Disbarred lawyer admits siphoning more than S$527,000 from client with borderline intellectual functioning

SINGAPORE: A lawyer who was disbarred started a consultancy where she then siphoned money from a client. 

Soraya Hafsa Ibrahim, 58, embezzled money from a client who had borderline intellectual functioning, asking him to sign cheques for sums which she then used to pay off debts. 

Soraya pleaded guilty on Monday (Apr 22) to two out of three charges of criminal breach of trust as an attorney, and one charge of preparing legal documents and accepting a fee while unauthorised. 

The remaining charge of criminal breach of trust as an attorney will be considered for her sentencing, which has been adjourned. 

In total, the charges involve about S$527,000 (US$386,900). 

The court heard that Soraya was called to the bar in 1994 but was struck off on Jan 20, 2020 for a matter separate to the current criminal charges. 

At that time, Soraya was the sole lawyer and proprietor of Soraya H Ibrahim & Co.

She deregistered the law firm a month after she was struck off the roll, but set up SHI Consultancy on Oct 21, 2020. 

In 2019, Soraya had a client who needed assistance with managing his deceased mother's estate. This included a housing board flat, an insurance policy scheme and bank accounts. 

The client, a 34-year-old man, was deemed to have borderline intellectual functioning. However, he was assessed by the Institute of Mental Health to be fit to be an administrator of his late mother's estate. 

The client's caregiver introduced him to Soraya after he was dissatisfied with the initial law firm engaged for the same business. Soraya was well aware of this client's mental incapacity. 

The client then engaged Soraya to help with legal matters related to his late mother's estate from April to May 2019.

She arranged for an estate bank account to be opened for this purpose. Funds from the estate's assets were deposited into this account, with the client as the sole signatory.  

After opening the account, Soraya began thinking of using the bank account funds to ease her financial difficulties. 

She asked the client to sign cheques and used them to make withdrawals, depositing more than S$527,000 of the ill-gotten gains into her own bank account. 

Trusting Soraya, and believing that she had his best interests at heart, the man signed the cheques.

Soraya later used most of the money to pay for personal expenses including credit card bills as well as debts to banks, friends and relatives. 

The man lodged a police report in August 2019. 

The client later sued Soraya, who was ordered by the High Court to pay S$456,473.21 to the client. Soraya paid the sum sometime after the final judgment was issued and has since made full restitution. 

Separately, a 36-year-old man engaged Soraya in September 2021 to help reflect his mother as the legal owner of his late father's flat. 

Soraya, who had already been struck off the roll, collected a fee of S$10,000 from the man. She informed him that she was not a practising lawyer and was running a consultancy. 

However, she did not tell him that she had been struck off and hence could not handle the matter. 

Soraya also prepared documents to apply for the grant of letters of administration for her client. These were signed by the client in the presence of a Commissioner of Oath. 

The man lodged a police report on Oct 28, 2022, after discovering that Soraya had been charged in court for embezzlement. 

He also felt that there was little progress in the matter he had engaged Soraya for despite paying the fee. Soraya had failed to provide proper updates about his case for around two months. 

"LOOK AT ACCUSED AS A MOTHER": DEFENCE 

The prosecution sought a jail term of between 60 and 80 months and an unspecified "high" fine. 

Deputy Public Prosecutor Gladys Lim described Soraya as a "seasoned lawyer" who failed to meet the high standards of trust, honour and integrity required of a legal professional. 

"The accused’s offences were serious, demonstrated a complete disregard for the very interests her lay clients had engaged and trusted her to protect, and brought disrepute to the legal profession," said Ms Lim and Deputy Public Prosecutor Niranjan Ranjakunalan in court documents. 

Ms Lim pointed out that Soraya had taken advantage of a vulnerable victim whom she knew had borderline intellectual functioning. 

Soraya's lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, made an impassioned plea for the court to consider Soraya's personal circumstances, for which he said differentiated her case from others. 

"Greed is often a motivation but in the present case, this is not here," said Mr Nathan. 

He said that Soraya had three children, two of whom had done well but the third, a son, fell on "bad times" and mixed with the wrong company. 

This son fell into debt "in excess of S$600,000", said Mr Nathan. 

"This is not Soraya as a lawyer, this is Soraya as a mother. She looked at what was happening to her son, she looked out at her (other) two other children, she felt compelled to do something," said Mr Nathan. 

"She was thinking how do I save my son and this is why she committed this offence. She was getting people coming to the house and disturbing her and her family. She was genuinely worried about her family," said Mr Nathan as his client looked over at her family in the gallery and wiped at tearful eyes. 

Before this, Soraya had been a leading lawyer in Syariah Court and handled hundreds of pro bono cases, said Mr Nathan. 

"She was leading a very comfortable life. She didn't have to get into this situation. She never had a reason to take client monies but this incident in the family changed everything. Perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of a need to survive," he added.

Mr Nathan sought no more than 34 months' jail and a fine of S$3,000 for his client. 

Principal District Judge Jill Tan said she would need some time to consider the sentencing and adjourned the case to May 3. 

Criminal breach of trust as an attorney carries a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine. 

For preparing legal documents while unauthorised, a person could be fined up to S$10,000, or in default of payment to imprisonment, be jailed up to three months on a first offence.