TRW & Co · Competition, Regulatory & Investigations
Anti-Money Laundering Solicitors in London
AML solicitors in London advise on the Proceeds of Crime Act offences and the Money Laundering Regulations, which were substantially amended in June 2026. With supervisors demanding evidence that controls work in practice and a failure-to-prevent-fraud offence now in force, firms need risk-based programmes and fast, well-documented decisions when suspicion arises.
Key pointA defence against money laundering protects only the specific act described in the request. If the payee, amount or structure of a transaction changes after the SAR, the firm may need a fresh request before it proceeds.
At a glance
Three principal offences
POCA sections 327, 328 and 329 criminalise concealing, arranging and acquiring criminal property, with a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.
2026 MLR amendments
The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 were made on 9 June 2026, with most changes in force from 30 June 2026.
DAML timetable
The NCA has seven working days to refuse a defence request; a refusal starts a 31-day moratorium that a court can extend, up to 186 days in total.
Narrower mandatory EDD
Country-based enhanced due diligence now applies to FATF call-for-action jurisdictions; grey-listed countries remain a risk factor in the firm's own assessment.
Supervision reform ahead
The government plans to make the FCA the single AML supervisor for professional services firms, but primary legislation is needed first.
Swipe or scroll →
What anti-money laundering law covers in England and Wales
AML solicitors in London advise businesses on two overlapping sets of rules: the criminal offences that make it unlawful to deal with the proceeds of crime, and the regulatory regime that requires certain firms to know their customers, assess risk and report suspicion. Banks, payment firms, cryptoasset businesses, law firms, accountants, estate agents, art market participants and trust and company service providers all sit inside the regulated sector.
The criminal offences reach much further. Any business, regulated or not, can commit a money laundering offence if it handles property it knows or suspects to be criminal property. A manufacturer receiving payment from an unexpected third party, an investor buying a stake from a seller with an unexplained fortune, or a landlord taking rent from a sanctioned group can each face the question of whether to proceed, report or walk away.
Anti-money laundering becomes an urgent legal question at familiar moments: onboarding a high-risk client, a supervisor's inspection letter, an internal whistleblowing report, a bank freezing an account, a police production order, or due diligence on an acquisition that turns up something uncomfortable. AML solicitors London businesses instruct help them make the decision quickly, document it properly and avoid the offences that follow from getting it wrong.
The legal and regulatory framework
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) contains the three principal money laundering offences: concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property (section 327); entering into an arrangement that facilitates its acquisition, retention, use or control (section 328); and acquiring, using or possessing it (section 329). The principal offences carry a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.
"Criminal property" is defined broadly. It covers any benefit from criminal conduct, of any value, where the person knows or suspects that it is such a benefit. Suspicion is a low threshold: more than fanciful, but well short of belief. That is why ordinary commercial staff can be exposed.
The regulated sector carries additional duties. Section 330 makes it an offence to fail to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering, or where there were reasonable grounds for it, gained in the course of regulated business. Section 333A creates a tipping-off offence. Parallel offences for terrorist property sit in the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Money Laundering Regulations 2017
The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (the MLRs) set out the preventive regime. Regulated firms must carry out a written firm-wide risk assessment, maintain policies, controls and procedures, appoint a nominated officer, train staff, apply customer due diligence, keep records and, where appropriate, screen employees and arrange independent audit. Breach of the MLRs is itself a criminal offence as well as a supervisory matter.
The MLRs were amended by the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026, made on 9 June 2026. Most changes took effect on 30 June 2026. Mandatory country-based enhanced due diligence now attaches to jurisdictions on the FATF list subject to a call for action rather than the wider grey list, enhanced checks for complex transactions now turn on whether the transaction is unusual in context, euro-denominated thresholds are expressed in sterling, and the sale of off-the-shelf companies is brought within regulated trust and company service provider activity. A new due diligence regime for cryptoasset correspondent relationships follows on 1 February 2027.
Supervisors and enforcement agencies
Each regulated firm has an AML supervisor. The FCA supervises financial institutions and cryptoasset businesses, HMRC supervises sectors such as estate and letting agents, high-value dealers, art market participants and some accountancy and trust service firms, and the Gambling Commission covers casinos. Professional body supervisors, including the SRA for solicitors, oversee the legal and accountancy professions, and are themselves overseen by OPBAS within the FCA. The government has decided that the FCA should become the single supervisor for professional services firms, but that change requires primary legislation and had not taken effect at the time of writing.
Suspicious activity reports go to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit within the National Crime Agency. Prosecutions are brought by the CPS, the FCA, the SFO and other agencies. Civil recovery, account freezing orders and unexplained wealth orders are available under other Parts of POCA. Our guide to unexplained wealth orders explains how those powers are used.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 made several changes that matter for AML compliance. It created exemptions so that firms can exit a customer relationship below a set value, and deal with legitimate funds in a mixed account, without first seeking a defence against money laundering; it disapplied civil liability for certain information sharing between regulated firms to prevent economic crime; it widened the circumstances in which a company is liable for the economic crimes of its senior managers; and it introduced the offence of failure to prevent fraud, in force for large organisations since 1 September 2025. Our guide to failure to prevent fraud covers that offence.
POCA Part 7 and the MLRs apply across the United Kingdom. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own prosecutors and courts, and civil recovery in Scotland is handled separately, so the procedural route after a report can differ.
When to involve AML solicitors in London, and for what
Most AML work is preventive. The most valuable time to involve AML solicitors in London is before a supervisor arrives or a transaction stalls, when policies and risk assessments can still be shaped to fit the business rather than rebuilt under pressure. The table below sets out the common decisions and the legal route for each.
| Situation | Key legal question | Usual route | Typical timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspicion about a client or payment | Would proceeding commit a POCA offence? | Internal report to nominated officer; SAR, with a defence request if needed | Before the act is done; notice period of 7 working days after a defence request |
| Onboarding a high-risk customer | Is enhanced due diligence required and sufficient? | Risk assessment, source of funds and wealth evidence, senior management approval | Before establishing the relationship |
| Supervisory visit or desk review | Do policies, controls and records meet the MLRs? | Gap analysis, remediation plan, structured response | Usually weeks, set by the supervisor |
| Internal breach discovered | Is self-reporting required or advisable? | Privileged investigation, assessment of reporting duties | As soon as the facts are understood |
| Bank or law enforcement freezes funds | Can the freeze be challenged or a release obtained? | Correspondence with the bank, application to court where available | Moratorium and court timetables apply |
| Acquisition of a regulated business | Are there legacy AML failings or change-in-control approvals? | Targeted due diligence, warranties, indemnities, regulatory filings | Before signing |
Building a proportionate programme
A good AML framework is risk-based, not maximal. Supervisors look for a firm-wide risk assessment that reflects the firm's actual clients, services, geography and delivery channels, and for controls that follow from it. A template downloaded from the internet, applied without adaptation, is one of the most common criticisms in supervisory findings.
Making decisions on suspicion
The hardest calls are live ones: a completion is scheduled, funds are arriving and something does not fit. AML solicitors London clients rely on in these moments test the facts against the statutory definitions, help the nominated officer decide whether a report is required, draft the report so that it is clear and useful, and manage communications with the client so that no tipping-off offence is committed.
Suspicious activity reports and the defence against money laundering
A person who would otherwise commit a principal offence has a defence if they make an authorised disclosure and obtain appropriate consent before acting. In practice this is a defence against money laundering (DAML) request submitted with a SAR to the NCA.
- Internal report. Staff report knowledge or suspicion to the nominated officer (MLRO) promptly, without investigating further or alerting the customer.
- Nominated officer assessment. The MLRO decides whether there are grounds for suspicion and whether the proposed act would be a prohibited act needing a defence.
- Submit the SAR. The report goes to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, with a clear description of the suspicion, the property, the parties and the act for which a defence is sought.
- Notice period. If the NCA does not refuse within seven working days, the reporter is treated as having consent and may proceed.
- Moratorium if refused. A refusal starts a 31-day moratorium. Law enforcement can apply to the Crown Court to extend it in stages, up to a maximum of 186 days in total from the end of the notice period.
- Manage the customer. Throughout, communications must avoid tipping off. Scripts for relationship managers and lawyers are often needed.
- Record and review. Keep a full record of the reasoning, including decisions not to report, and feed lessons into the firm-wide risk assessment.
A DAML request protects only the specific act described. If the transaction changes, for example a different amount, a new payee or a revised completion structure, a new request may be needed. Draft the request to describe the intended act precisely, and keep it under review as the deal moves.
Legal professional privilege can limit the duty to disclose in certain circumstances, but the exemptions are narrow and depend on how the information was received. Our article on legal professional privilege explains the boundaries.
Customer due diligence, beneficial ownership and records
Customer due diligence (CDD) means identifying and verifying the customer, identifying the beneficial owner and taking reasonable measures to verify their identity, understanding the purpose and intended nature of the relationship, and conducting ongoing monitoring. Simplified due diligence is permitted only where the firm has assessed the risk as low; enhanced due diligence is mandatory in prescribed cases and wherever risk is higher.
Enhanced due diligence triggers
- Politically exposed persons. Domestic and foreign PEPs, their family members and known close associates require senior management approval, source of wealth and funds checks and enhanced monitoring, applied proportionately to the actual risk.
- High-risk third countries. Following the 2026 amendments, the mandatory list is narrower, but grey-listed jurisdictions remain a risk factor in the firm's own assessment.
- Unusual transactions. Transactions that are unusually large, unusually complex or have no apparent economic purpose in context.
- Correspondent relationships. Cross-border correspondent banking and similar relationships.
Beneficial ownership and registers
Firms must look through corporate structures to identify individuals who ultimately own or control the customer. The PSC register, the Register of Overseas Entities and the Trust Registration Service help, but firms cannot rely on them alone, and regulated firms must report material discrepancies they find in the PSC register to Companies House.
Records
CDD records and transaction records must generally be kept for five years after the relationship ends or the occasional transaction completes, and then deleted unless there is a lawful basis to keep them. Data protection obligations apply throughout, which is why AML records need clear retention rules.
Risks and common mistakes
Treating suspicion as requiring proof
Staff often hesitate to report because they cannot prove anything. The law does not require proof or even belief. A suspicion that is more than fanciful, and that the person actually holds, is enough to create a reporting duty in the regulated sector and an offence risk for anyone who proceeds. Training should give concrete examples drawn from the firm's own business, such as unexplained third-party payments, rushed timetables with no commercial reason, or structures that obscure who benefits. A short internal report costs little; an unreported suspicion that later proves well founded can expose the individual and the firm to prosecution and supervisory action.
Tipping off the customer
Once a report has been made, disclosing that fact in a way likely to prejudice an investigation can be an offence. The danger is greatest when a transaction is delayed during the notice period or a moratorium and the client demands an explanation. Relationship managers need agreed holding language that is truthful but does not reveal the report. Exemptions exist, for example for disclosures between certain regulated firms and to supervisors, but they are specific. When in doubt, the nominated officer or external counsel should approve any communication before it is sent, and the file should record why the wording was chosen.
A paper programme that does not match the business
Supervisors routinely find policies that describe controls the firm does not actually operate, or a risk assessment that ignores the firm's riskiest services. That gap is itself a breach of the MLRs and undermines any defence the firm might otherwise raise. The fix is practical: map real client journeys, test files against the policy, record exceptions and show how management information reaches the board. A short, accurate programme is better than a long aspirational one, and independent file reviews reveal where practice and policy have drifted apart before the supervisor does.
Ignoring sanctions alongside AML
Sanctions screening is a distinct legal regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, with its own reporting duties to OFSI and, for financial sanctions, strict civil liability. Firms that treat sanctions as part of general AML often miss ownership-and-control analysis or the separate reporting obligations. Screening tools need tuning, alerts need documented resolution, and payments involving entities owned or controlled by designated persons need legal analysis. Our sanctions practice works alongside AML advisers on these overlaps.
Investigating before reporting
Well-intentioned managers sometimes gather evidence, question the client or move funds while deciding what to do. That can create tipping-off risk, destroy evidence or itself amount to a prohibited act. Internal investigations should be scoped with legal advice from the start, run under privilege where possible and coordinated with any reporting obligation. Our guide to internal investigations sets out how to structure one without undermining the firm's position with the NCA, a supervisor or a prosecutor.
The question supervisors ask is not whether a firm has a policy, but whether it can show that the policy changed what its people did on a real file.
Supervisory investigations, enforcement and freezing orders
Supervisors can impose financial penalties, public censure, conditions or restrictions on a firm's business and, for the most serious cases, refer conduct for prosecution. The FCA uses its powers under the MLRs and FSMA against regulated firms and senior managers; the SRA has its own disciplinary process and can refer matters to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Law enforcement can apply to the magistrates' court for account freezing orders and forfeiture of funds held in bank and building society accounts, and in some cases cryptoassets, without any criminal conviction. These civil powers move quickly and the account holder may first learn of them when payments stop. AML solicitors London clients instruct in this situation assess whether to contest, negotiate a partial release for legitimate expenses, or prepare evidence of the lawful origin of funds.
A firm under investigation needs a coherent strategy across all fronts: the supervisor, any criminal agency, its own bank, insurers, auditors and employees. Our corporate investigations and white-collar crime teams coordinate that response, and where criminal advocacy in the higher courts is required, we instruct specialist counsel.
Cross-border AML: Bangladesh, the EU, the Gulf and Asia
Money laundering risk is rarely confined to one country. UK firms with clients, counterparties or group companies abroad must apply UK rules to their UK business while navigating local regimes that may be stricter, looser or simply different.
- Bangladesh. The Money Laundering Prevention Act 2012 and the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit within Bangladesh Bank govern reporting there. Remittance flows, trade-based payments in the garment sector and property transactions are common points of scrutiny. TRW & Co's Dhaka office can verify documents and advise on local reporting duties alongside our London team.
- European Union. The EU is moving to a single AML rulebook and a new Anti-Money Laundering Authority. UK groups with EU subsidiaries will face directly applicable EU requirements that diverge in places from the MLRs.
- The Gulf. The UAE and other Gulf states have strengthened their AML frameworks and supervision of real estate, precious metals and corporate service providers. Source-of-wealth evidence from the region is often requested by UK banks and needs to be properly documented.
- Singapore and China. Singapore's MAS-led regime is rigorous, while documentary evidence from mainland China can raise practical questions of verification and translation. Our financial services regulation team advises groups operating across these markets.
Where a matter turns on foreign law, for example whether a payment was lawful where it was made, we work with local counsel and are clear about which questions English law answers and which it does not.
How TRW & Co helps
TRW & Co's London office is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As AML solicitors in London with colleagues across Asia and the Gulf, we focus on practical, documented decisions that stand up to scrutiny.
Risk assessments and policies
We draft or review firm-wide risk assessments, policies, controls and procedures so that they reflect the actual business. We align them with the 2026 amendments and the relevant sector guidance.
Live suspicion advice
We help nominated officers decide whether to report, draft SARs and DAML requests, and prepare tipping-off-safe communications. We aim to keep transactions moving lawfully where that is possible.
Supervisory reviews
We prepare firms for FCA, HMRC and SRA inspections, run mock file reviews, and draft responses and remediation plans when findings are made.
Investigations and enforcement
We conduct privileged internal investigations and respond to production orders, account freezing applications and enforcement proceedings, coordinating with criminal specialists where needed.
Transactions and onboarding
We carry out AML-focused due diligence on acquisitions, investors and counterparties, and draft warranties, indemnities and conditions that allocate legacy compliance risk.
Training and governance
We deliver role-specific training for boards, MLROs and front-line staff, and design management information that lets senior managers show oversight.
We also advise on fintech and digital asset businesses, where AML registration is often the first regulatory hurdle; see our cryptoassets page. The full range of services is set out on our practices page, and our guide to the Money Laundering Regulations explains the rules in more depth.
Checklist for decision-makers
Boards and senior managers who instruct AML solicitors in London usually want a short list of what to check first. These questions expose most weaknesses.
- Is the firm-wide risk assessment current, specific to our business and approved at the right level?
- Have policies been updated for the Amendment Regulations 2026, including the narrower mandatory EDD list and the revised test for unusual transactions?
- Do staff know how to make an internal report, and do they actually do so?
- Can the nominated officer show the reasoning behind every decision to report or not to report?
- Are sanctions screening and ownership analysis treated as a separate legal regime?
- Are CDD records complete, retrievable and subject to a defined retention period?
- Has an independent review tested real files against the policy in the last year?
- Do we have a plan for a supervisory visit, a production order or a frozen account?
- Have we assessed our failure-to-prevent-fraud exposure alongside AML controls?
If several answers are uncertain, AML solicitors London businesses trust can help prioritise what to fix first. To discuss a specific matter, contact our London office or email info@trw.co.
Frequently asked questions
01Does the Money Laundering Regulations regime apply to my business?
The MLRs apply to defined categories of business, including credit and financial institutions, auditors, external accountants and tax advisers, independent legal professionals carrying out certain transactional work, trust and company service providers, estate and letting agents, high-value dealers, art market participants, casinos and cryptoasset businesses. If your business falls within one of these categories, you must register with or be supervised by the relevant supervisor and comply with the MLRs. Businesses outside the regulated sector are still subject to the POCA money laundering offences, so they need a way to identify and handle suspicion even without a full compliance programme.
02What is the difference between a SAR and a DAML?
A suspicious activity report is a disclosure to the National Crime Agency of knowledge or suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. A defence against money laundering request is a SAR that also asks for consent to carry out an act, such as making a payment or completing a transaction, that would otherwise be a principal offence. A DAML is needed only where you intend to do something with suspected criminal property. If the NCA does not refuse within seven working days, you are treated as having consent; if it refuses, a moratorium follows.
03Can I tell my client why their transaction is delayed?
You must be careful. Disclosing that a report has been made, or that an investigation is under way, in a way likely to prejudice an investigation can be a tipping-off offence or an offence of prejudicing an investigation. You can usually give a truthful but general explanation, such as that internal compliance checks are continuing, without revealing the report. Agree the wording with your nominated officer or legal adviser in advance, and record why it was chosen. Exemptions exist for some disclosures, for example to a supervisor, but they are narrow.
04What changed in the Money Laundering Regulations in 2026?
The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026, mostly in force from 30 June 2026, made targeted changes. Mandatory enhanced due diligence for high-risk third countries now focuses on FATF call-for-action jurisdictions; the trigger for enhanced checks on complex transactions now depends on whether they are unusual in context; euro thresholds were converted to sterling; pooled client account rules were clarified; trust registration scope was adjusted; and selling off-the-shelf companies became regulated activity. New cryptoasset correspondent relationship requirements apply from 1 February 2027.
05Who supervises solicitors for AML purposes?
Solicitors in England and Wales are currently supervised for AML purposes by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is itself overseen by the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision within the FCA. The government has decided that the FCA should become the single AML supervisor for legal, accountancy and trust and company service providers. That requires primary legislation and a phased transfer, so until it takes effect the SRA remains the supervisor and firms should continue to follow its guidance and the legal sector affinity group guidance.
06Our bank has frozen our account. What can we do?
First, establish why. A bank may be waiting for consent following a SAR, in which case funds are typically released or a moratorium ends within a defined period. Alternatively, law enforcement may have obtained an account freezing order from the magistrates' court, which can be contested and may allow release of funds for legitimate living or business expenses. Gather evidence of the lawful source of funds early, avoid moving money elsewhere, and take advice before giving any explanation to investigators. The right response depends on which power has been used.
07Does failure to prevent fraud overlap with AML compliance?
Yes, although they are separate regimes. The failure to prevent fraud offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 applies to large organisations from 1 September 2025 and makes them liable where an associated person commits a specified fraud intending to benefit the organisation, unless it had reasonable prevention procedures. AML controls such as risk assessment, due diligence, training and monitoring often support those procedures, but fraud risk needs its own assessment covering, for example, sales practices, financial reporting and dealings with customers.
Sources and official materials
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 — Money laundering offences, disclosures and civil recovery
- Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 — Preventive AML obligations for regulated firms
- Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 — 2026 amendments to the MLRs
- Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 — DAML exemptions, information sharing and failure to prevent fraud
- NCA: Suspicious Activity Reports — How to submit SARs and DAML requests
- FCA: Money laundering and terrorist financing — FCA expectations for supervised firms
- SRA: Anti-money laundering — AML guidance for solicitors and law firms
General information only, current as at 21 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client relationship. It reflects the law of England and Wales unless stated otherwise; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems, and the law changes frequently. Check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.