FCA Transition

The FCA is taking over AML supervision: What accountancy firms should do now

FCA AML supervision will change accountancy firm oversight

Last updated: May 15, 2026

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will become the single public supervisor for anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing across UK accountancy firms, once the required legislation, funding arrangements, and transition plan are in place.

Our free report for small accountancy firms covers what’s changing, who’s affected, key timelines, and exactly what to do now.

Key Takeaways

The FCA transition will create a significant sea change in how accountancy firms comply with AML regulations, particularly for small practices.

While day-to-day AML duties still come from the Money Laundering Regulations and related criminal law, what changes materially is the intensity, style, and evidence burden of supervision. Think registration and gatekeeping, standardised data requests, more formal inspections, and a stronger enforcement toolkit.

The government explicitly anticipates a multi-year implementation that depends on primary legislation, funding arrangements, and a detailed transition plan, and it expects firms and supervisors to be phased into the FCA during transition.

For small accountancy firms, the most practical impacts to plan for by 2028/29 are:

  • A new regulator relationship for AML: Accountancy firms will answer to the FCA for AML, while existing professional bodies continue to regulate professional standards, creating dual touchpoints.
  • More explicit registration and gatekeeping: The government proposes FCA registration for all in-scope professional services firms, with the ability to accept, refuse, suspend, or cancel registrations and “police the perimeter” for unregistered activity.
  • A bigger emphasis on evidence and usable records: The FCA’s supervisory model is described as risk-based and data-driven; it is expected to request information, run desk-based and on-site reviews, and potentially require skilled-person reviews.
  • Costs and admin are likely to rise: FCA AML supervision is expected to be funded by supervised firms on a cost-recovery basis, while professional bodies have warned about dual-fee pressure and added administration.

The exact transition timetable is still subject to legislation and implementation detail, but the direction of travel is clear: AML supervision is becoming more centralised, more formal, and more evidence-led.

What FCA AML supervision means for accountancy firms

The current AML supervision system is fragmented; 22 PBSs and HMRC oversee the UK accountancy sector. 

The government’s outcome decision is to consolidate AML compliance into a single professional services supervisor within the FCA. Its consultation on duties, powers, and accountability is explicit about the intended reform path:

  • The proposed model will give the FCA a registration or onboarding role for in-scope firms, including gatekeeping checks and powers to accept, refuse, suspend, or cancel registrations.
  • HM Treasury has proposed a public FCA register of supervised professional services firms, intended to make unsupervised activity harder.
  • The FCA will operate using risk‑based monitoring, including desk‑based and on‑site activity, and require information from firms.
  • It could be given additional tools, such as directions or requiring a firm to appoint a skilled person to conduct a review.
  • The FCA possesses stronger enforcement powers, including civil penalties, suspensions, prohibitions, public censures, and the ability to initiate criminal proceedings for Money Laundering Regulations breaches.
  • The regulator will be funded by fees from supervised firms on a cost‑recovery basis once established, with implementation supported via public funding arrangements (including Economic Crime Levy funding).

The FCA has publicly welcomed the move as simplifying supervision and improving consistency and crime disruption, and it has emphasised collaboration with supervisors and firms during transition.

Why this matters for small accountancy firms is simple: the FCA’s supervisory culture is designed around demonstrable control effectiveness (proof that your policies work in practice), not just having documents on file. 

This is consistent with how the FCA communicates in its existing Financial Crime Guide, which states it provides practical assistance for firms of all sizes and expects firms to be aware of and consider applicable guidance when designing and maintaining controls.

There is also sustained public criticism of inconsistent PBS enforcement. The FCA highlights concerns from the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS), citing that some PBSs “lack the teeth” to deter firms. It adds that the dual role of some PBSs as membership bodies and supervisors can hinder effective action. This provides context for why the government is pursuing a public-sector model.

The risk context for accountancy firms should also be considered. Both the Financial Action Task Force and the UK’s own national risk work continue to focus closely on supervision quality.

HMRC’s risk guidance, last updated in January 2026, states that accountancy services can be used to facilitate and conceal illicit funds. It also notes that the National Risk Assessment rates accountancy service providers as high risk, with payroll, bookkeeping, insolvency, and tax advice highlighted as services that can be attractive for misuse.

When will the FCA supervise accountancy firms for AML?

While the government has confirmed FCA AML supervision for accountancy firms, the exact start date has not been fixed.

The transition still depends on legislation, funding, FCA implementation work, and a detailed migration plan. That means 2028/29 should be treated as a planning horizon, not a guaranteed commencement date.

A more focused breakdown of the current timetable is available in our article on when the FCA will take over AML supervision of accountants.

For small firms, the important question is: What should we get in order before the FCA regime arrives?

2026

Design and preparation stage

The practical shape of the new regime is expected to become clearer. This is where firms should watch for updates on the delivery plan, proposed registration process, data transfer arrangements, fees, and what information the FCA may expect firms to provide.

2027

Legislation and FCA build-out

The reform is expected to depend on enabling legislation and the FCA building the systems, teams, guidance, and processes needed to supervise professional services firms. For accountancy practices, this is the period to start treating FCA-readiness as an operational project, not just a future policy change.

2028/29

Phased transition planning horizon

This is the sensible preparation window for firms to expect phased migration into the new model. The exact date is not officially fixed, but firms should plan on needing cleaner AML records, up-to-date firm information, evidence of ongoing monitoring, and the ability to respond directly to FCA-style information requests.

Practical takeaway: Use the 2028/29 planning window to check your firm’s AML supervision route, update core firm details, and make existing-client AML records easier to evidence.

Evidentia monitors the FCA transition daily. To be notified when key developments arise, enter your email address to join our newsletter. You can unsubscribe at any time.

How FCA AML supervision will change accountancy firm oversight


The legal duties still come from the Money Laundering Regulations, but the supervisory relationship is expected to change significantly. The table below compares the current PBS model with the proposed FCA-led regime in the areas small firms are most likely to notice.

Current PBS model vs future FCA AML supervision

Area Current landscape: 22 PBS model Future model: FCA as the single supervisor
Scope AML supervision for accountancy firms is mainly delivered through professional body supervisors, with HMRC supervising some firms depending on status and activities. Supervision approach and touchpoints can vary. The FCA will supervise AML compliance for accountancy, legal, and TCSP firms under the Money Laundering Regulations. Professional bodies will continue to regulate wider professional standards.
Fees Fee structures differ between supervisors and may be bundled into membership or practising fees. The government proposes that FCA professional-services AML supervision will be funded through fees on a cost-recovery basis. Fee design, bands, reliefs and start dates still have to be consulted on; many firms should budget for higher overall AML-related costs.
Reporting lines AML returns, evidence requests, and supervisory communication usually go through the relevant professional body or HMRC. Firms will interact directly with the FCA for AML supervision, while still dealing with professional bodies for non-AML matters.
Supervisory powers Powers and enforcement approaches vary across supervisors. OPBAS has raised concerns about consistency and deterrence in parts of the current system. The proposed FCA toolkit includes registration, gatekeeping, information requests, desk-based and on-site reviews, directions, skilled-person reviews, and stronger enforcement powers.
Enforcement Current enforcement can include disciplinary action, loss of licence, or loss of AML supervision, including for failures to submit returns or respond to supervisory requests. The government intends the FCA to have robust enforcement powers, including civil penalties, suspensions, prohibitions, public censures, and potential criminal proceedings for Money Laundering Regulations breaches.
Guidance Accountancy firms commonly rely on CCAB AML guidance, professional body guidance, and supervisor-specific materials. The FCA may provide or take responsibility for risk and compliance information for professional services AML supervision, meaning guidance may become more FCA-led over time.
Resources Resources vary between supervisors, with OPBAS reporting improvements but continuing concerns in areas such as enforcement consistency. The government expects the FCA to build staff, technology, systems, and a data-driven supervisory approach across a large professional-services population.
Registration AML supervision currently sits either with a recognised professional body route, where the firm is actually covered for AML, or with HMRC registration where applicable. Professional body membership alone does not always prove AML supervision. The proposed model includes FCA registration for in-scope firms, a public register, gatekeeping checks, and powers to accept, refuse, suspend, or cancel registration.
Transition The current system continues until legal and operational changes take effect. The transition is expected to be multi-year, dependent on enabling legislation, funding, FCA build-out, and phased migration. The exact go-live date has not been fixed.

Note: The FCA model reflects government proposals and stated policy direction. Details will only be final once legislation, FCA rules, fees, and transition arrangements are confirmed. For the registration process specifically, see our separate guide to FCA AML registration for accountants.

How small accountancy firms can prepare for FCA AML supervision

The FCA transition is best treated as a practical readiness exercise. The core AML duties remain the same, but the FCA model is expected to place more weight on clear records, consistent processes, and evidence that controls work in practice.

The scenarios below show what the FCA transition could mean in everyday practice for small accountancy firms.

Sole practitioner doing accounts and self-assessment

Today: Sole practitioners likely maintain a business-wide risk assessment, an AML policy, basic CDD/KYC files, and a simple SAR process; updates are often annual or triggered by an inspection or renewal cycle.

Under FCA supervision: Firms must plan for more structured requests for evidence. Expect questions like “show me your firm-wide risk assessment,” “show me how you risk-rate clients,” “show me your training log,” and “show me your ongoing monitoring notes.”

Operational impact: Sole practitioners will need a single, tidy compliance file that includes the current firm-wide risk assessment, AML policy, client risk assessment template, KYC checklist, SAR log, training log, and record-retention policy.

Small partnership with bookkeeping, payroll, VAT, and annual accounts

Today: Payroll and bookkeeping can feel lower risk than complex corporate work.

Risk reality: HMRC’s risk guidance highlights payroll and bookkeeping, along with insolvency and tax advice, as services that can be attractive for misuse.

Operational impact: Firms may need service-specific controls, such as payroll onboarding checks, director verification, expected payroll size, and checks when beneficial ownership changes.

Small firm with crypto tax clients

Today: Firms may treat crypto as another investment class for tax computations, relying heavily on client-provided exchange statements.

Under FCA supervision: Expect higher expectations around source of funds and source of wealth narratives, especially where funds move through multiple exchanges or overseas jurisdictions.

Operational impact: Firms may need a crypto client pack covering wallet and exchange lists, acquisition sources, client role, and enhanced due diligence triggers.

Property-linked or conveyancing-adjacent work

Today: Firms may receive funds explanations late in the process, often under time pressure.

Under FCA supervision: Property-linked work is a classic environment where controls can fail if CDD, risk assessment, and evidence are not completed before work proceeds.

Operational impact: Firms should enforce a clear rule: no completion support, confirmations, or client money movement unless CDD and risk assessment are complete.

Payroll-only or low-touch bookkeeping practices

Scope trap: Some firms assume they are outside AML because they only handle payroll, bookkeeping, or software-supported admin.

Why it matters: CCAB guidance makes clear that scope depends on the service provided. Pure software provision may be different, but advice, interpretation, or defined accountancy/tax services can bring a firm within scope.

Operational impact: Relevant firms should be able to explain which services are in scope, what CDD is completed, and what review triggers would prompt a refresh.

Practical preparation plan for small firms ahead of FCA supervision

Small accountancy firms should not wait until FCA registration or information requests begin before tightening their AML framework.

The practical priority is to make sure your governance, firm-wide risk assessment, CDD files, ongoing monitoring records, training logs, SAR process, and evidence trails can withstand a more rigorous supervisory review.

Firms should also check what AML supervisors may look for in an accountancy client file, including whether the risk rationale and CDD evidence are easy to follow.

Starting early gives you time to fix gaps calmly, rather than trying to rebuild AML evidence under pressure. The step-by-step plan below explains where to start and what to put in order first.

01

Step one: Lock down governance and roles

  • Name your nominated officer (MLRO) and document deputy cover: The Money Laundering Regulations require a nominated officer; Government guidance explains that sole traders must act as the nominated officer if they have no employees, and that the role cannot be outsourced to an external consultant.
  • Set responsibilities in writing: Establish who owns the firm-wide risk assessment, policy updates, high-risk client sign-offs, and SAR submissions. This aligns with the FCA’s emphasis on senior management responsibility and effective systems and controls in its general guidance.
02

Step two: Rebuild the firm-wide risk assessment so it is defensible

  • Update your firm-wide risk assessment to explicitly cover: Services, clients, geography, delivery channels, and why you think the client risk level is low, medium, or high. This is a core legal requirement under the Money Laundering Regulations.
  • Incorporate HMRC’s published sector risk assessment: HMRC states you must take its risk assessment into account when carrying out your own. Add service-specific risk notes where HMRC highlights risk, including payroll, bookkeeping, and tax advice.
  • Set a refresh rule: Conduct periodic reviews based on the evaluated risk level, and complete AML records whenever a CDD trigger event happens, such as a new service line, geography, client type, or other relevant change. This is consistent with risk-based expectations across guidance.
03

Step three: Rewrite AML policies so they map visibly to the Regulations

  • AML policies: Ensure your firm’s AML policy covers the required policies, controls, and procedures areas, including risk management, internal controls, CDD, record keeping, monitoring, and internal communication.
  • Make it operational: Tie each policy statement to who does it, where it is recorded, and what evidence exists. This is the difference between paper compliance and inspectable compliance, and it is the core cultural shift small firms should plan for under an FCA model.
04

Step four: Standardise client risk assessment and CDD/KYC

  • Use a one-page client risk assessment form covering client type, ownership complexity, geography, service risk, delivery channel, and red flags.
  • Use consistent CDD checklists for individuals, companies, partnerships, and trusts where relevant. The CCAB guidance provides practical scope definitions and supports structured verification approaches for accountants.
  • Factor in enhanced due diligence triggers for high-risk third countries and other geographic risk factors, unusual requests lacking economic sense, secrecy, or cross-border complexity. HMRC’s guidance is explicit that links to high-risk third countries require enhanced due diligence before forming a relationship or transacting.
  • Add the do not proceed rule: HMRC warns that dealing with a business, customer, or intermediary performing a relevant activity without AML supervision increases risk and says you should take measures to check they are supervised. If not, you should not enter the relationship.
05

Step five: Harden your SAR process and keep decision records

  • Ensure staff, including reception/admin, know the internal escalation route to the nominated officer.
  • Use a SAR decision log, which should include: date, who reported, what suspicion, what checks were done, decision, whether a SAR was submitted, and whether a defence was requested. This is critical because failure-to-disclose offences apply in the regulated sector; the legal framework is set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
  • If you submit a SAR and need a defence to proceed, follow the published Government timetable and do not proceed illegally.
06

Step six: Make training auditable

  • Train all staff with customer contact at onboarding and during regular CDD refreshes for existing clients. Government guidance recommends ensuring staff understand policies and know who the nominated officer is.
  • Keep a training log covering attendance, topic, date, trainer, and short quiz results if used. Under FCA-style supervision, training records are commonly requested because they show controls operating, not just existing.
07

Step seven: Clean up record keeping now, not during migration

  • Retain CDD documents and transaction/supporting records for the legally required period, which is five years per Regulation 40 of the Money Laundering Regulations.
  • Use a retention schedule and deletion process that fits both AML and data protection needs; the core point for AML is that the records must be retrievable and complete for the required period.
08

Step eight: Build an FCA-ready evidence pack for each regulated service line

Create a folder or compliance system workspace containing:

  • Current firm-wide risk assessment
  • Current AML policy and procedures
  • Nominated officer appointment record and deputy cover note
  • Client risk assessment template and examples, anonymised if shared internally
  • CDD checklist and guidance notes
  • SAR workflow and SAR decision log template
  • Training plan and training log
  • Record retention schedule and sample audit trail showing how you reconstruct a transaction
This directly addresses the government’s stated intent that FCA supervision will be risk-based, involve information requests and inspections, and potentially require more standardised evidence.

Will FCA AML supervision increase costs for accountancy firms?

Government sources acknowledge that firms will face familiarisation costs (including interacting with a new IT system) and that an impact assessment with estimated costs/benefits is expected. Professional bodies also warn of increased administrative burden and potential multiple inspections alongside continuing professional standards monitoring.

The final FCA fee model has not been confirmed, so firms should avoid treating any specific cost estimate as fixed.

That said, the planning assumption is that FCA AML supervision costs may include both direct fee changes and indirect admin costs linked to registration, records, training, and supervisory requests.

Where FCA transition costs may show up

For small firms, the bigger burden may be the time and admin needed to understand the new regime, clean up AML files, update policies, evidence ongoing monitoring, and train staff. Preparing early is the lowest-cost option because it spreads the work over time instead of turning FCA readiness into a last-minute project.

Cost pressure area Why it may increase Low-cost preparation now
Familiarisation and transition admin Firms may need time to understand FCA registration, data requests, fees, and new supervisory expectations. Assign one internal owner and keep a simple transition log of key updates, decisions, and actions.
Firm data and registration readiness A more formal registration or onboarding model may require clean details about the firm’s legal/trading name, premises, current AML supervisor, services, responsible people, BOOMs, and AML controls. Create a one-page firm profile and review it quarterly so key information is current before requests arrive.
AML file clean-up Messy client files make inspections slower and more stressful, especially where evidence is spread across emails, folders, and old notes. Sample existing-client files and check whether periodic reviews, CDD refreshes, rationale, and evidence references are easy to follow.
Ongoing monitoring evidence Supervisors may expect clearer proof that client records are being kept current after onboarding. Use a standard note for every periodic review or material AML client change, covering what changed, what was reviewed, what was concluded, and why.
Follow-up and unresolved issues Missing information, weak evidence, or unresolved questions can become more serious if they are not tracked to completion. Keep a live list of open AML follow-ups and only close them once the evidence, action, or rationale has been recorded.
Training and governance records Firms may be asked to show who is responsible for AML and whether staff understand the process. Keep one training log, one nominated-officer note, and a simple record of who owns reviews, escalations, and remediation.

Note: This table focuses on practical cost pressure areas rather than fixed price estimates, because FCA fees and final transition requirements have not yet been confirmed.

What typically drives costs up

The firms likely to feel the biggest cost pressure are not necessarily the largest. They are the firms with the messiest evidence trail.

Costs rise when client files are incomplete, beneficial ownership checks are missing, rationale is thin, ongoing monitoring notes are absent, or evidence sits across emails, PDFs, spreadsheets, and old working papers. One common clean-up point is checking how often accountants should update CDD for existing clients, so review dates, refresh decisions, and file notes are easier to defend.

Costs can also increase where the firm’s work has moved into higher-risk territory, such as TCSP activity, complex cross-border tax, high transaction volumes, crypto-heavy clients, or service lines highlighted in HMRC risk guidance. The more risk factors a firm carries, the more important it becomes to show clear controls and review evidence.

Practical takeaway: The cheapest time to fix AML file gaps is before a supervisor asks for them.

FCA AML enforcement risks and common mistakes for accountancy firms

Government documents and OPBAS commentary point toward stronger, more consistent supervision. For small firms, the most likely risk areas are practical and familiar:

  1. Operating when not properly supervised or registered (or failing to keep supervisor details current). Under the proposed FCA model, perimeter policing is intended to make unregistered in-scope activity harder once the new process exists. 
  2. Core foundation controls not in place. In a published disciplinary document, an accountancy firm was found to have failed to comply with or demonstrate compliance with Regulation 18 (firm‑wide risk assessment), Regulation 19 (policies/controls/procedures), and Regulation 24 (training). 
  3. Failure to respond to supervisory information requests. The AAT’s published outcomes include termination of licence/AML supervision for failure to submit AML firm returns or comply with AML survey requests (citing Regulation 66).

The FCA’s enforcement messaging in financial services also shows what it means by effective controls: keeping due diligence and risk assessments up to date, designing adequate onboarding, risk assessment, and transaction monitoring, and acting on obvious risk flags. 

While the scale differs for small accountancy firms, the control principles of risk assessment quality, monitoring, governance, and prompt remediation are transferable.

The assumptions small firms should fix before FCA supervision arrives

Many AML weaknesses start as reasonable-sounding shortcuts. Under a more evidence-led supervisory model, those shortcuts can become difficult to defend.

Pitfall 01

“We’re too small to matter.”

Why it matters

Published sanctions show that small firms and sole practitioners can still face termination or reprimand for basic AML failures, including not submitting required returns or failing to maintain AML supervision.

Pitfall 02

“The documents exist somewhere.”

Why it matters

A file is harder to defend if the evidence trail is unclear. FCA guidance emphasises effective systems and controls, which means firms need to show not just that documents exist, but that they were used properly.

Pitfall 03

“The client’s explanation sounds fine.”

Why it matters

HMRC risk guidance flags requests with no clear business reason, or that do not make economic sense, as common risk indicators for accountancy service providers.

Pitfall 04

“Payroll or bookkeeping is too low-touch to count.”

Why it matters

CCAB guidance explains the breadth of ‘external accountant’ and ‘tax adviser’ definitions. Scope depends on the service provided, not just how simple or software-supported the work feels.

Pitfall 05

“We’ll deal with SARs if something happens.”

Why it matters

Government guidance sets out the reporting route through the nominated officer and explains the submission process and timing concepts for proceeding with suspicious activity. Firms need a written workflow before pressure hits.

How accountancy firms should prepare to engage with the FCA

The government states the FCA is developing a delivery plan and will engage with supervisors and firms to support a smooth transition, with information-sharing intended to reduce administrative burdens.

Accountancy firms should prepare on the basis that they are likely to face some form of FCA registration, onboarding, or data confirmation once the new regime is implemented.

Now through the end of 2026:

  • Subscribe to update channels from the FCA and government consultations relating to AML supervision reform.
  • Identify your firm’s single point of contact for the transition (usually the nominated officer/MLRO plus an admin deputy).
  • Create your FCA‑ready evidence pack (listed earlier in step eight of our step-by-step checklist).

During 2027, when legislation and process details become clearer:

  • Run a formal internal AML file audit (sample file testing) and fix gaps.
  • Prepare a firm profile document: legal name, trading name, premises, current AML supervisor, owners/controllers, BOOMs, nominated officer/MLRO, services offered, any TCSP activity, client risk mix, locations served, and key systems used. This aligns with proposed gatekeeping, registration, and risk-profiling concepts.

By early 2028/29:

  • Ensure all staff training is up to date with logs signed off.
  • Ensure nominated officer status and deputy cover are documented and current, including supervisor notifications where required under the Regulations.
  • Be ready to complete any FCA data or registration confirmation process quickly, using clean, consistent firm information. The government’s stated intention is that existing supervised firms should not need a full re-registration process, but may need to confirm details and undergo fit‑and‑proper checks.

Conclusion: Prepare for FCA AML supervision before the pressure arrives

The FCA transition is not just an administrative reshuffle. For small accountancy firms, it points toward a more demanding supervisory environment where AML records, review decisions, supporting evidence, and follow-up actions need to be easier to explain.

The exact timing and final process still depend on legislation, FCA implementation work, fees, and transition arrangements. But firms should not wait for the final rulebook before improving the basics: clearer review discipline, better evidence trails, stronger rationale, and a live view of unresolved AML issues.

FAQs

Is the FCA taking over AML supervision for accountants?

Yes. The UK government has confirmed that the FCA will become the single public AML supervisor for professional services firms, including accountancy firms.

When will the FCA supervise accountancy firms for AML?

The exact start date has not been fixed, because the transition still depends on legislation, funding, FCA implementation work, and a detailed migration plan. For planning purposes, small accountancy firms should treat 2028/29 as a sensible preparation window.

What does FCA AML supervision mean for accountants?

It means accountancy firms will answer to the FCA for AML supervision, rather than the current mix of professional body supervisors and HMRC. Firms should expect a more evidence-led relationship with the FCA.

Will accountants need to register with the FCA for AML?

There is no FCA registration process for accountants to complete yet, but in-scope firms should expect some form of registration, onboarding, firm-data confirmation, gatekeeping check, or fit-and-proper assessment once the new AML regime is implemented.

Will FCA AML supervision increase costs for accountancy firms?

Most likely, yes. While the final fee model has not been confirmed, the government has proposed cost-recovery funding for FCA AML supervision. As such, firms should plan for possible fee changes as well as indirect costs such as training, file clean-up, record-keeping, and responding to information requests.

What should accountants do now about FCA AML supervision?

Accountancy firms should start by making current AML records easy to evidence: firm-wide risk assessment, AML policies, CDD files, ongoing monitoring notes, training records, and nominated officer responsibilities.

Does the FCA replacing AML supervisors change the Money Laundering Regulations?

No, not directly. The main change is the supervisory body, not the underlying AML law. Accountancy firms will still need to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations and related suspicious activity reporting duties.

Who currently supervises accountants for AML in the UK?

At present, AML supervision sits either with a professional body, where the firm is actually covered for AML, or with HMRC where applicable. Professional body membership alone does not prove AML supervision. The existing supervisory system remains in place until the FCA transition commences.

References and Source Material

Government and regulator sources

Professional body and sector sources

Legislation

Enforcement and disciplinary examples

Avatar photo

Kane Pepi is the founder of Evidentia Compliance, with an academic foundation in accounting, finance, and financial crime, and peer-reviewed research in money laundering and terrorist financing.

His work focuses on making AML compliance more practical for small regulated firms facing rising supervisory expectations and limited internal compliance capacity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *