header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025 / Mark Evans
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Opinion , Regulatory , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Anti-money laundering: a call for clarity

235051
The UK’s anti-money laundering supervisory regime is facing significant change: Mark Evans, president of the Law Society, sets out what this means for its members

Solicitors working to prevent the flow of money laundering from entering the UK market will face significant changes in the coming years. This follows a decision by the UK government to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor (SPSS) as part of its reform of the anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) supervision regime.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will take up this function, significantly reducing the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) role in tackling money laundering.

How did we get here?

The announcement comes two years after HM Treasury consulted on four models for reforming the UK’s AML supervisory regime.

These models included:

  • giving the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) additional powers;
  • consolidating the Professional Body Supervisor (PBS), which would combine the existing supervisors to leave either one accountancy sector supervisor and one legal sector supervisor, or one accountancy sector supervisor
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll