header-logo header-logo

Consultation on economic crime levy published

23 July 2020
Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail
The economic crime levy to be imposed on law firms and other anti-money laundering regulated businesses will be calculated according to revenue, with a threshold to exempt small businesses, the Treasury has said

In its Economic Crime Levy consultation, published this week, the Treasury proposed a levy based either on a single fixed percentage of revenue or fixed amounts based on revenue bands. The levy, through which the Treasury intends to raise £100m per year from the anti-money laundering regulated sector to fight economic crime, was announced in the March 2020 Budget.

Small businesses among the 90,000 businesses in the sector would be exempt, with three potential annual revenue thresholds under consideration―£1m, £5m and £10.2m. The consultation seeks views on what the levy will pay for, and how it should be calculated and collected.

David Rundle, counsel in WilmerHale’s UK White Collar Defence and Investigations practice, said: ‘The levy rests on the claim that the regulated sector itself stands to benefit directly. 

‘Transparency and accountability over how the funds are spent will therefore be critical and will no doubt be a focus of consultation responses.’

Simon Davis, president of the Law Society said: ‘Our sector devotes substantial resources to fighting financial crime.

‘We have strong concerns that a further unjustified burden will fall on a sector already under strain. We will be robustly engaging in the consultation process to ensure the profession’s views are well represented.’

The consultation ends at 12.15am on 14 October 2020. Find out more and take part at: bit.ly/2OT9Tzm.

Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll