No Charges for Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Fraud, and Embezzlement

Although the matter appeared complex because multiple allegations seemed to be intertwined at once, it was critically important in the actual response to examine the issues separately. MEGA X did not treat the disputed payments as one category. Instead, it reorganized them into separate categories: amounts exchanged in the course of retaining an attorney, allegations that money paid during the engagement process had been fraudulently taken, and amounts for which a return was sought during the settlement process.

Next, for each item, we reconstructed the overall structure by comparing the timing of each payment, the flow of funds through the accounts, the progress of the matter, whether relevant documents had been prepared, and the parties’ statements and communications. The most important task was to clearly establish the nature of the money. The legal assessment necessarily differs entirely depending on whether the money constituted consideration for an introduction or referral, expenses paid in the course of handling the matter, or a fee agreed upon in advance.

We did not merely refute the complainant’s allegations. We focused on demonstrating how the client’s explanation corresponded with the actual evidence and how each statement could be understood within the overall sequence of events. As a result, the investigative authorities likewise did not regard this as a matter in which criminal liability could be established based solely on suspicion. Instead, they accepted it as a matter involving intertwined differences in interpretation between the parties and a dispute over the accounting and settlement of funds.

No Charges