Law firm rebuked for AML failure caused by third-party ID checker


Money laundering: Firm tricked by ‘client’

A law firm has been rebuked after a failure to perform proper due diligence on the identity of a client – for which it relied on a third party – led to a fraudulent property sale.

Yorkshire firm Schofield Sweeney accepted the sanction from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in a regulatory settlement agreement that means it will not have to face a disciplinary tribunal.

In June 2018, the firm agreed to act for ‘Mr A’ in the sale of a residential property which he purported to own.

The firm never met Mr A in person, meaning it had to conduct enhanced customer due diligence to verify Mr A’s identity.

He provided copies of his ID documents certified by a genuine third party. However, the agreement said, the client identification process carried out by that third party did not comply with the money laundering regulations.

“The third party had only certified that the ID documents were true copies of the original documents. It had not however actually verified the genuine identity of Mr A.”

Schofield Sweeney accepted and relied upon this. The property was sold soon after and the proceeds sent to Mr A.

Six weeks later, the Metropolitan Police told the firm it was investigating suspicions that the sale was fraudulent.

Though Schofield Sweeney notified its indemnity insurer the next day, it did not tell the SRA for more than 10 months.

The firm admitted it had committed multiple breaches of the code of conduct. In mitigation, Schofield Sweeney pointed out that this was an isolated incident and there was no pattern of this type of misconduct.

Further, it has taken remedial action to mitigate the harm suffered by the buyers and the genuine owner of the property and taken steps to ensure it carried out adequate client due diligence in the future.

The agreement said a written rebuke was appropriate given that there was “no evidence of lasting harm to consumers or third parties” and “a low risk of repetition”.

“A public sanction is required in order to uphold public confidence in the delivery of legal services,” it added.




    Readers Comments

  • Robert Clive Hailstone says:

    Would be useful to know who the ‘third party’ was?

  • Simon Davies says:

    I agree, there is a gap as to what role the third party played and how Mr A contacted him to provide the certified ID


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

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

Blog


Why a digital-first mindset is crucial for successful hybrid working

A report from the Chartered Management Institute found that over 80% of managers said their businesses had adopted hybrid working. This is certainly reflective of the legal sector.


Is your law firm protected from ransomware attacks?

Ransomware attacks can have devastating consequences for law firms, including financial losses and reputational damage – and it’s not just the large firms that are being targeted.


Planning your office for the next generation

We strongly believe lawyers now and in the future will want and value a space that’s not their home to work from and, most importantly, a space to connect and collaborate with colleagues and clients.


Loading animation