header-logo header-logo

11 August 2023 / Julie Norris
Issue: 8037 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal
printer mail-detail

AML: Radical reform on the cards?

Anti-money laundering supervision is under scrutiny & law firms are urged to make their voices heard: Julie Norris examines the potential options for change
  • Under reforms currently being considered, responsibility for the supervision of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism could be taken away from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and given to a new body, meaning firms could be subject to dual regulation in future.

HM Treasury is consulting on radical structural reform to anti-money laundering (AML) and counterterrorism (CT) supervision in the regulated business sector as part of the government’s wider effort to crack down on dirty money entering the UK. It recently announced it is gathering feedback on four new potential supervision models, with the stated objectives of, among other things, selecting one that enhances the effectiveness of supervision and improves coordination across the system.

While any changes introduced will impact an array of regulated businesses including accounting firms, barristers’ chambers and conveyancers, it is clear some of the proposals would be more far-reaching for law firms than others. Whichever

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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