Skip to main content

What does it mean when the SRA refers your firm to AML InvestigationTeam

The Solicitors Regulation Authority plays a crucial role in ensuring that legal professionals uphold the highest standards of conduct, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance. I am seeing an increasing amount of outcomes letters after a SRA AML Audit advising firms that they are appointing the Investigations team to take over.

The dreaded wording reads something like this:

"For this reason, I have referred the matter to our AML Investigation team for formal investigation. I would urge you to address these concerns immediately."

If a law firm is referred to the SRA AML Investigation Team, it signifies that potential breaches of AML regulations have been identified, and the firm is now subject to a thorough examination. But what does this actually mean, and what are the implications for the firm?

Why Might a Firm Be Referred?

A firm may be referred to the SRA AML Investigation Team for several reasons, including:

  • Failure to Implement Adequate AML Policies: Law firms must have risk assessments, policies, and procedures in place to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. If these are found to be inadequate or non-existent, a referral may occur.
  • Failure to Carry Out Due Diligence: Firms are required to conduct proper client due diligence (CDD) and ongoing monitoring. Ignoring this duty can trigger an investigation.
  • Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) Concerns: If a firm is not submitting SARs when required, or if there is evidence of suspicious financial transactions, the SRA may intervene.
  • Random Checks and Thematic Reviews: The SRA proactively conducts spot checks and broader reviews, sometimes leading to referrals when deficiencies are found.
  • External Complaints or Whistleblower Reports: Complaints from clients, employees, or third parties regarding AML compliance failures can prompt regulatory scrutiny.
  • False/inaccurate information: A situation where you have indicated in previous communications with the SRA that you were compliant in a particular area (e.g. you had a FWRA on before certain date and it transpires that you were subsequently unable to provide it).

What Happens During an SRA AML Investigation?

Once a firm is referred to the SRA AML Investigation Team, the following steps typically unfold:

  1. Initial Review: The SRA will review documents, policies, and records to assess the firm's compliance with AML regulations.
  2. Request for Additional Information: The firm may be asked to provide evidence of its AML policies, staff training records, risk assessments, and details of client due diligence procedures.
  3. Further on-Site or Remote Inspection: An on-site visit or request remote access to the firm's files and procedures to verify compliance.
  4. Findings and Potential Enforcement Actions: Depending on the severity of any issues found, the SRA may:
    • Issue warnings or require remedial actions.
    • Impose financial penalties.
    • Refer the case for disciplinary proceedings (which could lead to suspensions or striking-off, though rare).
    • Report findings to law enforcement agencies if criminal activity is suspected.

Implications for the Firm

Being investigated by the SRA AML Investigation Team can have serious consequences:

  • Reputational Damage: Even if no significant sanctions are imposed, the firm's reputation may suffer if clients or competitors become aware of the investigation.
  • Operational Disruptions: Compliance reviews and investigations can divert resources away from normal business activities.
  • Financial Penalties: The SRA has the authority to impose significant fines for non-compliance.
  • Regulatory Scrutiny: Even after the investigation is concluded, the firm may face increased oversight in the future.

How Firms Can Mitigate Risk

To avoid being referred to the SRA AML Investigation Team, firms should:

  • Regularly Update AML Policies and Firmwide Risk Assessment: Ensure policies align with the latest legal and regulatory requirements.
  • Have Independent AML Audits: You are obliged to have these by virtue of the Regulations in any event.
  • Conduct Thorough Due Diligence: Implement strict CDD procedures, including verifying client identities and monitoring transactions.
  • Train Staff Adequately: Provide ongoing AML training to all employees to ensure they understand their responsibilities.
  • Keep Records in Order: Maintain well-documented risk assessments and compliance records.
  • Act on Red Flags: Report suspicious activities and take immediate action when risks are identified.

Conclusion

Being referred to the SRA AML Investigation Team is a serious matter that can have lasting consequences for a law firm. However, by implementing robust AML procedures and fostering a culture of compliance, firms can significantly reduce their risk of regulatory scrutiny.

Proactive compliance is not only a legal obligation but also a key factor in maintaining trust and integrity within the legal profession.

It is important to note that if you have compliant AML arrangements in place by the time the AML Investigation Team contacts you, this may be considered as a mitigating factor if, as it is likely, the SRA issues a sanction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...

The High Street Practitioner’s Guide to Surviving the FCA

For a sole practitioner or the MLRO in a small high-street firm, "AML compliance" often feels like just another mountain of paperwork standing between you and your actual work. When you are juggling a heavy conveyancing caseload, a sensitive probate matter, and the day-to-day survival of your practice, the last thing you need is a new regulator with a reputation for being data-heavy and "zero-tolerance." But the ground is shifting. As the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) takes over AML supervision from the SRA, the "high-street way" of doing things—relying on long-standing local reputations and gut instinct—is being replaced by a requirement for hard, documented proof. The end of "I’ve known them for years" In a small town, you often act for the same families for generations. You know their business, their parents, and their reputation. Under the old mindset, that felt like enough. Under the FCA, it isn’t. T...

Paperwork is not a shield: Why your SRA aml audit demands more than just a dusty manual

The Solicitors Regulation Authority continues its aggressive crackdown on financial crime with a recent fine issued against Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd . This decision serves as a stark reminder that the regulator is looking far beyond simple paperwork during an SRA aml audit . The firm was fined 2,584 GBP plus 600 GBP in costs following an investigation into its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. While the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment and general policies in place, the SRA identified critical failures at the matter level. Key compliance failures included: Failure to conduct adequate client and matter risk assessments . The SRA found a consistent pattern where the firm failed to sufficiently assess client matter risk levels as required by Regulation 28. Inadequate scrutiny of source of funds . In one specific property transaction, the firm failed to properly investigate the origin of funds provided by ...