SGK Solicitors

TEL: 020 7734 9700


Partner (Admitted 1996)

Secure email:

Raymond brings the same meticulous commitment to every client, no matter the nature of the charges they face. His personable manner puts clients and witnesses at ease allowing him to get to the root of matters quickly. He has the judgment to identify the key points in a case and the communication skills to explain often complex issues in a manner that allows clients to make informed choices.

Raymond is head of our private client department and his practice encompasses serious crime of all types. Raymond has particular experience in advising and defending fraud and related financial offences. His experience extends to the SFO and CPS specialist fraud units as well as advising in FCA and CMA matters. Raymond acts as a supervisor for Very High Cost Case legal aid work (the very largest legal aid cases).
In 2015 Raymond competed the Certified Fraud Examiner qualification (with the ACFE) bringing to his practice a unique insight and understanding of how investigative and prosecutorial agencies approach their work. 

Raymond is a former President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and has represented defence solicitors in negotiations and meetings with Government, the senior Judiciary, the leadership of the CPS and the Bar. 

In addition to his defence practice Raymond regularly advises victims of crime guiding them through a stressful and complex process and pressing the police and CPS to act more effectively in cases where clients are receiving an inadequate response.  Raymond has particular experience in assisting parents in international child abduction cases involving children that had been removed to the United States and Russia.
Raymond is recognised in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500:

Raymond Shaw “comes highly recommended by market observers, who cite his dedication to client care and handling of complex cases. He is well versed in the representation of individuals charged with a broad range ofcriminal offences” - Chambers and Partners 2017

Raymond Shaw is "bright and responsive". Sources say: "He is a master of the battle of correspondence and his commitment is outstanding - a top operator" - Chambers and Partners 2016

“The ‘highly skilled’ and ‘no-nonsense’ Raymond Shaw heads the ‘extremely competent’ practice at Shaw Graham Kersh, which was instructed by professionals on a wide range of matters, including tax-related offences” - Legal 500 Fraud White Collar Crime 2016

Raymond Shaw has "great ideas, and is always forward-thinking and very impressive." He is praised for being "powerful as an advocate in pursuing his client's case" - Chambers and Partners 2015

“Raymond Shaw has great judgment” - Legal 500 Fraud, White Collar Crime 2014

Raymond Shaw is commended for his "good judgement" and "excellent client skills". “His practice is dominated by serious crime, fraud and the supervision of VHCC work" - Chambers and Partners 2013

Client feedback:

“Thank you for all your support… [and] for providing reassurance through the process.  I have found your advice and calming style really helpful throughout the long time this has taken”

“It is terrifying to realise how close we can all come to a wrongful conviction.  Worst of all, this process has ripped me apart from my family. I am looking forward to … rebuilding my life with my wife and young children.  I thank my legal team at Shaw Graham Kersh, in particular Raymond Shaw”

His recent notable cases include:

  • 2016 FCA v T Norwich Crown Court (ongoing)
    Representing a company and its directors in an FCA investigation and parallel criminal proceedings for conspiracy to defraud. The allegations concern the alleged improper use of millions of pounds of investors’ funds in breach of FCA regulations and conspiracy to defraud charges.
  • 2016 CMA v Various  (ongoing)
    Instructed by a top city firm to advise former employees of a company under investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority in respect of bid rigging and price fixing in the building industry in breach of the Enterprise Act 2002.
  • 2016 City of London police investigation (ongoing)
    Representing two men being investigated for an alleged fraud involving hundreds of trades on the London Metal Exchange resulting in a profit of approximately $50m said to be dishonestly obtained at the expense of a clearing house. 
  • 2016 R v B Southwark Crown Court (ongoing)
    Representing sole Defendant charged with defrauding his “Russian oligarch” employers of millions of pounds.
  • 2016 R v H Birmingham Crown Court
    Represented the lead defendant in a tax fraud case involving government incentives to bolster the British film industry, said to have been devised, marketed and operated in order to cheat the public revenue in the sum of £125 million.  The combination of celebrity investors, tax schemes and the British film industry attracted significant publicity. The Judge was persuaded to dismiss the case at the close of the prosecution case but this decision was over-ruled by the Court of Appeal. The defendant was eventually convicted after a four week jury deliberation. He received a sentence falling significantly below the current sentencing guidelines.
  • 2014 R v K Isleworth Crown Court
    With seven other defendants, Mr K, a director of a freight company near Heathrow, faced allegations that over a two year period he smuggled into the UK over 100kg cocaine and heroin, 1.19 tonnes of cannabis and over 36 million cigarettes. The trial commenced in October 2013 and lasted five months before being aborted. Following an abuse of process hearing in June 2014 the case against Mr K was stayed and he was successfully acquitted. The defendant was the only one of the directors to not have to face a re-trial.
  • 2013 Eriksson v SK High Court, Chancery Division
    SK was the former financial advisor to former England football manager Sven-Goran Eriksson who alleged that Mr K had defrauded him (and/or been negligent) causing him losses of circa £10 million. Mr K always denied these allegations. We represented Mr K in contempt of court proceedings brought for multiple alleged breaches of a court order relating to third party loans and credit card expenditure. Following consideration of our submissions the applicant was persuaded to withdraw the contempt application in return for a public apology, and Mr K thereby avoided prison.
  • 2013 R v B Liverpool Magistrates’ Court
    Representation of BBC comedian who entered the field of play at a Premier League match character in full kit as the players warmed up. Mr B was arrested and charged with pitch invasion and the prosecution intended to apply for a football banning order, the impact of which would have been substantial on the comedy character. Following lengthy representations the CPS agreed to discontinue the charge and no banning order was imposed.
  • 2012 R v M Southwark Crown Court
    This was the first case to result from the appointment of the Pensions Regulator and the sums involved effectively made this the largest trial of a pension fraud case since the Robert Maxwell case. The case involved the transfer out of the UK of over £50 million of private pensions funds. The defendant, who had earned a stellar reputation in mergers and acquisitions, was presented in all the related trials as the mastermind controlling the operation. Notwithstanding the conviction of those tried before him, M was acquitted of all charges. 
  • 2012 R v B Blackfriars Crown Court
    Successful representation on a retrial of a businessman accused of multiple rapes upon his office and home cleaner.
  • 2011 R v C Isleworth Crown Court             
    The defendant faced charges of defrauding numerous athletes and sports people through his business website which purported to bring sportspeople together with would be company sponsors.  Alleged victims in this widely reported case include household names such as Olympic athlete Mark Lewis Francis. By their verdicts the jury accepted that the scheme may not have been set up dishonestly although it later became so. Sentence significantly reduced given this mixed verdict.

<< Back to Our People