It's the tax you love to pay.

Pragnesh Modhwadia may cost every solicitor in England and Wales hundreds of pounds each after the SRA admitted it would struggle to plug the huge hole in Axiom Ince’s accounts.

Axiom ballooned in size after purchasing Ince and Plexus before it emerged that £64 million was missing from its client account.

When the shortfall came to light, the SRA intervened into managing partner Modhwadia’s practice* and the firm obtained a freezing order over his assets.

He claimed that almost all the money had been spent on buying up other firms and purchasing and renovating properties.

The firm collapsed and the SRA intervened, leaving it to deal with potential client claims worth millions of pounds.

“We are trying to work out how many people are affected and how much they have lost”, SRA chief executive Paul Philip said in a briefing this week: “we are going to have to collect a lot more money”.

The SRA confirmed that its Compensation Fund contained £18m, which would not suffice given the size of the Axiom Ince disaster. Normally the fund pays out £13m a year, reported the Law Gazette.

Axiom’s insurance policies mean the SRA is unlikely to have to find the full £64m missing from Ince, but in the short term it will need a cash injection prior to the next round of Practising Certificate renewals.

One of the options the SRA board is considering is a requirement for all solicitors to make a one-off payment to fill the gap.

With around 155,000 solicitors on the Roll, ROF estimates that the emergency Pragtising Certificate could cost each lawyer as much as £500.

It could be less. According to the SRA, many clients of Axiom Ince were corporate entities. They do not qualify for the fund and will be covered by their own insurance, while individual claims are capped at £2m.

Modhwadia also amassed an extensive portfolio of properties for a total of approximately £22.4m, which could go towards the shortfall. 

However, unwinding their ownership structures and completing disposals may not be a speedy process, while some sites, such as struggling shopping centres, may not recoup their purchase price.

Philip has also said that just the costs of administering the intervention into a firm as large as Axiom Ince were likely to reach £15m.

The SRA must also contend with the substantial costs of intervening into Metamorph, another firm which blew to pieces after its management was permitted to expand by accumulating more and more firms despite hollowed-out financials.

Asked at the briefing if the SRA had been "asleep at the wheel", Philip said, “We are very clear we have done everything we should have done. In the last 15 months we have seen much larger firms [being intervened into]”.

“We could go and visit all these firms that are growing but we are not an external auditor. If we were to do that it would need a significant expansion in the skills base and staff which would ultimately be added to the PC fee.”**

A spokesperson for the SRA said that it first became aware of the issues that led to the interventions into Modhwadia's practice and that of the other two directors at the end of July. 

A spokesperson for the police told ROF this week that no arrests had been made in relation to its investigation into potential crimes at Axiom Ince.

*please would the source with ‘the video to share’ email it to [email protected]

ROF’s Matthew is so incensed by the latest example of “catastrophic incompetence by this hopeless joke of a regulator” that he’s looking at ways to shut it down and replace it with something that is fit for purpose. Apparently there are mechanisms so to do. Watch this space. 


LU iconLet top firms and companies ping your app when they like you for a role. Find LawyerUp on the App Store and Google Play.


Tip Off ROF


Honest Solicitor 20 October 23 08:20

Crikey, it’s been a bad few months for the profession. This week’s ROF stories are pretty much all a combination of fraud or similar (and not of the ‘took an extra bag of tea from the tea point’ type either).

I wonder if we’ll have enough crazy Christmas parties this year to restore faith in our honourable profession?

Work From Home Fan 20 October 23 08:30

There must be something that can be done about the SRA and its rank incompetence? We all saw this coming.  Well, all of us apart from the SRA, and now they expect us all to pick up the bill.  Alongside the costs of ever increasing compliance requirements, and spiralling wage costs, and increasing PI costs.  

The SRA can f**k right off.

Anon 20 October 23 08:32

So what’s happening to all the properties this bast*rd bought?


Presumably they’re being sold off first before we need to pay for his spending spree.

ModhwadiairBNB 20 October 23 08:45

Will E&W solicitors then entitled to spend time in Modhwadia's properties in UK and Dubai? That would be the least compensation they could get in return for repaying his own debt.

More seriously, this is appalling... Not much trust left in the SRA and the profession after this. And if the SRA believes that they have done everything they should have done, it means that this could happen again and again, this is quite frightening. 


Anon 20 October 23 08:47

Banks **** up - taxpayer pays. 

Energy companies **** up - household pay. 

Water companies **** up - households pay. 

Legal regulator ****s up - SolICItoRs PaY. 

Ffs. Is the SRA ignorant of how loathed it is for all of its repeated overreach and incompetence, or is it too shameless to care?

Anonymous 20 October 23 08:50

And still the SRA refuses to confirm when it became aware that money was missing.

This inept bully of a regulator will not be challenged by the utterly pathetic Law Society.  It will not be challenged by the Government, either.

The profession needs to stand together and demand answers.


Spotty Lizard 20 October 23 08:54

Does the regular have the power simply to levy an emergency top-up fee like that upon the practice? This isn't the Italian "we'll just take 10,000 Lira from everyone's bank account to fill our accounts black hole" government. 

Preventive medicine 20 October 23 08:55

I reported my firm to the SRA for years of anti money laundering and KYC non-compliance. Their response - fuck all.

There has to be halfway action between nothing and full intervention.

The SRA needs to spot when the canary is looking sickly and has fallen off the perch -  and make THOSE FIRMS pay for an auditor appointed by the SRA (and responsible only to the SRA) to scrutinise them closely and only when there has been full compliance for 3 years are they allowed to return to the fold. I appreciate that that will apply to all West End "family" firms for whom money laundering and tax evasion is an established practice area, but it's a cost of them doing business in a tightly-regulated profession.

You know what - I'm going to ask for this to be raised in the Justice Select Committee. 

Anon 20 October 23 09:23

Still no news whether Axiom Ince is in administration! As a sole household earner I need my redundancy payment NOW. Mortgage & other bills to pay. Get the f**k on with it.

Disgrace 20 October 23 09:24

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, however we apply our own code as we believe in being as open as possible about what we do. Our core principle is to make information available unless there is a good reason not to.

When did you know money was missing?

When did you start investigating?

The SRA refuses to be transparent.  It is a fecking disgrace. 

Maggie May 20 October 23 09:36

Most are not even surprised at this monumental mess. It was all so predictable. Mr. Philip's doesn't even sound as if he appreciates the enormity of it all 'and the band played on.' Risk matrix, decision making matrixs, swot analysis all appear non existent at the SRA. Still it is only solicitors, their reputation and standing and the public that are suffering as a result of this incompetence.

Digital lawman 20 October 23 09:46

The fact that these slimeball fraudsters were able to perpetrate the mayhem that has affected thousands of lives - clients, colleagues, employees, counter parties to deals - is in no small part down to the abject failing of the SRA to properly police what was happening.

Where was the control on client account; who were those working in the firm’s accounts department responsible for keeping control of money going out?  Who are the external auditors?

I surmise that there were more than just the top 3 leaders of the firm involved. Maybe the SRA’s failings on the surface may be unpeeled to reveal a simple lack of competence in depth to deal with this.

Irrespective of what the police investigation reveals, I would rather spend my £500 chipping in to hire independent  investigators to bring all of those involved in this to book  to seek compensation from them all and ban them all from any involvement in the legal, accountancy and regulatory services for life.



Iknow 20 October 23 09:52

SRA are useless, damaging to the profession and should be disbanded and a new system set up in their place. All they are good for is hounding the junior end of the profession. We assume they hire experienced professionals who know how to investigate. They don’t. Most of their staff, especially at the junior end, have no relevant experience. Think of it like calling up a call centre if you ever contact them. It is why so much of what they do relates to dishonesty but only where that is very obvious and admitted dishonesty - like the junior who admits to backdating a document or using a parking permit that she is not entitled to. Or leaves a briefcase on a train and then panics. The more serious and behaviour which is typically at the more senior ends of the profession does not get dealt with unless and until it becomes so glaringly obvious and only then when it is far too late. Like Axiom. A big part of the problem is the SRA doff their caps to the senior end of the profession and the big firms and take on a subservient and timid position even when they are supposed to be investigating them.

What do I know? I used to work in a leading SRA investigation firm, we acted for big firms under investigation. I was there for five years. The SRA were largely seen as a joke and the advice we always gave to clients (dressed up a bit) was never admit to any dishonesty or anything which breaches the SRA principles. Unless you admit, they will unlikely do anything, they won’t have the intellect or resource to investigate and they will instead try and await a conclusion from a court or arbitration or law enforcement they can latch onto. Or more likely, they will just close the file. They do not like to investigate and are not at all good at it. They just like to sanction when someone else had already reached a conclusion or there has been an admission.  Flatter the SRA, pretend you respect them and always try and liaise with the SRA through the “relationship manager” at the SRA, who often has a personal friendship with the regulatory team at the investigated firm, as they work closely together typically on other matters. They love the virtue signally too, so stress your firm’s diversity. Oh, and bundle all dodgy emails and letters that may show conduct you want to hide from the SRA together and send them to us and assert privilege, so they do not have to be handed over to the SRA if they do ask you for information. It was all a bit of a racket, but the funny thing was it was also so open and understood by the whole group how the SRA could be manipulated and that firms only needed to worry if a referral to SDT was made (those guys do know what they are doing and are very impressive). I am glad I got out. 

Anonymous 20 October 23 09:53

I support Roll on Friday regulating the legal profession. 

Surely it will be cheaper, more effective and fun. 

Sumoking 20 October 23 10:00

would have more sympathy for the SRA if they hadn't slept through the last round of exactly this sort of implosion in the profession in 2010. 

I also doubt "we need a team of forensic investigators to see that firms like Axiom are a time bomb" will be well received when it has been visible from space that that firm was careening towards disaster 

Billy no mates 20 October 23 10:34

And yet the SRA want to assume CILEX regulation responsibility- it should get its own house in order before being allowed anywhere near other industries. What’s to stop the SRA comingling monies obtained from solicitors’ and CILEX subscriptions?? Clementi has a lot to answer for but he’s long banked that cheque.., and what of the Low Society - the only union that works against the best interests of its members??

Concerned in Scotland 20 October 23 10:43

Another example why the Scottish Government should rethink their proposals in the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which would allow unprecedented powers to intervene in the regulation of the legal profession.

As currently drafted, the proposals would allow Scottish Ministers to intervene directly in the regulation of the legal profession, threaten the independence of both the profession and Scotland’s judiciary.

Ghost of Gordon Dadds 20 October 23 10:53

@Digital lawman 20 October 23 09:46

Axiom DWFM Ltd, which was renamed Axiom Ince Ltd, in May, is 100% owned by Pragnesh.  He was Managing Partner, COLP and HOFA.  He appointed the Head of Accounts, the CTO was a family member.  Nothing was paid out of the client account without their consent.  He appointed a couple of dozen directors while he controlled it but they don't seem to have done anything.

Pragnesh picked up Ince when the previously favoured pre-pack deal, with a private investor who previously had a large shareholding in The Ince Group Plc, to take the Plc private fell through in late-April. Pragnesh and Horwich Farrelly were the only games left in town. Pragnesh represented that the resurrected "Ince & Co" brand would be able to operate as a separate division, which made him favoured over HF, whose culture was not thought to fit. 

Part of the structure of the earlier, abortive, deal was that a separate, dormant, LLP, which had been incorporated in late 2021, would be utilised to allow some partners (largely those who had been equity partners in the pre-2019 Ince & Co.) a measure of operational independence from the regulated SRA entity (a limited company) and to allow for a profit share, as opposed to their being salaried in a limited company.  It was envisaged that the private investor, and then Axiom DWFM after Pragnesh stepped in, would have a significant interest in this LLP as a corporate member.  The LLP deed stated that it would not be effective until the corporate member joined.  

However, after he bought the place from the Administrators, Prags refused to allow Axiom DWFM/Axiom Ince to sign up to this LLP, so it never operated.  He expressly refused to let anyone else have any measure of control, however slight. As a result, for the three/four months Ince & Co was in the Axiom Ince Group, many of the former Ince "partners" were operating without any written contractual link to the firm - they were informally engaged consultants.  For those months the anticipated operational independence of Ince, which remained separately branded to the end, never happened.

I say this not to excuse anyone, Ince & Co has been a poisoned chalice for more years than its legacy partners care to admit, but to explain how much control Pragnesh had and jealously guarded.  We now know why he did so.  The "partners" in the Axiom DWFM/Axiom Ince business were not 1890 Act partners, or even LLP members, they were all employees and consultants (some of them directors) working for a limited company 100% owned by a fraudster.  It's all very well for keyboard warriors to say "they should have known" but the truth is that DWFM Beckman, Wiseman Lee, Philip Ross, the SRA, the administrators and board both of Plexus and of Ince Group Plc, and many more, were all taken in.   

I_ain't_paying 20 October 23 11:23

As someone who was made redundant from Ince a few years back, I find it rich that the SRA is actually thinking about making solicitors on the roll cough up for this dumpster fire. 

Ince was mismanaged even before Pragnesh came along and I refuse to contribute to a fund which exists not only because of fraud but because the partnership before he came along was so inept. No way. I know quite a few ex-colleagues who share the same views. 

wat 20 October 23 11:28

@iknow 09:52

”Oh, and bundle all dodgy emails and letters that may show conduct you want to hide from the SRA together and send them to us and assert privilege, so they do not have to be handed over to the SRA if they do ask you for information.”


er, don’t think that’s how privilege works m88

Hey, Nonny Mouse! 20 October 23 11:29

The SRA should look at the SRA and whether it has brought the profession into disrepute. 

Oh, hang on...

Rogue 1 20 October 23 11:35

I love the SRA and wouldn’t ever want to see it replaced by a competent regulator.  Until that happens I’m free to lie, cheat and steal to my heart’s content. 

Trowbie 20 October 23 11:38

SRA is not fit for purpose.

It prefers to intimidate and bully small firms and whoever it perceives as the weakest over trivia and has its eye off the ball in more serious matters like this.

The profession needs a new regulator to work in the interests of the profession and to lead instead of getting everyone’s back up.

Having been a partner of my firm for nearly 40 years I find the few letters I have received from SRA are unimportant, intimidatory, usually incorrect and downright rude.

Probably OSTED in the educational field work the same way and also seek to intimidate head teachers.

Regulators need a code of conduct and to be answerable.

Manners makyth man !


Appalled 20 October 23 11:59

I still don’t get why modhwadia and some of the directors and account staff haven’t been arrested ? Appreciate SFO needs time to do a forensic investigation .

regarding PC hikes - it’ll affect cashflow of many small firms / sole practices - as well as be a burden for larger firms with many lawyers. But ultimately, the costs will be passed on to the clients ! 

Fence Foal 20 October 23 12:03

Still, the SRA are all over paralegals backdating letters by a couple of days so - that’s something? 

Regulatory failure 20 October 23 12:08

Other than the obvious issues of misfeasance and criminality by Axiom and its directors - this surely is a gargantuan regulatory failure by the SRA. Their very guarded comments are not helpful even when protecting the ongoing (hopefully!) investigations .

but it looks like the directors have all scattered  under the sun and now comfortably sitting  in other law firms!

I know 20 October 23 13:01

Wat @1128, I am well aware that is not how privilege is “supposed” to work. The point is that privilege is often asserted when it should not be, to hide evidence from the regulator. It happens more often than you might think. 

Toby Stork SB 20 October 23 13:03

@Anon 20 October 23 09:23


get as many of your former colleagues together as you can and pay to get your former employer wound up. It’ll cost about £3k, but only one petition needs to be filed, so club together and get the share as low as possible. 

We had to to it with Knowles Benning because Metamorph did not have the funds to appoint administrators. Took about three months once we had the money together. 


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but unless Axiom want to appoint administrators AND have the ability to do so, this could drag on for much longer. 

(Metamorph Group Ltd remains active to this day.)


US associate 20 October 23 13:04

Should the fee be determined based on the solicitor’s annual salary? For example, a 6PQE associate at elite US will pay £5k; MC will pay £2.5k and regional will pay £50.80. Sounds fair? 

Anon 20 October 23 13:15

We failed in our function as a regulator so now you need to pay an extra charge to cover our incompetence...

DefDumb&Blonde 20 October 23 13:18

SRA again have handled this in the most terrible way! 
As an ex Plexus Law employee (AxiomInce) we still have not had our P45’s we STILL haven’t had our CN numbers… no information or communication.. the SRA has treated us all like scum.. they will make a lot of money from this…. Going after solicitors to plug the money that is owed isn’t anyone else’s fault but the SRA’s so they should do the decent thing and admit they f***ed up and should pay our redundancies.. crooks the lot of them! 

Bocastle 20 October 23 13:39

Am I missing something? Doesn't he have a huge property empire in the UK alone that could be liquidated to pay his debt? 

anonymous 20 October 23 14:20

It is not easy trying to come across Paul Philip's "expertise." He is apparently a barrister, but I cannot find any reference to his time in practice. Is it fair to say he failed to find a place in chambers, implying he probably wasn't very good as a barrister?

He then spent 10 years as COO at the GMC before his current appointment.

So he must have a law degree but I cannot find any evidence he has ever worked professionally as a lawyer. So what exactly is the expertise he brings to the SRA as a non solicitor, and someone who doesn't appear to of either been able or interested in pursuing a career as a barrister?

anonymous 20 October 23 14:29

The SRA is a registered company. So given its professional failings, why are its directors not being pursued for the shortfall rather than the profession?

Sexy By name, Ugly by Nature 20 October 23 14:32

Eh, he stole a large volume of money. He has admitted it. 


WHERE ARE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES. He should be behind bars. Or, in stocks, so I can throw rotten tomatoes at him. 

Anonymous 20 October 23 14:32

THE SRA is a company, so why are its directors not being pursued for being asleep at the wheel over Axiom Ince, Metamorph, and many others?

What a mess 20 October 23 14:52

The SRA can F>CK OFF.  We are being too polite!!! I am starting to hate the legal profession bound by rules and regulations and ruled by the F>CKING INCOMPETENT SRA.   We should not be picking up this bill.  Why is scumbag Prags not in custody???

Law firm - 20 October 23 14:57

Not paying for someone who stole money and SRA allowed proceeds of crime to be used to buy two law firms.  If we are forced to pay, we will issue a claim against the directors of axiom. 


Anonymous 20 October 23 15:01

Idnan Liaqat one of prags friends who is also suspended from practice as resigned as a director of Axiom... was he head of finance as well?

Anonymous 20 October 23 15:35

Brilliant. An example that you can go fully off the rails and the profession is left to pick up the bill. 

How about letting the regulator go insolvent. The same regulator who allowed this to happen under their watch. Their reward for failing to act properly is to be bailed out. 


anonymous 20 October 23 15:45

I can't see how the SRA can be a company: (12608059) but not list the company details on their website.

Surely that is a breach of company/possibly data protection law?

I really can't see how they can fine other people for their web pages being incorrect?

Anonymous 20 October 23 15:54

Ah yes the SRA, a group of failed lawyers who couldn’t cut it, so they joined the SRA.  An utterly despised and hopeless shower.  

Anon 20 October 23 16:02

@ 14:57. Totally agree. The people who benefited should pay not the ones who are law abiding lawyer and run their firms properly. 

Would you like some more firms, Sir? 20 October 23 16:16

Why, when a seemingly incompetent and equally crooked person, was snapping up more jewels for his crown was the SRA not then asking, 'hmm, I wonder if actually one person at the helm of all of this is such a great idea' and did not instead ask to see even a business plan let alone assess any other risks!?

It is the utter incompetence of the SRA that has led to this situation.  To state they've done all they can and suggest they might make us pay another £500 or for our PCs is to pour salt into the gash (which is another term that could be used to described the SRA).

Also, what the heck were the banks doing when they realised there was a little shortfall of £xm coming into the pots on each acquisition?

Joy.  Deep joy.

Anon 20 October 23 16:32

I can't believe that no more than three people knew that £64m had gone missing from client account seemingly for an extended period. Whoever produced the accountant's certificate to the SRA may be in trouble. Disqualification as directors and strikings off or suspensions ought to await the other directors. The solicitors who acted for them in purchases out of other people's money in client account might have a bad hour before the liquidators as well.

No Chance 20 October 23 17:01

The SRA can fellate my left sack if they think I'm going to make any kind of payment to cover THEIR incompetence.

Anonymous 20 October 23 17:22

Too much to expect that the SRA might have contingency insurance itself of course.

Yet another unfortunate oversight.

AxiomDWFM directors 20 October 23 17:50

The directors are happy to pay for the deficit cuz we personally benefited! We didn’t do our jobs as directors of the company..

I am not going to pay 20 October 23 18:10

And if SRA threaten strike off, they can take me to court and test the lawfulness of asking for £500. Where in the SRA code does it say we could be asked to do something like pay a PC top up fee? If anyone knows please reply so I can read what it says. All the senior partners of that firm have cleared off to other firms leaving a complete mess behind them. Jury O Shea appears to be the new DWFM Beckman. They all need to be questioned by the police. Public inquiry needed for this one. So many lives in tatters 

Ghost of Gordon Dadds 20 October 23 18:42

@Anon 20 October 23 16:32

Indeed.  More than 3 people knew.  The total number of people who knew, however, I would estimate at no more than 10.  People who should have known are all listed on Companies House.

Anonymous 20 October 23 19:01

2 and a half weeks since redundancy and still no sign of getting hold of the code that will actually allow us to claim our redundancy. Becoming a farce of ludicrous proportions now.

Anon 20 October 23 20:28

@Anonymous 20 October 23 18:52

he certainly wasn’t the greatest just perhaps the greediest/crookiest !

axiom even had a dedicated Manager in the finance dept  for looking after client account transactions and compliance thereof ! Hard to believe !

Anonymous 20 October 23 20:30

Imagine the insult of being made redundant from AxiomInceAndFraudster as a result of Prags' greed and no fault of your own, scrabbling around for a job, then being asked to cough up £500 to cover your regulator's cost of failure while everyone there keeps their job and insists they've played a blinder.

Write to your MP 20 October 23 20:54

Can you all please write to your MP and ask him/her to refer the SRA to scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee.

The SRA needs some scrutiny and a proper grilling for the way it lets some firms wash oceans of dirty money from "family offices" through without proper KYC or anti money laundering checks yet picks low-hanging fruit of minor infractions by junior staff to enforce.

Stupid Relentless Assisteds 20 October 23 21:14

The SRA are a shame, it is so easy to make the entire profession pay for your own gross negligence.

As a client of law firms, I am concerned by the  obvious lack of control of the SRA over law firms and their funds.

If the SRA does ask solicitors to pay these £500, I will certainly consider to use solicitors that are not based in London but rather in a jurisdiction where the regulator does effectively control law firms and their funds.



Monopolist 20 October 23 21:45

Anyone who thinks that the property empire isn't mortgaged up to the hilt and beyond is kidding themselves.

Digital lawman 21 October 23 02:43

@Ghost of Gordon Dadds

Thanks for your comments.  However, if I understand your comments correctly. I still fail to understand how £64m went missing from client account with only Prags and the CTO knowing about it.  

Who wants chicken? 21 October 23 08:25

Oh well, the whole country goes on strike, and barristers have done it already. Maybe solicitors’ time to strike? Everyone refuses to pay the whatever extra PC fee - everyone is suspended, no one receives legal services, because no one can practice. Maybe things will then change? 

Now whoever put the idea up at the regulator needs to fire themselves. Disgraceful. Do you ever see the NHS charging its doctors a fee to cover their lack of funding?

Or companies charging employees to cover theirs?! Wtf. 


Je Suis Monty Don l’Autobus 21 October 23 08:37

How exactly do the SRA propose to “make” solicitors pay anything? I don’t remember signing a personal guarantee of the solicitors’ indemnity fund’s liabilities.

Anon@2023 21 October 23 15:39

So what happens when solicitors refuse to pay the £500.00? What power does the SRA have to require solicitors to pay anything to cover the raids on the client funds held by Axiom Ince? Did Axiom take money from the client funds held by Plexus and Ince when it acquired those firms?
Like everyone else commenting here, I cannot believe that others in Axiom Ince were unaware of the theft of client funds. And if others were aware why did  they not tell the  SRA and the Fraud Squad  long ago? When was money first taken from the client fund by Modhwadia and/or others? When was the first property bought and by whom? Was it by a company controlled by Modhwadia? Modhwadia is or was a director of some 30 companies and is listed as active for most of those at the moment.  Receivers have been appointed over properties owned by Modhwadia Companies by various charge holders but Modhwadia remains an active director in most of the companies to this day. In one case another active director of one company is another director of Axiom Ince who has since taken up a  post with a City Firm.
Has a Receiver been appointed over Axiom Ince? Barclay Security Trustees hold a fixed and floating charge over the assets of Axiom Ince. The properties currently being disposed of  appear to be those held by some of the Modhwadia companies and the proceeds of those sales will revert to the secured lenders and not Axiom Ince, as I understand it.
Is it really credible that directors of Axiom Ince were unaware of the use of client funds to purchase properties by companies controlled by Modhwadia when they were also directors of other companies along with him?

FrankFarian 21 October 23 15:44

Monopolist 20 October 23 21:45


If it's mortgaged up to the hilt and beyond, where did the £64,000,00 go?

Ghost of Gordon Dadds 21 October 23 16:33

@Je Suis Monty Don l’Autobus 21 October 23 08:37

The proposal, IIUC, is to increase the cost of the annual practicing certificate by £500.

Incredulous of Slough 21 October 23 20:41

@Ghost of Gordon Dadds 20 October 23 10:53

So Pragnesh can 100% own the company, appoint his own vassal to look after accounts, have a relative as CTO, and himself fulfil the roles of COLP and HOFA?

Where is the oversight, the checks and balances?  Is it any wonder that money went missing?  Why is such a situation even permitted?

And as for the auditors, did they just fall for an elaborate shell game?  Was the money just moved to where they happened to be looking at the time?  Did they not check it was actually there, how long it had been there, and how it got there?

i can see the opinion of the SRA on these comments, and the damage this sorry tale has done to the profession of solicitor is apparent.  Yet it strikes me that more than one profession has failed in their duty to the public here.



Inceider 22 October 23 02:52

As someone who witnessed the downfall of Ince Gordon Dadds from relatively close up, the SRA should have known what Ince “leadership” and their cronies were up to long before they went into administration and got gobbled up by Axiom — it was so obvious, especially near the end. There was so much sleazy behaviour, “creative” bookkeeping, questionable people on payroll, chummy deals, etc. It all reeks of impropriety. There was a lot, but obviously can’t state details here. But it’s not just a failure of the SRA… where were the police, Serious Fraud Office, HMRC, the media, etc. Why more of these “leaders” aren’t exposed and in jail is beyond me. Instead, they’re probably all having a good laugh in their smug private clubs in Mayfair, counting their stolen loot, and patting themselves on the back for getting away with stealing from anyone who was unfortunate enough to enter their orbit.

anon 22 October 23 12:09

The profession has no confidence in the SRA. It is time for a judge led independent inquiry into its operation. 

Anonymous 22 October 23 16:51

@US associate 20 October 23 13:04

We all know how SRA works. Based on years of ROF reporting, the fee will be:

juniors: a little

seniors: a bit more

partners: zilch

paralegals: mysteriously they will have to pay nearly all


Anonymous 24 October 23 16:02

Scandalous that every solicitor will have to pay for this but pay for it we all will. I’m in no doubt that failure to pay the levy will result in removal. The SRA know that there will be grumbling but in the end solicitors will pay up in order to keep the PC.

Not impressed 26 October 23 20:07

It’s now nearly 4 weeks since I was made redundant by axiom ince. They still haven’t put the company into administration and as a result people are now starting to seriously worry about their finances. We were last paid on the 25th September and that was only 2 weeks pay. 
The directors of axiom are faceless, useless liers who have not communicated with anyone. It’s disgusting the way we have been treated. 
If they don’t sort it within the next week the staff who are waiting for their CN codes may well start to force them into insolvency as well as looking at options for taking legal action against them faceless morons 

Chairman 27 October 23 08:12

Jonny Metliss was the chairman of Ince while all this was going on. A chairman is generally responsible for the ethics and governance of an institution. 

Wonder why he hasn't said anything?

Not fair! 28 October 23 16:58

So we should fork out from our legitimately hard earned money to rectify the crimes of these 3 sleazy fraudsters while they continue to high fly with the missing £64m!

Anon@2023 yes seems bizarre the other directors were unaware of Pragnesh’s so called investments because it’s simply not true, they were in on it! Shyam’s records seem to be  silent but Idnan Liaqat has extensive directorships of a number of companies which seem to be property investment related. Really odd there hasn’t been an investigation into any of these companies. Rather than expect solicitors to recover the losses shouldn’t they be  offset against the assets of those responsible. HMRC, SFO, CPS and the SRA need to pull their finger out and crack down on these criminals, can’t believe they are running free out there after impacting the lives of so many.

Anon 30 October 23 16:10

This guys spent the money buying law firms , partying and paying for women and champagne! We are now being asked to pay for this ? 

Anonymous 01 November 23 08:20

ONE MONTH since redundancies without notice and ex employees have still not been paid or even contacted. This is totally disgusting behaviour which is now in itself bringing the profession into disrepute. 

Anon 01 November 23 19:50

Axiom Ince is now in administration refer to Companies House for info. CN10042030,

Not before time unlike arrest of PM for fraud.

Ghost of Gordon Dadds 02 November 23 15:31

@Incredulous of Slough 21 October 23 20:41

The last available corporate financial statements for Axiom DWFM, up to March 2022, were signed off by Pragnesh in January 2023.  Those statements were unaudited under the small companies exemption.  The auditors were a small accountancy firm in Northwood who stated they have "not verified the accuracy or completeness of the accounting records and explanations you have given" and so did not "express any opinion on the statutory financial statements".

There's a good piece on page 41 of this week's Private Eye for those who can get a copy.  Ironically Gordon Dadds used to be their solicitors, although haven't been for some time.

Ghost of Gordon Dadds 02 November 23 15:36

@Chairman 27 October 23 08:12

No.  He was Chairman of Axiom Ince Ltd for 4 months, having been Chairman of Axiom DWFM Ltd for significantly longer.  No-one is denying that The Ince Group Plc, the parent of Ince Gordon Dadds, was badly managed, but I have seen no allegations of criminal impropriety.  

Colin 05 November 23 16:03

Having had hands on experience of the SRA investigations team and their chosen 2* interventions firms the levels of incompetence of both is quite staggering.

They do not even know where the client files are of the firms they intervened. 

The SRA do not appear to give a flying fig about the clients.

Investigation of firms is random with well run firms being investigated whilst known Roque firms are left alone. Selling back the firms and client matters to known struck off and dishonest people so that they can go on a ransacking rampage all over again. How is it that the SRA rules do not apply to everyone?

I know of a firm heading up acquisitions of other firms with a non solicitor investor with director strike off history along with a shadow director struck off solicitor who the SRA have approved to be able to continue to run law firms as authorised bodies. 

SRA are hypocrites. I was in attendance at the compliance conference in B'Ham 2 weeks ago and I decided i could not stand the double standards any longer so left 2 hours before the end after a 4+ hour drive and at my own cost.

Time to get out of the industry and leave this shitty not fit for purpose punishment regime regulator behind. Things will only get worse from here.

Oh lets not forget the police and the Action Fraud line. Equally not fit for purpose. Action fraud 1* on trust pilot because you cannot give a big fat Zero. Police will not investigate unless passed to them by action fraud so no fraud investigations take place and we wonder why these fraudsters just run amuck?

Watergate 11 November 23 05:55

The police have access to bank accounts, and can "follow the money" from the trust account to the next account, and then to the next account and so forth.....until they find the pot of gold.

The problem is that the UK has no official limits for international transfers, and I suspect is why the UK is one of the major money laundering hubs in the world, but apparently the FSA and the HMRC can monitor international transfers and the question is, where they monitoring Prags. 

So between, the Police, FSA and HMRC, they should be able to find out where the money has been sent to. There are also solicitors who dealt with the property purchases, who would also have details of bank accounts. So it should not be that hard to trace all of the bank accounts and to find the money.

You lot are Bitches 09 March 24 23:39

Stop talking shit about Prags, go out there work hard and maybe someday you'll have something for yourself. Just because you are a nobody and your wife hates you and you have some gay bills to pay. Leave my G Prags alone... Bunchaa Bitches.

Related News