Magic Circle firm Clifford Chance before leaving when he qualified in 2013, admitted possessing 221 videos and 2,476 images which fell into category B. 

Ismail had amassed a collection of over 14,000 child sex abuse images, and also admitted distributing them with other paedophiles online.

The in-house solicitor lives in a flat in Chelsea and was described as "extremely brash and flamboyant" by a source. Ismail maintained an "extremely showy-offy" Instagram account, said a source, where he posted "hundreds of pictures of himself with expensive (ladies) handbags and at fine dining places". The account, which has now been made private, was called 'gildedyouths'.

A spokesperson for NatWest, which owns Coutts, said Ismail had now left the business. “We can confirm that the individual is no longer employed by the bank”, they said.

Criminal proceedings are ongoing. A spokesman for the SRA said, “We are aware of the issue, and await conclusion of proceedings before gathering all relevant information and deciding on appropriate action”.

It follows the conviction of the Head of Business Development at Plexus for child sex crimes in July.

Tags
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 23 October 20 09:16

The references to "child porn" here really grated with me.  Surely we should be referring to it as "images of child sexual abuse"?

Anonymous 23 October 20 09:24

Agree with above, please change that. It is not porn as that term is used these days but images of abuse.

Setter 23 October 20 10:19

The police use the term child pornography. The reason some people do not like to use the term ‘pornography’ is because they say it implies consent, which of course children can’t give.

Many people do not agree that the term ‘porn’ implies consent. 

In addition, saying ‘child abuse images’ is critically uninformative, because it leaves out the sexual element. The images are of children being abused in a specific way - sexually - and are all the worse for it. That element should not be hidden. Pornography should be understood to be capable of being produced without consent. 

PC Fact 23 October 20 10:40

Trust lawyers to fall out over definitions. We can surely all agree on the important thing - that his fashion sense is awful

 

Jamie Hamilton 23 October 20 10:54

Thanks for those comments. We’ve updated the story to refer to ‘child sex abuse images‘.

Anonymous 28 October 20 08:16

I know there isn't a link between people who wear brash designer labels on the outside of their clothes and people who are really, really bad human beings, but I can't help wondering....

Anon 29 October 20 03:28

Tony - a prison sentence is intended to punish people by depriving them of their liberty.  Regardless of their crimes, that's all the law permits Courts to impose.  The fact that they may also be arbitrarily subject to violence or sexual assault is not something to be celebrated.

Anon 18 November 20 22:09

I worked with this guy at one of the old firms and specifically on a few matters together. Always thought he was a bit of a weirdo but never thought he's a disgusting perv. Throw the book at him, the fat creep. 

Related News