'Identification in EU Data Protection Law' by David Erdos comments
Although the new EU data protection framework includes new pan-European limits based on notions of non-identification, these provisions cannot be construed in a sweeping or linear fashion. Non-identified data can only include information which is not being used to target a specific individual on- or offline and which does not readily and manifestly enable such pinpointing. Although GDPR controllers cannot generally be obliged to render such data identified, they must stand ready to do so to facilitate reactive subject rights. However, they have no design obligation to ensure this is easy. Identifying or authenticating whether a particular individual is a specific data subject and considering whether other data subjects are also linked to the information are separately regulated. With the exception of the GDPR rights to data portability and a copy of personal data, the latter is in principle left to national derogation. Regarding the former, both the GDPR and LED allow controllers to require further information where reasonably required to identify a claimant of reactive rights. However, controllers retain a fundamental duty to organise their processing to secure data obligations and rights. Controllers can generally only resist reactive rights claims where they can positively demonstrate that the request is manifestly excessive.
Late last year in Victorian Legal Services Board v Razos (Legal Practice) (Corrected) [2020] VCAT 1304 the Tribunal considered a disqualification order - for an indefinite period - regarding paralegal Athena Razos. It states
the respondent has at various times been known by the aliases listed at Schedule 1 below.
...
Schedule 1: Aliases
Athena Ligris Zizzi
Athena
Athina Bouzas;
Athena Katherine Bouzas-Legris;
Athena Legris;
Athina Ligris;
Teena Ligris;
Tina Ligris;
Athina Zissi
Athina Zissiadis;
Teena Zissiadis;
Zissiadis;
Teena Zissiadis Ligris; and
Tina Zissiadis-Ligris.
In providing Reasons VCAT states
Disqualification of individuals (other than practitioners)
(1) The designated tribunal may, on the application of the designated local regulatory authority, make an order disqualifying a person who is an individual (other than an Australian legal practitioner) for the purposes of this Law, for a specified period or indefinitely, if satisfied that—
(a) a ground for making the order under this section has been established (see subsection (2)); and
(b) the disqualification is justified.
(2) Any of the following are grounds for disqualifying a person—
(a) that the person has been convicted of a serious offence;
(b) that the person is not a fit and proper person to be employed or paid in connection with the practice of law or to be involved in the management of a law practice;
(c) that the person was formerly an Australian legal practitioner and has, when an Australian legal practitioner, been guilty of conduct that constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct;
(d) that the person has been guilty of conduct that, if the person were an Australian legal practitioner, would have constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct;
(e) that the person could be disqualified under sections 206C–206F of the Corporations Act from managing a law practice if the law practice were a corporation.
The grounds here are that Ms Razos has been convicted of a serious offence, in fact multiple serious offences, and is guilty of conduct which, if she were an Australian legal practitioner would have constituted professional misconduct. She has engaged in fraud and theft, including while employed in law practices.
Ms Razos consents to the order, although she has sought suppression of publication of the order and any information about the reasons for it. ...
My orders attach an agreed schedule of 14 other names by which Ms Razos has been known, which was itself attached to the minutes of consent order filed last year. I note that the convictions referred to below were in three different names:
Tina Zissiadis-Ligris (2000 conviction)
Athina Zissi (2007 conviction); and
Athina Ligris (2009 conviction)
...
Ms Razos has advised that Zissiadis is her maiden name which she still uses and Ligris and Razos are married names. Whatever the reason for the use of so many different names, I am satisfied that the purposes of an order under s 119 are served by including the schedule in my orders and these reasons.
In the following section, I have re-ordered the agreed facts so that the most recent conduct – misappropriation of over $1,000,000 from trust monies while working as a paralegal at a law practice between 2016-2017 – is set out first. The criminal convictions are dated 2000, 2007 and 2009 respectively.
It underlines what I consider to be a continuing risk posed by Ms Razos if she were ever to be employed in a law practice again. My view is that this conduct, of itself, would justify the disqualification order, as would the criminal offending set out below. If she had been an Australian legal practitioner, it would constitute the most serious professional misconduct, misconduct at common law, warranting strike off from the roll of practitioners.
Ms Athena Razos is not and has not at any time been an Australian legal practitioner. However, between 1984 and 2017, Ms Razos was employed in the following roles within the legal profession:
Secretary at Mallesons Stephen Jacques (1984) to 1988);
Legal secretary at Minter Ellison. (1990 to 1988);
Law clerk at Legal Finance and Business Matters (2002 to 2004);
Senior secretary at Freehills (2004 to 2008);
Senior conveyancer at Professional Legal Group (2007 to 2008); and
Paralegal at Moray & Agnew (2008 to 2017).
Misappropriation of trust funds
While Ms Razos was employed as a paralegal with Moray & Agnew, her role involved the management of conveyancing matters and she was responsible for directing Moray & Agnew’s accounts department to bank deposit monies that were to be held on trust by the law practice pending settlement and allocate the receipted funds to clients’ trust ledgers.
Between April 2016 and July 2017, Ms Razos used trust monies totalling $1,051,063 for her own benefit. These funds were obtained by providing false and/or misleading documents in support of unauthorised payments out of the Moray & Agnew trust account:
into a trust ledger in her own name, with those funds subsequently paid out at her direction;
into bank accounts controlled by her;
to third parties as payment for goods and services procured by her; and
to third parties as payment of costs and/or expenses associated with her own residential property.
During this period, Ms Razos also:
made unauthorised transfers of funds between trust ledgers in respect of different client files, making up the shortfall caused by the funds paid out as above; and
overpaid clients from funds in trust, stating that the additional money had been earned in interest on the funds invested on the clients’ behalf, when in fact the funds had not been invested and no interest had been earned.
Ms Razos has since repaid the law practice amounts totalling $1,103,157 including amounts for lost interest and costs resulting from the above conduct.
Criminal Offending
On 7 September 2000, under the name of ‘Tina Zissiadis-Ligris’, Ms Razos was convicted of the following offences:
- 17 counts of obtaining property by deception
- one count of making a false document to the prejudice of another person; and
- one count of using a copy of a false document.
By way of sentence, Ms Razos was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment (wholly suspended for 12 months), placed on a 12-month Community Corrections Order and ordered to pay $81,192.46 in compensation.
Subsequently, while working at the law practice Freehills, Ms Razos stole amounts from petty cash totalling $16,346.60.
As a result, on 6 August 2007, Ms Razos was convicted of the following offences under the name of ‘Athina Zissi’ and ordered to pay compensation:
- 61 counts of obtaining property by deception; and
On 8 May 2009, Ms Razos was convicted of further offences relating to conduct occurring between 1992 and 2003. Convictions were recorded under the name of ‘Athina Ligris’ in relation to the following offences:
- seven counts of making a false document to the prejudice of another person;
- seven counts of using a false document to the prejudice of another person;
- two counts of attempting to obtain property by deception;
- two counts of obtaining property by deception; and
- nine counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception.
For these offences, Ms Razos was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment (with 1 year being suspended for a period of 18 months) and ordered to pay $5,081.08 in compensation.
Ms Razos ’ conduct leading to the 2009 conviction occurred both before and after the first Magistrates’ Court conviction and involved:
- forging her husband’s signature on a Transfer of Land in respect of jointly-owned property;
- forging the signatures of her husband and a solicitor as witness (who did not exist) on documents relating to a mortgage over jointly-owned property;
- applying for a credit card in her husband’s name, in respect of which a debt of $38,957.25 was written off by the bank;
- forging her husband’s signature in respect of a ‘direct debit authority’ for payment of insurance premiums;
- forging her husband’s signature and that of a witnessing solicitor (who did not exist) on an affidavit filed in the County Court of Victoria;
obtaining an amount of $12,000 from the ANZ bank by a fraudulent credit card application in the name of ‘Athina’ K Bouzas Legris’;
- incurring debts of $3,231.83 on a credit card in the name of a third party, without that person’s knowledge or consent;
- writing fraudulent cheques to herself, drawn on accounts in the names of third parties, which were subsequently dishonoured;
- forging her husband’s signature on government documents in order to access his superannuation benefit of $2,545.87; and
- using cheques to pay for goods, services and cash advances to the value of $3,258.41, which were dishonoured.
