header-logo header-logo

12 September 2013 / Kaley Crossthwaite
Issue: 7575 / Categories: Features , Risk management , Profession
printer mail-detail

Beware the regulator!

Kaley Crossthwaite advises how best to protect your firm against the threat of money laundering...& visits from the regulator

Legitimising the proceeds of illegal activity has always been a challenge for criminal organisations. For the unwitting corporate entity, holding and processing funds of uncertain provenance can carry hefty fines and potential incarceration. But is it sufficient to cross your fingers and hope that your business is not targeted and, if you are, to hope that you don’t get caught? Unfortunately these days, that is not enough.

What’s adequate?

Today, the battle against money laundering is as much about being able to demonstrate that money can’t be laundered in your organisation as it is about showing that money isn’t being laundered. Much like the Bribery Act 2010, this means not just providing evidence that money can’t be laundered but demonstrating that the processes in place are adequate to protect against the risk of money laundering. Assessing adequacy is always a challenge and will take into consideration such things as the size of transactions you

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
Is AI a help or a potential risk? What do lawyers need to consider regarding their use of AI? How do they evidence the extent and scope of its use in their work?
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
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?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
back-to-top-scroll