Tariq Rehman Kings Court Chambers Advance Fee Fraudster BIRMINGHAM England United Kingdom

The ability for Tariq Rehman to continue practising as a barrister may soon be curtailed for good following joint public statements by The Legal Ombudsman and the Bar Standards Board…

 legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/press_releases/1014-Public-interest-decision.pdf

The Legal Ombudsman’s detailed report is here…

 legalombudsman.org.uk/ombudsman-decision-data/detailedreport.html

Days later, the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service (BTAS) imposed restrictions on Rehman’s ability to practice, meaning that he can no longer accept new public access cases…

 barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/independent-panel-decides-not-to-suspend-birmingham-based-barrister-tariq-rehman-on-an-interim-basis/

Rehman is due to attend the fourth hearing of a BTAS disciplinary tribunal on 30 March 2015. The tribunal commenced in May 201…

tbtas.org.uk/hearings/forthcoming-hearings-calendar/?listing_search_terms=rehman&orderby=date&order=asc

 It is expected that a final suspension hearing will be heard once the outcome of the current tribunal has been determined.

Tomorrow, 9 May 2014, Rehman is due to stand before a tribunal, charged with failing to pay, on time, fees due to another barrister. The Charge Sheet reads as follows...

 Tariq Rehman

Called to the Bar by Lincoln’s Inn, March 2000

Charged with:

Three charges of professional misconduct under paragraph 406.1 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (8th Edition) – Failing to pay fees received for work done by another barrister, to that other barrister, promptly.

 And here is the calendar entry...

Tariq Rehman

(Lincoln's Inn)

Type of hearing3 Person Disciplinary TribunalPanel members

• Mr David Hunt QC (Chair)
• Mr Roland Doven
• Mr David Povall

Charge

Charge Sheet - Rehman D3

Venue

Tribunal Suite - 9 Gray's Inn Square

Status

Convened

Date

Friday 9 May 2014

One of Barrister Tariq Rehman's co-conspirators in an advance fee immigration agency scam at Kings Court Chambers is multi-million pound fraudster, Waseem Saddique. Also known as Wasim Saddique, KL Parker or just 'Sid', he is now on the run, after failing to attend a hearing at Birmingham Crown Court on 21 June, 2013, where a bench warrant was issued for his arrest…

http://www.causelist.org/21-06-2013/

In July 2007, Saddique seemed to be a businessman on the rise, doubling the turnover of his mobile phone businesses year-on-year and receiving a prestigious award from Lloyds TSB for his entrepreneurship…

http://www.theasiantoday.com/PrintArticle.aspx?articleID=450

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/07/prweb538779.htm

Just weeks later, Saddique's mobile phone businesses collapsed…

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/58816/notices/605868/all=dialamobile

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=SystemAdmin%2FCFPageLayout&cid=1223092622710&packedargs=website%3D4&pagename=BCC%2FCommon%2FWrapper%2FCFWrapper&rendermode=live

Saddique would later claim that his business failed because: “Essentially, the company I ran was unable to trade any more because the networks wanted me out!”...

http://waseemsaddique.blogspot.com/p/about-waseem-saddique.html

The truth is that Saddique was involved in VAT carousel fraud. When Dialamobile collapsed, Saddique then creamed off millions more at the expense of his customers who were tied into mobile phone contracts but lost their cashback deals due to the company’s collapse…

http://priceshock.co.uk/court.html

http://priceshock.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=2732f93495da416e5b96c466fef9fa61

Desperate to restore his revenue stream. Saddique embarked on a series of frauds from 2008 onwards. As each one collapsed following the intervention of government regulators, Saddique implemented pre-prepared backup plans to maintain his fraudulent income, all at the expense of customers and the tax authorities.

In late 2008, Saddique established a business relationship with solicitor and prospective MP, Nasir Ilyas. Ilyas was heading a solicitors firm, Wolstenholmes LLP. In the course of just 9 months in 2009, a small credit balance on client accounts was extinguished, leading to a deficit exceeding £19.8 million...

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10840.2011.Ilyas.et.al..pdf

When the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) finally gained entry to Wolstenholmes premises, Saddique had already transferred client files to two other solicitors’ practices (Norman Saville & Co and MacIntyre Clarke LLP) where he also had almost complete control…

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10777.2011.Boulton.pdf

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10776.2011.Nahar.MalikMasud.pdf

Note: Waseem Saddique is referred to as WS in the above tribunal reports.

For much of the time Saddique was in control of these three practices, he was an undischarged bankrupt…

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59073/notices/828709/all=waseem+saddique

Within four months of the closure of Wolstenholmes by the SRA, Norman Saville & Co and MacIntyre Clarke LLP were also closed down. An expensive and lengthy SRA forensic investigation followed and it was four years before solicitors from all three practices were brought before Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunals. Several solicitors were struck off the roll.

Being an undischarged bankrupt, Waseem Saddique could not become a company director so, for his next scam, Waseem’s brother, Ajaz Saddique and another of the ‘boys’, Ashraful Sadat, fronted a new company, becoming co-directors of UK Visa Specialists Ltd, which traded as UK Visa and Immigration.

Waseem had already been perpetrating an advance fee visa agency scam in conjunction with a number of solicitors practices via  “One Stop Visas” Waseem had also used another company, One Stop Car Solutions for an advance fee PPI scam.

But, for his new company, UK Visa Specialists Ltd, Saddique did not need to conspire with solicitors to generate income, as the company registered directly with with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). But troubles soon followed as the OISC expelled the company from OISC regulation in July 2012. Clients not only lost their monies but, in many cases, valuable documents such as passports and other crucial papers.

By this time, Saddique had already been banned from working with solicitors, along with two of his ‘boys’, Mario Cardinali and Mohammed Kazi…

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565398.article

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565397.article

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565400.article

But Waseem had another plan; if he could not work with solicitors and could not get his company registered with the OISC, why not team up with a crooked barrister? Waseem found the very man he needed. Barrister Tariq Rehman.

Rehman is a  barrister who was prepared to take on the Bar Standards Board. A barrister who was desperate for income after getting kicked out of his previous chambers. A barrister who has a court judgement against him from the taxman for £83,000+ A barrister who is subject to an IVA (to avoid bankruptcy).

Yes, Saddique and Rehman make the perfect partnership.

But how long can this relationship between Saddique and Rehman continue? The next hearing date for Saddique et al is 23 September, 2013.  The press will be reporting on that hearing.

Saddique may be a marketing ‘whizz kid’ but his business model relies totally on internet marketing; in particular, Google Adwords, backed up by fake reviews on independent reviews sites such as eKomi, Feefo, Review Centre and TrustPilot.

One by one, following a little persuasion, these independent review sites are withdrawing the fake reviews. There is now sufficient evidence to approach Google Adwords, suggesting that they may like to withdraw adverts for UK Immigration Barristers. If that were to happen, the company would soon fold. Kings Court Chambers would, almost certainly, cease to exist as a viable entity and Saddique would move on to some other scam.

Meanwhile, Saddique remains at large, being hunted by West Midlands Police; he continues to tweet and maintain his blog and, presumably, guiding all his stooges into doing his dirty work for him…

https://twitter.com/waseemsaddique

http://waseemsaddique.blogspot.com

UK Immigration Barristers (UKIB) is the 'intermediary' that provide clients to Kings Court Chambers. Yesterday, I called UKIB posing as a prospective client, using the pseudonym, Alan Wells. The UKIB agent was a lady (sorry, not a lady, but a lying scumbag) called Alwen.

Yesterday, Alwen said she would provide me with the address of Kings Court Chambers in London. She had given me a street name (Bloomsbury Square) but failed to provide a building number. So, I attempted to elucidate that building number during our phone conversation today. As you will hear from the attached recording she makes the excuse that my case may not be assigned to Kings Court Chambers, so she will not provide me with the address of Kings Court Chambers in London.

Anyone who has dealt with UK Immigration Barristers will know that the only barristers chambers that UKIB deal with is Kings Court Chambers. According to the regulator, The Bar Standards Board, Kings Court Chambers is based in Birmingham only, at Albert House, Albert Street, Birmingham; the very same address that UK Immigration Barristers occupies.

I have since determined that a business called Kings Court Chambers does rent premises at 22 Bloomsbury Square, London but the contact names of that business are not the names of any barrister; they are the names of fraudsters unqualified to provide legal advice. These fraudsters are, in effect, running Kings Court Chambers for Tariq Rehman.

If you listen to the recording you will also note that Alwen claims that UKIB does not have to be be registered with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) under the Data Protection Act because the information they hold is 'confidential'. Once she feels the heat of my questioning, she swiftly brings the call to an end. But now her lies can live in perpetuity on the World Wide Web. Alwen, just like all the others at UK Immigration Barristers is a lying, lying scumbag. 

When these lying scumbags were running a solicitors practice (Wolsstenholmes) they cared little about data protection. Clients papers were kept in a car park and just before Wolstenholmes was closed down these fraudsters removed disk drives from all computers and took them away, so hindering the Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation. The SRA has no idea where the disk drives are now.

These lying scumbags will tell you anything to get your money. You have to pay all their fees upfront. Once they have your money they have no wish to provide any service whatsoever. Deal with these lying scumbags, such as Alwen, at your peril.

Tariq has chosen not to respond to this report directly, but he did send me an email in response after reading it:

Fraudsters who are now lining their pockets and providing the income Tariq Rehman needs to pay a £83,000 tax bill, were named and implicated in a multi-million pound scam, during a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) earlier this year…

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10840.2011.Ilyas.et.al..pdf

The closure of Wolstenholmes LLP was one of the largest, most complex and expensive interventions in history. In just nine months after the fraudsters were given control of the solicitors firm, client accounts at Wolstenholmes went from a surplus of £147 to a deficit of £19.87 million. £12.37 million has been paid in compensation, so far, by the SRA to clients of Wolstenholmes.

Being non-solicitors, these fraudsters were not respondents at the tribunal and the SDT could not impose any sanctions or penalties upon them. However, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was able to impose its own sanctions and three of the fraudsters mentioned in the report: Waseem Saddique, Mario Cardinali and Mohammed Kazi were barred from working with solicitors…

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565398.article

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565397.article

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/565400.article

The SDT considered that the core allegation against six solicitors who worked at Wolstenholmes was...

“They caused or permitted non-solicitor third parties to have an inappropriate degree of

control and influence over the activities of Wolstenholmes LLP (“the Firm”) contrary

to Rules 1.03 and 1.04 of the Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007.”

Waseem Saddique was, in effect, heading the firm; a non-solicitor who became subject to a bankruptcy order during his tenure at Wolstenholmes, though he continued to be in control of the firm despite his bankruptcy and declared earnings of just £500-£700/month to insolvency practitioners.

In a matter of months, Saddique had increased their business tenfold, mainly by online pay-per-click marketing - the same technique now used by the same fraudsters to generate revenue via their association with Tariq Rehman at Kings Court Chambers.

One solicitor from Wolstenholmes, Imran Hussain, who attended Saddique’s bankruptcy hearing, drafted the now infamous ‘Brazilian Letter’ to Saddique’s business lawyer in Brazil, just six weeks after the bankruptcy order, endorsing Saddique as a man of good character; he made no mention of the bankruptcy order. Hussain also apparently endorsed Saddique’s claim for £60,000 per annum remuneration but never questioned why Saddique only declared an income of one-tenth of that to those handling his bankruptcy.

The true extent of the fraud may not be known for years as documents, computer records, and emails were removed or destroyed in the days before intervention. However, sufficient evidence did remain for the SRA Forensic investigation to determine many facts.

Saddique made income for himself by the falsification of documents and by diverting monies payable to HMRC for stamp duty (SDLT) to his own business - One Stop Car Solutions. Sale prices were understated so that SDLT did not appear to be payable.

House owners would subsequently find they were not registered as owners at the Land Registry. No doubt many more cases will come to light in the years or decades to come, when people try to sell the houses or they die, only to find they are not the registered owner.

During the firm’s final days a cheque book was ‘stolen’, resulting in a further loss of almost £385,000 and, on the day of intervention Christmas Eve, 2009 the SRA was unable to gain entry into Wolstenholme’s premises and had to return a few days later with a court order.

Another worker at Wolstenholmes, Nadeem Akhtar, was taken on after training in June 2009 and became head of the post-completions department by October 2009. He was unqualified. Nadeem Akhtar in now the sole director of Global Immigration Consultants (t/a UK Immigration Barristers) and also worked at UK Visa Specialists (t/a UK Visa and Immigration)

Mohammed Kazi, one of the fraudsters who worked at Wolstenholmes, also worked at UK Visa and Immigration as call centre manager and maintains the same role at UK Immigration Barristers.

Ajaz Saddique (believed to be the brother of Waseem Saddique) was a director at UK Visa and Immigration until the Insolvency Service closed the company down after it was thrown out of the OISC.

Waseem Saddique, who also uses the names Wasim Saddique and K Parker (a name in which he also received monies from Wolstenholmes) was previously a director of Dialamoble that collapsed with debts of £12 million in 2007.

It is abundantly clear that these fraudsters work closely as a team and have great influence over the people they work with. They have obvious PR and marketing skills but do not care about providing a service to clients paying upfront fees.

Working within a framework of limited liability partnerships for solicitors practices and direct access for barristers chambers has enabled these scammers to exert undue influence and generate income of tens of millions of pounds from their fraudulent activities.

For even more insight, read the many first-hand complaints from many aggrieved customers and former employees of Wolstenholmes here…

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1792897&page=1

Amidst all his financial problems, Tariq Rehman has created a new identity for himself, not by changing his name, but by simply changing his date of birth!

The real birth date of Tariq Rehman appears to be 04/12/1969. That is the date he has provided to at least one chambers where he previously worked. Eight companies of which Rehman was a director also show his date of birth as 04/12/1969.

When Rehman was subject to an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) in February 2012, to avoid bankruptcy proceedings, his declared date of birth was 04/12/1969...

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/IIRCaseIndivDetail.asp?CaseId=700564297&IndivNo=100963893&Court=VOL&OfficeID=600000127&CaseType=I

Similarly, when Rehman was convicted and fined £450 at Bradford and Keighley Magistrate Court earlier this year (2013) for speeding, his age was given as 43 years...

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/newscourt/10465856.Thursday__June_6__2013/

Rehman’s most recent directorship was with a company called Barristers Legal Services Ltd (t/a Kings Court Chambers) of which he was the sole director from its incorporation on 08/11/2011 until it was struck off Companies House register on 18/06/2013 for failing to submit any accounts.

 When Rehman created Barristers Legal Services, Companies House was provided with a date of birth for Rehman of 07/11/1965. Why would this be? Here are a few possibilities...

1. Rehman could have entered his date of birth wrongly by mistake when creating the company. This hardly seems likely as the day, month and year are all incorrect.

2. Maybe Companies House transcribed Rehman’s date of birth incorrectly? Again, very unlikely as the company was created online, with no signed documents being submitted, so no documents to transcribe.

3. Rehman could have deliberately submitted a false date of birth to hide his income from the insolvency practitioner handling his IVA. This would be highly dangerous for Rehman, so probably unlikely.

4. I would suggest the most likely reason that Rehman’s date of birth is entered incorrectly is because he has allowed individuals to take control of Kings Court Chambers. The very same individuals that have been barred from working with solicitors because of the control they exerted of those practices.

 The online application to create Barristers Legal Services Ltd was made on 07/11/2011. I think it no coincidence that the day and date entered for Rehman’s date of birth is also 07/11. They then seemed to take a guess at the year he was born, deciding on 1965, which makes him 4+ years older than his real age.

Is it any wonder that clients of Kings Court Chambers have complained bitterly that documents they send to Kings Court Chambers are transcribed with wrong names, wrong dates etc?

If Rehman ever reads this, perhaps he can supply a convincing explanation as to why he has two dates of birth?

Tariq Rehman’s financial problems have existed for a considerable period of time, if we are to believe his reasons for not paying monies owed to the Bar Standards Board for over 5 years.

One of the reasons Rehman gave for not paying a loan back to the Bar Standards Board on time was because he was having to pay a tax bill of £89,000 at the rate of of £2,000 following yet another court order.

And there are other indicators of Rehman’s financial difficulties. In the years 2000-2011, Rehman was a director of at least nine companies, all of which are now dissolved, many struck off the register for failing to submit any accounts whatsoever to Companies House.

Whether that £89,000 tax bill results solely from Rehman’s work as a barrister or is any way related to those failed companies is unknown. Without any public accounts available, it is hard to determine if any of the nine companies in which Rehman was involved, ever traded.

Rehman’s debt to the Bar Standards Board should have been paid by 1 October 2005 but was not paid until May 2011. Yet, in December 2005, Rehman openly advertised on the internet for a second wife...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlrashidMall/message/3353

During the rather heated discussion that followed on Yahoo Groups, Rehman acknowledged that having a second wife involves responsibilities...

“From: tariq rehman <t.rehmanbar@...>

Reply-To: AlrashidMall@yahoogroups.com

To: AlrashidMall@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Alrashid Cyber Mall] Re:Friends

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:22:41 +0000 (GMT)

Dear Paul

Hope you are well. I am sorry to disapoint you but I am not a f****t and not interested in boy meets boy relationship, so i will be grateful if you can take your comments and shuv them where the sun does not shine. You see in Islam we are given the choice of more than one wife, You westerners are happy with the concept of having a wife at home and going out and fornicating with anything that moves. Islam is very impressive in this respect that it informs you from the outset that sexual relations do not arive without responsibility. You can image how many bastards there are running around in the West without them nowing who there fathers are. You frown upon the idea oif more than one wife when the bible is littered with examples but you are content to let the homos through the back door.

To answer your question about the law in the UK i am fully aware of what it states, thankyou very much.

Your faithfully Tariq Rehman”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlrashidMall/message/3376

Islamic law may well allow a man to have more than one wife, but does it also allow a man to seek a second wife when he cannot fulfill his financial responsibility to his own regulatory authority and the taxman?  I am sure the Bar Standards Board would be interested in Rehman’s reply to that otherwise rhetorical question.