header-logo header-logo

New money laundering rules will threaten business

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

News

Half of UK law firms believe the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 will undermine the competitiveness of the UK economy, a new survey shows.
The research by LexisNexis also shows that 52% of law firms believe the new regulations—due to come into force in December—will require additional financial investment and of these, half claim their overall due diligence costs will increase by 10% to 29%. 

Under the new regulations, details of which were released by the government last week, law firms will need to make major changes to how they undertake customer due diligence, in particular, how firms conduct money laundering checks, identify beneficial owners, and perform ongoing monitoring of business relationships.

Although 40% of law firms see no benefits to the new regulations, 68% have started to invest in training resources and 48% have started to invest in personnel to perform due diligence checks.

The regulations will extend supervision to all businesses in the regulated sector to secure greater compliance with anti-money laundering controls and introduce strict tests to ensure money services business, and firms that help set up and manage trusts and companies, are not run for criminal purposes. They will also require extra checks on customers that pose a higher risk of money laundering.

The government says regulatory burdens will be reduced in low risk areas. Firms can make fewer checks in some situations, such as occupational pension funds, while the number of identity checks will be reduced, with firms being able to rely upon checks done by certain other firms, eg solicitors. Greater flexibility will be introduced to record keeping rules so firms can keep only the important details rather than whole documents.

Mark Dunn, head of risk and compliance at LexisNexis, says: “The regulatory authorities are likely to clamp down hard on law firms that do not adhere to the new regulations so companies need to make sure that they don’t run the risk of being penalised.”

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll