Priya is a solicitor and Higher Court Advocate with over 18 years’ experience in Complex Fraud, Business Crime, Professional Discipline, Regulatory and Criminal Law cases.
As a litigator and Higher Court Advocate, she has advised and represented many individuals, professionals and companies on high profile, serious and complex cases from the investigation stage and conducted advocacy on jury trials, as well as all aspects of Disciplinary and Regulatory Hearings.
Utilising her extensive experience in Regulatory, Disciplinary and Criminal Law, she has provided a diverse and comprehensive range of advice and has acted for clients in the business, financial, medical, healthcare, pharmaceutical, veterinary and social care sectors, as well as many other areas.
She has defended many disciplinary and regulatory cases of diverse complexity, as well as high value frauds, financial crime, money laundering, SFO, HMRC, FCA, NCA, Trading Standards, MHRA and DEFRA investigations, general and pharmaceutical Trademark Criminal liability, extradition, asset recovery, restraint, confiscation, Private Prosecutions, anti-corruption, anti-bribery, sanctions, AML and all related compliance advice. She has been instructed to defend on cases investigated by the SFO, CPS, FCA, HMRC, NCA, MHRA, DEFRA, GMC, GDC, GOC, HCPC, NMC, GPhC and many others.
She has a formidable reputation, excellent strategic judgement and is highly regarded for her pragmatic approach and effective advice and representation. She was selected by Thompson Reuters for the London Super Lawyers List in consecutive years and has also undertaken pro bono work for the charity Fair Trials International.
Case Experience Examples
Complex Fraud and Financial Crime
R v GH: Representation of a business owner in a 12 multi-defendant case, involving a MHRA Prosecution with allegations of Conspiracy to breach a number of Pharmaceutical Trademarks, related Medicines Act offences, EU Regulation offences, Money Laundering and Conspiracy to import and distribute counterfeit medicines. The case involved complex international jurisdiction arguments, lack of pharmaceutical Patent and comparative Trademark protection considerations, EU and pharmaceutical quota’s, MHRA regulation, licencing, pharmaceutical Regulatory Law, banking and other related financial evidence, scientific evidence, confiscation, hidden assets and asset recovery from foreign jurisdictions.
R v RL: Representation of a Company Director in a 8 multi-defendant case, in respect of a DEFRA Prosecution involving 104 Count Indictment with a range of Money Laundering offences to Regulatory offences relating to the unauthorised importing, supplying and administering of veterinary medicinal products on a large worldwide scale. The defendant with others, was alleged to have imported and sold veterinary and prescription only veterinary medicines without the necessary licenses and authorisations, with sales being in the region of £5.6m in a specific period, although the wider sales were much more. The case involved complex regulations, international assets, intercepted importations, cross jurisdiction issues, multiple company financial analysis, medicinal importation, restraint orders and variations, confiscation, asset recovery and director disqualification.
R v DC: Representation of a Company Director in a 6 multi-defendant case, related to a Trading Standards investigation of large scale Trademark breaches involving criminal liability, in respect of branded clothing. Allegations related to a substantial quantity of seized shipping containers containing thousands of items of clothing, which could not be quantified due to the sheer volume found. Novel and complex legal issues led to case being heard in the Supreme Court, on a point of law in relation to grey goods, parallel imports and the Trademarks Act. The investigation and case lasted five years.
R v DD: Lead Advocate Representation of a MLRO professional in a 9 multi-defendant case, accused of substantial money laundering Conspiracy of approximately £60 million, through money exchange businesses and the use of overseas transfers. The case involved banking and international transfer evidence and complex legal arguments.
R v MC: Representation of an individual in a 21 multi-defendant case, involving a Conspiracy to launder money totaling £500 million, using various methods of international transfer with multiple individual recipients. Complex financial banking evidence, legitimacy of de-briefing process, restraint orders, probe evidence, RIPA authorities, informants, corruption, inadmissible evidence, cross jurisdiction money transfer systems, abuse of process and disclosure issues were all features dealt with in this case.
R v RK: Part of the legal team in representation of an individual in a 24 multi-defendant case, involving a Conspiracy to launder money totaling £700 million. The allegations involved international money laundering, forensic accounting, Hawala Banking, world link bank exchange, fraudulent documents, PII applications, informants, restraint orders, fitness to stand trial applications, severance and admissibility arguments, cross jurisdiction banking systems and large scale surveillance.
R v RA: Part of the legal team in representation of a professional client, who faced allegations of a large scale Fraud, amounting to millions of pounds. Allegations involved hundreds of charges, for submitting fraudulent patient fee claims to the NHS for many years, in respect of fictitious patients. Further the General Optical Council contested qualification and registration and therefore the authority to practice was also an issue. The client passed away prior the conclusion of criminal proceedings and the NHS took a civil action against the estate. The case involved complex Disciplinary, Regulatory, Criminal and Civil overlapping areas of law.
R v HO: Representation of a Company Director of several Companies in relation to allegations of Conspiracy to De-Fraud. The case involved allegations of the use of sophisticated false documentation, sanctions lists, false accounting, banking documents and false US treasury department documents to convince investors to invest large sums of money, promising lucrative returns. The nature of the alleged multiple frauds were sophisticated, complex, high value and varied in nature.
R v DP: Representation of an individual in a 2 multi-defendant case in a Trading Standards prosecution, involving complex multiple national frauds and money laundering of thousands of pounds, through a money exchange business within the UK and internationally, as well as the UK banking system. The case involved complex abuse of process legal arguments, relating to the jurisdiction of Trading Standards to prosecute national frauds.
R v ML: Representation of a Company Director in relation to HMRC investigation interviews, in respect of allegations of tax fraud. The Company owned prominent bars and restaurants in Central London and was alleged to have submitted lower value VAT returns for a number of years, as well as alter company accounts showing inaccurate profits.
R v MG: Representation of a defendant in a multiple defendant case, involving allegations of Conspiracy to defraud mobile network operators and airtime providers by purchasing airtime to be sold on for commercial use. This was by way of establishing a wireless telegraphy station without a licence and creating illegal gateways (contrary to section 35 of the Wireless and Telegraphy Act 2006). This was a complex case where jurisdiction points, legality of prosecution, Competition and European law were all issues considered.
Example Regulatory and Disciplinary Cases
MHRA: Representation of a Business in respect of a MHRA investigation for the largescale unlawful supply of licenced medicines and the importation of prohibited and counterfeit medication in the UK. Representations were made which assisted the client.
MHRA: Representation of a Company in respect of a MHRA investigation for the unlawful supply of prohibited medicines in connection with prohibited components, contained within medicinal products. A favourable outcome was reached.
DEFRA: Representation of a Company in respect of a DEFRA investigation for the largescale unlawful supply of licenced medicines and the importation of medication, without the appropriate licences and breaches of numerous regulations in relation to veterinary medications. Representations were made which assisted the client.
FCA: Representation of a professional in connection with a FCA investigation for breach of Codes of Practice. A favourable outcome was reached.
FCA: Representation of a business in connection with a FCA investigation for breach of Codes of Practice. A favourable outcome was reached.
NMC: Representation of a Nurse in relation to allegations of failing to follow resuscitation procedures for a patient, who had died as a result. The case was contested on the basis the correct procedures were followed in line with the patient’s wishes. The case was successfully defended and the client was held fit to practice.
GDC: Representation of a Dentist in relation to allegations of an inappropriate tooth extraction and lack of professional insurance. The case was contested and was successfully defended. The client was held fit to practice.
GMC : Representation of an A & E Consultant in relation to allegations of Fraud committed by failure of having a valid practising certificate and attempting to self-prescribe an asthma inhaler by providing an old hospital identification, where he no longer worked. Both Criminal and Regulatory liability were defended. The case was contested on the basis the non-payment of the fee was an admin error by the GMC and the use of the identification was simply to prove he was a qualified doctors able to prescribe and not that he worked at the hospital. The case was successfully defended with both the Criminal and Regulatory liabilities being dropped.
GOC: Representation of a Trainee Optician facing allegations of misrepresentation of education results to his employer. The client admitted the misrepresentation. Mitigation and extenuating circumstances were put forward to allow the client to continue practising, complete his training and qualify. Submissions were successful and he was allowed to continue and eventually qualified.
GMC: Representation of a Doctor facing allegations of negligent treatment of a patient. The client was advised at each stage of the investigation, including representations made to the GMC. The case was contested and was successfully defended. The client was held fit to practice.
GDC: Representation of a Dentist facing an allegation of failing to have motor insurance and being untruthful by representing that he had a policy of insurance in force. The GDC questioned his fitness to practice on the basis of dishonesty. The criminal matter was resolved after establishing the insurance company had made an admin error and conceded this after months of litigation. The criminal charges were withdrawn and representations were made to the GDC, who then withdrew the investigation.
HCPC: Representation of a Social Worker facing an allegation of misrepresentation of information to his employer amounting to dishonesty, who informed the HCPC. In the course of the hearing, it was established the misrepresentation was in fact a malicious act by another employee. The case was contested and was successfully defended. The client was held fit to practice.
GPhC: Representation of a Pharmacist facing allegations of dispensing the morning after pill in numerous cases to 3rd parties other than patients, as well as giving higher or multiple doses and wrongly advising as to its uses and charging higher prices for large profit. A favourable outcome was reached for the client.