NOTICES

Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Committee

Pursuant to s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act, the Council of the Law Society is required to publish the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other media as the Council may determine to adequately inform the public of the same.

This summary is published pursuant to the requirement of s 93(5) of the Legal Profession Act.

In the Matter of David Rasif, an Advocate and Solicitor

David Rasif ('the Respondent') originally faced 58 charges for contravention of Rules 3, 7(1)(a), 7(2), 11(1) and 11(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (the 'Rules') which amounted to a breach of a rule of conduct made by the Council under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act ('the Act') and grossly improper conduct contrary to s 83(2)(b) of the Act.

In the course of the Disciplinary Committee hearing, the Law Society proceeded with the following 17 charges to focus on the breaches of the Rules and the grossly improper conduct committed by the Respondent during the period between 24 May 2006 and 2 June 2006.

The Respondent was not present at the hearing nor was he represented by counsel.

Charges Against the Respondent

First Charge
That you, David Rasif are guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act in that you withdrew money from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners without the authorisation of the clients by way of the following acts:
1 Payment of S$270,000.00 by cheque number 506401 dated 30 May 2006 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin;

2 Payment of S$270,000.00 by cheque number 506402 dated 30 May 2006 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin;

3 Payment of S$260,000.00 by cheque number 506404 dated 30 May 2006 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin;
4 Payment of S$280,000.00 by cheque number 506406 dated 30 May 2006 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin;

5 Payment of S$985,300.00 by telegraphic transfer (TT No. 017200606000429) on 31 May 2006 to Lim Soon Kiang;
6 Payment of S$410,000.00 by cheque number 506425 dated 31 May 2006 to Moothy s/o Appudurai;

7 Payment of S$370,000.00 by cheque number 506440 dated 31 May 2006 to Moothy s/o Appudurai;

8 Payment of S$275,763.00 by cheque number 506433 dated 31 May 2006 to United Diamond Pte Ltd;

9 Payment of S$336,600.00 by way of transfer to the office account of M/s David Rasif & Partners on 31 May 2006;

10 Payment of S$270,000.00 by way of cash cheque number 506436 dated 2 June 2006 to Ho Chi Kwong;
11 Payment of S$4,136,720.00 by telegraphic transfer (TT No. 017200606000437) on 1 June 2006 to Ingenious Ideas International Inc; and

12 Payment of S$1,818,020 by telegraphic transfer on 1 June 2006 to Jewels De Fred Pte Ltd.

Second Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 23 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$10,658,240.00 received from 'George Raymond Zageffl & Kaori Kathleen Zage' by way of local clearing cheque in the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Third Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 26 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$10,658,240.00 withdrawn by way of transfer to the client fixed deposit account from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Fourth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$10,658,240.00 received in the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of transfer from the client fixed deposit account of the same, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Fifth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$336,600.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of transfer to the office account of M/s David Rasif & Partners, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Sixth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 30 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$280,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506406 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Seventh Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 30 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$270,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506402 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Eighth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$985,300.00 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of telegraphic transfer (TT No. 017200606000429) to Lim Soon Kiang, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Ninth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 30 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$270,000 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506401 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Tenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 30 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$260,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506404 to Rohaya Binte Mohamad Yassin, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Eleventh Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 1 June 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$1,818,020.00 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of telegraphic transfer to Jewels De Fred Pte Ltd, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Twelfth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 1 June 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$1,645,005.00 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of Banker's Cheque No. 030083 paid to United Overseas Bank Ltd, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Thirteenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 1 June 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under such Rules, a sum of S$4,136,720.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of telegraphic transfer (TT No. 017200606000437) to Ingenious Ideas International Inc, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Fourteenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)), in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under the Rules a sum of S$275,763.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506433 paid to United Diamond Pte Ltd, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Fifteenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under the Rules, a sum of S$270,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cash cheque no. 506436 dated 2 June 2006 paid to Ho Chi Kwong, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Sixteenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under the Rules, a sum of S$410,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of
M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506425 paid to Moothy s/o Appudurai, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Seventeenth Charge
That you, David Rasif, are guilty of a breach of Rule 11(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Chapter 161, s 72(1)) in that on 31 May 2006, you did not record in any ledger with respect to the client account required to be maintained under the Rules, a sum of S$370,000.00 withdrawn from the client account of M/s David Rasif & Partners by way of cheque no. 506440 paid to Moothy s/o Appudurai, and such breach of the Rules amounts to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act.

Findings of the Disciplinary Committee

The Disciplinary Committee found with regards to the first charge of misappropriation, the Respondent guilty of unauthorised withdrawal of moneys from the client account of the Respondent's firm, M/s David Rasif & Partners without the authorisation of the clients. The Respondent, as the sole signatory of the Client Account, had withdrawn large sums of money for his own purposes and benefit and which actions were directly within the ambit of 'grossly improper conduct' contemplated by s 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act. The Disciplinary Committee also found the Respondent guilty in respect of the remaining 16 charges of failure to record transactions involving clients' moneys in the required books and accounts above and made a finding and determination that there was sufficient gravity for him to show cause before the Court of Three Judges of the Supreme Court under s 93(1) of the Act. The Disciplinary Committee ordered the Respondent to pay costs of the proceedings fixed at $2,000, to the Law Society.

The application was made for show cause under s 94 of the Act for a final order under s 83(1) of the Act and the Court of Three Judges of the Supreme Court granted the application of the Law Society and ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll of the advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The Court of Three Judges also ordered that the Respondent bear the costs of the hearing before the Court of Three Judges as well as the Disciplinary Committee's. The judgment of the Court of Three Judges was published as The Law Society of Singapore v Rasif David [2008] SGHC 14.

The Court found the Respondent's misconduct warranted the most severe sanction permitted under the Act as his action not only represented one of the most severe wrongs which a lawyer could commit, but also one that clearly brought disrepute and shame to the legal profession.