LONDON: The private solicitor to the late Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain also helped manage the wealth of an alleged Syrian war criminal known as “the Butcher of Hama,” according to a report in The Guardian newspaper.
Mark Bridges, who was knighted for his services to the Queen in 2019, acted as a legal adviser to Rifaat Assad, the uncle of former Syrian president Bashar Assad.
Bridges served as the Queen’s solicitor between 2002 and 2019 and was a trustee of financial trusts linked to Rifaat or his relatives, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported.
Assad, now 87, commanded an elite Syrian force accused of massacring up to 40,000 civilians during the brutal suppression of an uprising in the city of Hama in 1982.
After leading a failed coup in 1984, he was exiled from Syria and went on to invest heavily in the UK, France, and Spain.
Bridges’ prestigious London law firm, Farrer & Co, said his work for Assad complied with regulatory standards and that he had received “credible information” at the time that cast doubt on the war crimes allegations.
Bridges served as a trustee for Assad between 1999 and 2008, and continued to provide “ad-hoc and limited” legal advice until 2015.
The Crown Prosecution Service began efforts to freeze Assad’s British assets in 2017, obtaining a court order preventing the sale of a £4.7 million (SAR 23.39 million) Mayfair home. However, it came too late to block the £3.72 million sale of a seven-bedroom property in Leatherhead, Surrey. Assad’s £16 million townhouse in Mayfair had already been sold.
A 2018 ruling by a court in Gibraltar noted that Bridges had been a trustee of two financial trusts connected to Assad, the English Palomino Trust and the Oryx Trust.
In 2020, Assad was convicted in France of embezzling Syrian state funds to build a French property empire valued at £80 million.
Bashar Assad and his British-born wife Asma fled to Moscow after his regime collapsed late last year.
Responding to the revelations, Farrer & Co. told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism: “Whether the same decision (to act for Rifaat) would be made today in light of further information now available and, arguably, the more stringent demands of the regulatory environment, is a point on which one might speculate.”
