It pays to prepare
On 15 December, 2007, independent legal professionals, as defined, will need to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The Law Society recently issued a practice note outlining good practice and providing direction on new measures coming into force.
September 19, 2007 at 08:10 PM
6 minute read
On 15 December, 2007, independent legal professionals, as defined, will need to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The Law Society recently issued a practice note outlining good practice and providing direction on new measures coming into force.
Money laundering has been a major concern for the legal sector for some years following the introduction of the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but 2007 represents a particular milestone in how firms must tackle the issue and the challenges it presents around effective customer due diligence and risk exposure.
The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, designed to further combat money laundering and particularly the financing of terrorism, are the UK's response to the European Union Third Money Laundering Directive that must be implemented into UK law by December 2007.
The Government's financial crime strategy estimates that organised crime costs the UK £20bn in social and economic harm each year. The Government believes the regulations will strengthen the UK's defences against money laundering and terrorist financing, and are designed to ensure that the UK's response to money laundering at home and abroad is effective and proportionate.
The new requirements
The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 require those legal professionals undertaking relevant business to put preventative measures in place. They require firms to ensure they hold a certain level of information not only on their customers, but, where applicable, beneficial owners represented by their customers. The level of background checking required includes conducting initial customer identification and verification and then undertaking ongoing monitoring where applicable.
Firms will also be responsible for keeping records of identity a clear audit of customer due diligence conducted and for training their staff on the requirements of the regulations. At worst, failure to comply could severely damage business reputation and lead to fines, business closure or even prison.
In summary, the new regulations require legal professionals to:
- make changes to how they undertake customer due diligence through the adoption of a risk-based approach for clients who require those services regulated under the regulations;
- for clients deemed a higher risk, including customers not dealt with face-to-face or, where applicable, politically exposed persons, firms will need to consider enhanced customer due diligence measures to gain further information on for example, the client's identity and their source of funds;
- for clients who are deemed a lower risk according to criteria set out in the regulations, firms can apply simplified due diligence measures. However, the clients to whom this relaxation applies are restricted and, on a risk-basis, firms could still decide to undertake their normal or enhanced procedures;
- firms will also need to identify and verify, where applicable, beneficial owners represented by the customer and obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship; and
- monitor, on an ongoing basis, their relationship with the client and have evidence of identity in place for all clients, even those which have been on the books for many years.
Key concerns
A recent study by LexisNexis shows that 50% of law firms believe that the new regulations will mitigate the business risk of being exposed to the threat of financial crime and money laundering. However, a large proportion of UK law firms are concerned about the cost of complying with the new Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and the impact on UK competitiveness.
The research reveals that 52% believe the new regulations will require additional financial investment and half believe they will undermine the competitiveness of the UK economy. For those law firms where additional financial investment is required, 50% claim their overall due diligence costs will increase by as much as 10%-29%.
The research shows that the principal concern about the introduction of the new regulatory requirements facing 38% of all law firms is the reputational risk if found to be non-compliant. A quarter of all law firms are also worried about the impact of the regulations on customer service levels. The second most important concern for a third of law firms is the financial risk if fined due to non-compliance.
Despite the UK Government only publishing the final text of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 in July, law firms have already begun to make significant investment to prepare for the incoming regulations. The LexisNexis study found that nearly half of all law firms have started to invest in personnel to perform due diligence checks and 68% have already started to invest in training resources to bring staff up to speed on the changes.
Tools to help law firms comply
While the consequences of non-compliance could be severe, there exists a number of tools to help law firms comply with the new regulations. While a level of investment will be necessary, provided firms allow sufficient time and resource to plan and implement any changes to their customer due diligence process, they can realise significant benefits from such an investment – for example, in improved business efficiency and customer service.
Our research found the majority of law firms conduct anti-money laundering checks on their customers and prospects through using official, verifiable, customer data such as passports for individuals and Companies House for information on businesses.
However, with more emphasis placed on customer due diligence, streamlined and faster processes could save firms valuable time and money. These include 'Know Your Customer' (KYC) applications that allow law firms to undertake detailed searches on their potential and existing customers.
Like a good detective, KYC matches the sophistication of the criminals' techniques with the thoroughness of its searches. These applications are always evolving in line with regulatory change and the need to derive greater return on investment from compliance resources.
Looking ahead
While many law firms are sceptical about the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, they are pragmatic enough to know that early action to comply is preferable to the high costs of financial crime. What is important is that law firms are fully prepared for the new regulations by the time of their implementation in December 2007.
Regulators are likely to clamp down hard on firms that do not adhere to the new regulations, so firms need to make sure that they do not run the risk of being penalised. At the same time, this provides an opportunity to review existing due diligence processes – and potentially to improve business efficiencies and save money along the way.
Mark Dunn is head of risk and compliance at LexisNexis.This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSome Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
4 minute readKPMG's Bid To Practice Law in US On Hold As Arizona Court Exercises Caution
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250