What are ‘adequate’ & ‘appropriate’ measures to take against money laundering? Jonathan Fisher KC urges regulators to exercise some restraint
- Two recent cases dealt with the application of the anti-money laundering regulatory regime to solicitors, where the standard of measures applied are assessed by reference to whether they are ‘adequate’ or ‘appropriate’—two confusing adjectives.
- The cases demonstrate that where the lack of prescriptive rules give rise to uncertainty, enforcement authorities should consider acting with restraint when bringing proceedings.
The establishment of a risk-based regulatory regime is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it affords considerable discretion to regulated persons as to the way in which their regulatory obligations are discharged. On the other hand, the lack of prescriptive rules can give rise to uncertainty. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on the enforcement authorities to act with restraint, especially where the exercise of professional judgement is concerned.
Two recent cases neatly demonstrate the point. Both involve the application of the anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory regime to solicitors and evidence the misplaced enthusiasm of an
