Login
Melbourne lawyer’s ‘concerning’ financial activity investigated
A Melbourne criminal lawyer suspected of breaching anti-money laundering laws failed to have his practising certificate restored.
Naomi Neilson
Following a Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) financial and trust account investigation, Nick Marcevski, sole practitioner of Marcevski Lawyers, had his practising certificate cancelled and was prohibited from applying again until September 2028.
A VLSB-appointed external investigator discovered Mr Marcevski failed to comply with reporting obligations relating to significant cash transactions received from or on behalf of clients in excess of $10,000 between August 2016 and April 2023.
Between November 2018 and May 2022, there were 57 cash deposits between $9,000 and $9,900.
Under the Criminal Code, criminal offences relating to money laundering may apply if the alleged conduct in question involves transactions “that are structured or arranged to avoid the reporting requirements” under the Financial Transaction Reports Act (FTR).
Mr Tang said in his reasons the fact Mr Marcevski received cash payments from clients “sometimes above, and in many cases close to, the FTR Act reporting limits” could not “seriously be in doubt”.
“That there is a limit of $10,000 on cash transactions is something well known to members of the community, and it is difficult to accept, on face value, that Mr Marcevski – who had been practising criminal law for more than a decade … was unaware of that limit … or that as a legal practitioner he had reporting obligations,” Mr Tang said.
While the board has not established any criminal conduct, it formed the view Mr Marcevski “breached the relevant provisions either intentionally, recklessly or with a wilful blindness to his obligations”.
Lawyers for VLSB submitted there were “very serious concerns” about Mr Marcevski continuing to practice as he appears “either willing to not comply with, or be at least wilfully blind to the possibility that he may contravene statutory duties and obligations in circumstances where it may improperly benefit the client”.
VLSB added granting the stay would likely diminish public confidence in the administration of justice.
In his defence, Mr Marcevski said he planned to be employed by a colleague’s practice and that any threat he poses to the administration of justice is “relatively low” in circumstances where he will not receive cash or be involved in trust accounting.
He added he would have the “strongest possible motives to refrain from anything that might be improper”.
However, Mr Tang said the circumstances of the conduct raised “serious questions” about Mr Marcevski’s ethics and his ability to fulfil the “inherent requirements” of a solicitor.
“I consider that granting a stay, the effect of which would be to restore his practising certificate as a principle with trust … while such matters remain to be resolved could well have an adverse impact on the reputation of the legal profession and, in turn, impact on public confidence in the administration of justice,” Mr Tang said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
