Regulators must show firms that anti-money laundering rules are helping to tackle crime
Whatever doubts solicitors may entertain about the value of the UK anti-money laundering regime, City firms need to polish up their reporting systems.
September 10, 2014 at 10:14 AM
4 minute read
If the SRA wants to improve the quality of solicitors' suspicious activity reports, it must convince them of the regime's effectiveness
Whatever doubts solicitors may entertain about the value of the UK anti-money laundering regime, City firms need to polish up their reporting systems. The message is clear. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is on the warpath over the poor quality of suspicious activity reports (SARs) filed by solicitors and it has large corporate firms in its sights. However, unless solicitors are persuaded that filing SARs is likely to assist in the detection of serious crime, stricter enforcement will serve only to engender resentment in an already over-regulated profession.
In its recently published 'Risk Outlook' for 2014-15, the SRA identified international clients with significant political connections and clients associated with organised crime as particularly high risk in money laundering terms, especially where a business intermediary is involved. Typically, consent will be required from the National Crime Agency (NCA) to proceed with a transaction, and solicitors must provide sufficient information to enable the NCA to give an informed consent.
At present, solicitors are responsible for only 3,935 SARs a year, which represents just 1.2% of the total SARs filed by the financial sector. In the current climate, more prosecutions and disciplinary enforcement action for falling foul of the reporting requirements are expected.
The low reporting rate is partly explained by solicitors' scepticism about the effectiveness of the regime in combating organised crime. Although the NCA stresses the importance of SARs in detecting organised crime, the statistics do not support this assertion. In 2012-13 in cases where consent to proceed was refused, a total of 38 people were arrested and restrained funds amounted to £19.8m. This sum pales into insignificance when set against the figure of £52bn – estimated by the recently abolished National Fraud Authority as the cost of fraud to the UK economy in 2012-13.
The point is not a new one. Five years ago the House of Lords European Union Committee calculated that £646 had been recovered for each SAR filed in 2007-08. The committee called for a cost/benefit analysis to be carried out. If this analysis has been performed, its results have not been shared with the reporting public.
The real value of the reporting regime lies not in its role tackling organised crime, but rather as a tool in the collection of tax. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is the biggest recipient of SARs data and SARs-generated intelligence packs have provided 'intervention opportunities' for HMRC's enforcement and compliance group, and more specifically for the criminal investigation, specialist investigations and local compliance directorates.
HMRC conducts key word searches across all SARs filed annually, and since November 2013 SARs data has been transferred to HMRC's CONNECT database on a monthly basis. It is thought that at least one in four HMRC investigation cases are triggered by SARs, and in 2013-14 refusal of consent to proceed led to the repatriation of £1.6m and prevented HMRC from sustaining losses of around £16.2m.
Although the figures are paltry when compared with the most recent HM Treasury estimate, which puts the tax gap – ie tax avoided plus tax evaded – at around £35bn, it is clear that SARs are playing an increasingly important role in tax collection. However, this is not the primary objective that the anti-money laundering regime was designed to deliver.
If the SRA is going to improve the quantity and quality of solicitors' reports, increased enforcement activity is not the sole answer. Solicitors need to be persuaded that they are collaborating with a regime that effectively combats the evils of organised crime, and that SARs are not filed into an electronic black hole. In this regard, the NCA has much work to do.
Jonathan Fisher QC is a barrister at Devereux Chambers.
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
© 2024 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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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