ICAEW has published its response to the Treasury’s call for evidence on the UK AML/CFT supervisory regime and on targeted amendments to the MLRs.
In its response on the MLR amendments, key observations include:
- access to SARs for supervisors is an effective supervision tool, but supervisors should not be required to review all SARs or on every supervision visit. It would be better for firms to form working groups and share themes with the supervisors. Reviewing SARs should not result in the supervisor also reporting the same suspicion to NCA. Also, disciplining members for poor quality SARs would not be possible. ICAEW also understands the concerns firms may have in respect of supervisors viewing their SARs and there are several issues that should be addressed in this context;
- the administrative burden on the regulated sector of an ongoing duty to report discrepancies in the PSC Register is significant, Companies House is not resourced to react quickly and there is often confusion about who the PSC of a company is and who the beneficial owner is; and
- generally, most other proposals on which the ICAEW commented indicated its approval, for example to include all kinds of business arrangement required to register at Companies House within scope, and aligning definitions better with FSMA.
In its response on the wider Call for Evidence, key observations include:
- including recognition of the role of the regulated sector as gatekeeper;
- there is currently a disproportionate focus on the amount of SARs made as a metric;
- the primary barrier to understanding ML/TF risks is limited risk sharing information between law enforcement, other government agencies, supervisors and firms; and
- professional bodies play a key role in supervision, and their role goes further than that set out in the MLRs. It would be better if OPBAS had oversight powers over all supervisory authorities.