Barristers present a ‘very low risk’ when it comes to money laundering and should not have to pay fees for an Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS), the Bar Council has argued. In a robust response to the Financial Conduct Authority’s proposal that barristers pay fees towards the proposed regulatory body, the Council questions why it should pay for ‘a supervisor’s supervisor’ that is required because of ‘the activities of estate agents and accountants’. It points out that ‘there are no historic examples in the public domain of barristers engaging in money laundering or terrorist financing activities on behalf of their clients’.
18 January 2018
No fees, please
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams
Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant
Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias
International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner
Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven
Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth
NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
