Home » News » ‘Missing AML guidance will make it difficult to secure estate agency prosecutions’
Regulation & Law

‘Missing AML guidance will make it difficult to secure estate agency prosecutions’

Legal experts David Smith and Lee Adams say the industry and particularly letting agents are waiting on guidance on many aspects of AML.

Nigel Lewis

smith AML

Just before the end of 2020, the government published its updated money laundering risk assessment. This was the first risk assessment to include high value lettings agency, which was brought within the scope of AML regulation by 5MLD. It also comprehensively updates the estate agency risk assessment.

The estate agency assessment notes that the risk in estate agency continues to rise, especially in super-prime property, that is property in the top 5% of value in an area.

Although given that the risk assessment also states that the “full scale of laundering … is unknown” it is unclear how the increasing risk has been calculated. The level of compliance is also low with the assessment stating that in 2019 only half of estate agents were registered.

Anecdotally, we suspect that the level of compliance in the letting sector is even lower.

The guidance on the application of 5MLD remains outstanding, nearly a year after implementation. This is of particular concern to lettings agents as the regulations are very unclear as to when the obligations to do checks apply in relation to prospective tenants.

It is inevitable that prosecutions will be taken against estate and letting agents. However, given the lack of full guidance, the unclear approach in the regulations and the uncertain level of risk in the risk assessment, such prosecutions are not the easy case that the government might think.

When prosecutions happen, they will likely be brought under regulation 86 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.

Regulation 86 sets out a serious criminal offence, in relation to which a conviction may result in a term of imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both. In deciding whether someone has committed an offence, the court must decide whether relevant guidance has been followed.

This is not a very clear statement as relevant guidance includes any guidance issued by the Financial Conduct Authority or any other relevant supervisory authority or appropriate body approved by the Treasury.

A defence may be established if the accused person took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. This seems sufficiently wide to be helpful to defendants but there exists the problem of what magistrates and jurors will consider to be ‘all reasonable steps’ and ‘all due diligence’ in the absence of a body of case law to draw on, as is the case now.

jmr partners amlDavid Smith is a partners at legal firm JMW and Lee Adams (left) is its Head of London and Business Crime and Regulation partner

January 14, 2021

One comment

  1. If AML in a single transaction, eg, sale and purchase touches – agent, solicitor, lender, x 2, that is six lots of AML x 1.4M possible sales transactions a year (not completions) plus lettings, plus mortgage business – we are getting on for 10M AML touch points. But HMRC successfully prosecuted 2 or 3 agents last year … this is not regulation, this is not even scratching the surface. Again – legislation with no policing.

What's your opinion?

Please note: This is a site for professional discussion. Comments will carry your full name and company.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.