A solicitor was convicted of falsifying his firm's accounts. He appealed, claiming mistakes in the legal process. The court said there were no serious errors and refused his appeal, also because he waited too long to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Deepankar Dixit, a solicitor, was convicted on 21 November 2019 of false accounting under section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968.
- •He was convicted alongside his former partner, Mr. Siddique.
- •The conviction stemmed from an investigation into undeclared cash payments received by their firm, Kingstons.
- •The case involved falsified records within a StrongBox accounting software package.
- •Dixit's appeal was filed approximately three years after his conviction.
- •The appeal raised two grounds: defective indictment and erroneous joint enterprise direction.
Legal Principles
False accounting under section 17(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 requires proof of dishonest falsification of an account or record made or required for an accounting purpose.
Theft Act 1968, section 17(1)(a)
A defendant can be convicted of a crime even if it was carried out by another person, if the defendant intended the crime and assisted, encouraged, or caused it.
Joint Enterprise principle
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The court found no arguable grounds of appeal. The indictment was not defective; the judge's directions were adequate, and any errors were inconsequential.
Application for extension of time refused.
No substantial justification was provided for the three-year delay in filing the appeal.