On 5 April 2024, Mr Peters pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining by deception. The conduct subject of the criminal charges involved a property transaction proposed by Mr Peters’ brother. An associate would purchase a new property from a third-party vendor and then on sell it to Mr Peters at an inflated value. The inflated price would be used to seek mortgage funds well in excess of the property’s value, with the excess funds to be used in another overseas investment managed by the brother for Mr Peters’ benefit. Mr Peters admitted he made false representations that were supported by falsified documents to a bank and solicitors to obtain the mortgage funds.

In terms of the disciplinary process, Mr Peters was charged with misconduct that was unconnected with the provision of regulated services but would justify finding that he is not a fit and proper person or is otherwise unsuited to engage in practise as a lawyer. Mr Peters admitted the charge, but opposed strike off arguing that his conduct could be addressed with censure and a period of suspension.

In determining penalty, the Tribunal noted Mr Peters had repaid the bank, which did not suffer any loss as a result of his actions. It commended Mr Peters for his response to the criminal charges, his insight and remorse which it considered mitigating features. However, the Tribunal agreed that the mitigating features were insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the conduct and no response other than strike-off would be proportionate in the circumstances. It noted “the relationship between the legal profession and banks must be one of absolute trust and confidence. For a lawyer to participate in the deception of a bank is offending at the highest end of the misconduct spectrum.” Mr Peters was struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors and ordered to contribute to costs.