Susan Grossey: Laying the (shaky) foundations for a post-Brexit future
08 Nov 2017

Susan Grossey has been making her living from crime for over twenty years. She provides anti-money laundering training and advice to the regulated community in the UK, Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, and writes and talks on the subject at every opportunity.  As her hobby she writes historical novels – about financial crime.

No-one who has heard me speak or read my blog will be surprised to hear that I am a devout Remainer.  

As someone whose parents had vivid memories of (and occasional nightmares about) the Second World War and its aftermath, I was grateful daily for the stability provided by belonging to the EU.

As we prepare to cast ourselves adrift from that, I have to – alongside my personal decisions – prepare for a professional life outside the EU, when the UK is no longer obliged to comply with the Money Laundering Directives.

And the UK government seems to have taken its first step in this direction. On October 19, 2017 the draft Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill was launched on its legislative voyage.

The purpose of this is to give the UK government – whoever they might be at the point of Brexit – authority to put in place sanctions and AML legislation.

The Bill does not give details of what that AML legislation might look like, although Schedule 2 lists – in sixteen paragraphs – all the things that could happen (e.g. “Require prescribed persons to identify and assess risks relating to money laundering, terrorist financing and other threats to the integrity of the international financial system” and “Require prescribed persons to take prescribed measures in relation to their customers in prescribed circumstances” – prescription will obviously be a Big Thing in our post-Brexit world).

I’m not a lawyer, so what I can’t quite tell is what the wording “make provision for” actually means, as in “Make provision for and in connection with the creation, production and retention of registers and records, including registers of people with significant control and registers and records relating to the beneficial ownership of prescribed entities, trusts or other arrangements”.  

Could “make provision for” mean “decide not to do at all”?  Or does it suggest that at least something must be done?  
I’m also rather taken with the idea of a supervisory authority being authorised to publish “statements of censure” – they sound so much more Dickensian than our current Final Notices.

And I am slightly mollified (as in “I told you so”) to read in the Interpretation to Schedule 2 that “Money Laundering Regulations 2017 means the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017”.  So why not just call them that and be done with it?  Pah!

This piece first appeared on Susan’s blog, I hate money laundering.

More from Susan Grossey:

Riches beyond imagination

Gamekeeper turned poacher

Miffed at MIFID II

A call to arms

Advance your CPD minutes for this content, by signing up and using the CPD Wallet