Graham Mackenzie

The Law Society has said a number of proposals in the HM Treasury consultation on the future of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing supervisory regime, risk damaging progress already achieved and could also fail to meet its stated aims of increased system effectiveness, system co-ordination and feasibility.

The society has expressed support for further powers to be given to the Office of Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS), if those powers would lead to increased effectiveness, and does not oppose reform consolidating anti-money laundering supervision on a devolved basis.

Graham Mackenzie, head of AML at the Law Society of Scotland, said: “We fully support change that will enhance the current AML regime and support the UK’s economic crime plan. It is, however, crucial that any reform introduced does not interfere with the independence of the legal profession, and also recognises the distinct legal and regulatory frameworks which exist across the devolved nations.

“Reform should not jeopardise the significant progress we have made in recent years. This has been based on a proportionate, risk-based approach to AML supervision and a deep understanding of the challenges, risks and demographics inherent across the Scottish legal sector.

“While there are always improvements to be made, we take our supervisory responsibilities extremely seriously, having undertaken extensive reform of our work in this area and significantly expanded our specialist AML team.

”The relationships we have developed across law enforcement and other stakeholders on the ground in Scotland enable us to respond to local money laundering threats with agility and flexibility, issue appropriate guidance to legal firms, and take robust disciplinary action where necessary.

“Much of our recent work in this area has received praise by third party experts both nationally and internationally. We believe any amalgamation into a single AML supervisor for the whole of the UK would be a regressive step and could limit or damage the progress we have made. What we have achieved in Scotland should not be lost in efforts to reform the system elsewhere.”