AML Policy Case Study: 657D2-7FCC7-88E23

Publication Date
2024-01-18

An SRA investigation found that the law firm did not have a FWRA in place until February 2023. The law firm had been undertaking in-scope work since 2017 but did not have a FWRA when the MLRs 2017 came into effect in June 2017. A FWRA was only put in place shortly after the law firm received notification of the SRA’s AML review. However, it was not properly compliant with the MLRs 2017.

The law firm did not make any amendments to its FWRA until August 2023. It amended its FWRA so that it was compliant by September 2023.

The law firm’s AML policies, controls, and procedures were first drafted in September 2018. However, they were not adequate for the purposes of effectively managing the law firm’s risk of money laundering. The law firm’s PCPs lacked important information and guidance. The law firm did not review or update its PCPs between September 2018 and February 2023.

It was found that between June 2017 and February 2023, the law firm failed to have in place a FWRA as required by Regulation 18 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017). Between February 2023 and August 2023, it failed to have in place a FWRA that identified and assessed the risks of money laundering to which it was subject taking into account all risk factors pursuant to Regulation 18(2) of the MLRs 2017.

In doing so, the law firm had, to the extent the conduct took place between October 2011 and November 2019, breached regulatory principles and failed to achieve required outcomes. Where the conduct took place from November 2019, it breached updated regulatory principles and code requirements.

Between June 2017 and September 2018, the law firm failed to establish and maintain AML policies, controls, and procedures (PCPs) to mitigate and effectively manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing in any risk assessment pursuant to Regulation 19(1)(a) of the MLRs 2017. Between September 2018 and February 2023, it failed to regularly review and update them pursuant to Regulation 19(1)(b) of the MLRs 2017.

An additional failure to meet regulatory principles was identified for the conduct between October 2011 and November 2019. For conduct from November 2019 onwards, the law firm breached updated regulatory principles and specific code requirements.