Client persuaded solicitor to try to defraud Revenue

A solicitor tried to defraud Revenue by underpaying €147,000 stamp duty due on a property transaction because a client persuaded him to do so, the High Court has heard.

It was not the first time Raymond St John O’Neill, aged 61, of Raymond St J O’Neill & Co, Washington St, Cork, had done this and he had only just promised a Law Society Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal that it would not happen again, the court also heard.

However, within a few months, he did it again when another client persuaded him to update a property deed — effectively cutting the stamp duty tax bill by €147,000, the court was told.

He had previously allowed underpayments for clients, for smaller sums, in a number of other stamp duty cases but genuinely believed he was entitled to do so on the basis he was applying the date on which the property deeds became available, his lawyer told the court.

Mr O’Neill was ordered to only practise under the supervision of a solicitor of 10 years standing after the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, declined a Law Society recommendation that he be struck off following a plea in mitigation from Mr O’Neill’s counsel.

Earlier, Paul Anthony McDermott, counsel for the Law Society, said that while the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal had recommended that he be penalised by being required to work under another solicitor, the Law Society itself wanted him struck off for reasons including his previous promise not to allow it happen again.

Even if a client tries to persuade a solicitor to defraud the Revenue, it is not sufficient for the lawyer to say a client asked him to do it and it may be reported to the gardaí, he said.

Mr McDermott said while Mr O’Neill had references as to good character from lawyers such as Ernest Cantillon, Barry Galvin, and Willis Walsh, the Law Society’s view was that this would be a different case had the same thing not happened a second time just after a promise had been given not to do it again.

A barrister for Mr O’Neill asked the court to take into account a number of mitigating factors including that had the solicitor not admitted to the first misapplication of stamp duty funds to the tribunal, he “might have got away with it”.

The tribunal had said it was to his credit that he had done so.

The €147,000 due to Revenue, as a result of him doing it a second time, would come from the sale, for €600,000, of a large piece of land by the client involved, counsel said.

Mr O’Neill had been practising for 36 years and had had a virtually unblemished record, counsel said.

Mr Justice Kearns said he accepted the recommendation of the tribunal that Mr O’Neill only work as a solicitor under a restricted practising certificate. He refused an application to adjourn the order to October so that Mr O’Neill could undergo a knee operation in the next few months.