The FCA is taking over AML supervision: What accountancy firms should do now
Last updated: June 25, 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 FCA transition report for small accountancy firms covers what’s changing, who’s affected, key timelines, and how to prepare.
Latest development: HM Treasury’s June 2026 response has moved key FCA-transition details into confirmed government policy positions; the Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] is now in the Lords Committee stage.
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, the FCA transition is likely to change how supervision feels in practice. Firms should expect stronger gatekeeping, more structured information requests, and a more formal approach to inspection and enforcement.
The government explicitly anticipates a multi-year implementation that depends on primary legislation and a more detailed transition plan. It expects firms and supervisors to move into the FCA model in phases.
The most practical impacts that small accountancy firms should 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 current policy position is that the FCA will register in-scope professional services firms, maintain a public register, and apply stronger gatekeeping checks before firms can operate under the new AML supervision model.
- 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 through fees charged to supervised firms, while professional bodies have warned about dual-fee pressure and added administration.
- Planning has already moved into practical discovery work: In April 2026, ICAEW reported that the FCA had invited firms and sole practitioners to take part in confidential one-to-one research sessions about their AML supervision experience.
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 and evidence-led.
Contents
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.
The main policy design is now clearer:
- The FCA will be responsible for registering professional services firms carrying out AML-regulated activity and maintaining a public register.
- Fit and proper requirements are expected to extend across legal and accountancy service providers.
- The FCA will use risk-based monitoring, including information requests, inspections, and thematic engagement.
- The FCA is expected to have additional tools, including directions and skilled-person powers, subject to statutory safeguards.
- Existing information-gathering, inspection, and information-sharing powers under the Money Laundering Regulations are expected to be extended to the FCA’s professional services role.
- The FCA will be able to use Money Laundering Regulations enforcement powers, including civil sanctions and, where appropriate, criminal proceedings.
- Ongoing FCA AML supervision is expected to be funded on a cost-recovery basis through fees charged to supervised firms, with the detailed fee structure still to be consulted on.
- Transition arrangements are expected to involve cooperation and information-sharing between the FCA, HMRC, and current professional body supervisors, with existing data and approvals used where appropriate to reduce duplication.
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.
The important question for small firms is what should be in order before the FCA regime arrives?
Design and preparation stage
Firms should now move from tracking the policy debate to monitoring delivery. Watch for secondary legislation, FCA implementation material, transition communications, and consultations on registration, data transfer, fees, and information requirements.
Legislation and FCA build-out
The reform is expected to depend on enabling legislation and the FCA building the operational capacity 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.
Phased transition planning
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 expect more pressure to keep AML records current and respond directly to FCA-style information requests.
Practical takeaway: Use the 2028/29 planning window to check your AML supervision route and improve the evidence behind existing-client AML records.
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 the latest confirmed policy position and the Bill currently before Parliament. The exact operating process, fees, and transition timetable are still to be finalised. 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 readiness exercise. The core AML duties remain the same, but the FCA model is expected to place more weight on records that show controls are actually being applied.
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 basic AML file covering firm-wide risk, CDD/KYC, policies, and suspicious activity reporting. Updates are often annual or prompted by an inspection or renewal cycle.
Under FCA supervision: Firms must plan for more structured requests for evidence. Expect direct questions that test both firm-level AML controls and client-level review work.
Operational impact: Sole practitioners will need one compliance file that brings core AML documents, client-risk records, training evidence, and reporting logs into a manageable place.
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 policies that reflect how payroll work is accepted, monitored, and affected by changes in beneficial ownership or control.
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 closer scrutiny of source of funds and source of wealth explanations, especially where funds move through multiple exchanges or overseas jurisdictions.
Operational impact: Firms may need a crypto client pack covering wallet and exchange lists, asset history, and when enhanced due diligence is triggered.
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 the AML position is not completed before work proceeds.
Operational impact: Firms should not support completion or client money movement until CDD and the 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 or tax services can bring a firm within scope.
Operational impact: Relevant firms should be able to explain their AML scope and show when CDD would need refreshing.
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 immediate priority is to make sure the firm can evidence its AML governance, client records, ongoing monitoring work, and escalation process during a more rigorous supervisory review.
Firms should also understand what AML supervisors look for in a client AML file, including whether the risk rationale and CDD evidence are easy to follow.
Starting early gives you time to fix gaps properly, 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.
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 a sole trader with no employees must act in that role, and that the responsibility cannot be outsourced to an external consultant.
- Set responsibilities in writing: Establish who owns the main AML control points, from the firm-wide risk assessment to high-risk client approvals and SAR submissions. This aligns with the FCA’s emphasis on senior management responsibility and effective systems and controls in its general guidance.
Step two: Rebuild the firm-wide risk assessment so it is defensible
- Update your firm-wide risk assessment: The record should explain the main risks the firm faces through its clients, services, and operating model. It should also show how client risk is assessed in practice. This is a core legal requirement under the Money Laundering Regulations.
- Incorporate HMRC’s published sector risk assessment: HMRC says firms must take its sector view into account when assessing their own exposure. Add risk notes for higher-exposure services, including payroll, bookkeeping, and tax advice.
- Set a refresh rule: Periodic reviews should follow the evaluated risk level. A separate AML record should also be completed when a CDD trigger event brings the client file back into focus.
Step three: Rewrite AML policies so they map visibly to the Regulations
- AML policies: Make sure the firm’s AML framework covers the required policies, controls, and procedures. It should explain how the firm manages risk, applies CDD, keeps records, monitors activity, and communicates internally.
- Make it operational: Each policy statement should identify the person responsible, record kept, and evidence available. This is the difference between paper compliance and a system that can stand up to review. It reflects a core cultural shift small firms should plan for under an FCA model.
Step four: Standardise client risk assessment and CDD/KYC
- Use a one-page client risk assessment form that captures the main risk drivers. The form should make space for ownership complexity, geography, service risk, delivery channel, and red flags without becoming a generic checklist.
- 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 EDD triggers for higher-risk geography and unusual client behaviour. This should include cases where the request lacks economic sense or the structure creates unnecessary 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.
Step five: Harden your SAR process and keep decision records
- Ensure staff, including reception or admin, know the internal escalation route to the nominated officer.
- Use a SAR decision log that records the date, internal report, checks completed, and decision reached. If a SAR or defence request was considered, the log should show the outcome. 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.
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 that shows who attended, what was covered, and when the session took place. If quizzes are used, keep the result with the record. Under FCA-style supervision, training records are commonly requested because they show controls operating in practice.
Step seven: Clean up record keeping now, not during migration
- Retain CDD documents and transaction and 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 works for both AML and data protection. For AML purposes, the key point is that records remain complete and retrievable for the required period.
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
Will FCA AML supervision increase costs for accountancy firms?
Government sources acknowledge that firms will face familiarisation costs, including the need to interact with a new IT system. An impact assessment with estimated costs and benefits is also 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 expenses. Registration, record preparation, training, and supervisory requests are likely to drive much of the internal workload.
Where FCA transition costs may show up
The bigger burden may be the time and admin small firms need to prepare for the new regime. This includes bringing AML files, policies, monitoring records, and staff training into better shape.
| 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 and 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. |
What typically drives costs up
Those likely to feel the biggest cost pressure are not necessarily the largest. They are the firms with the messiest evidence trail.
Costs rise when the AML file cannot be followed easily. This often translates to missing ownership checks, thin reasoning, absent monitoring notes, and scattered evidence, which all make the clean-up process more challenging.
The same issue often appears when deciding how often accountants should update CDD for existing clients, because review dates and refresh decisions need to be defensible.
Costs can also increase where the firm’s work has moved into higher-risk territory. This can include TCSP activity, 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.
FCA AML enforcement risks and common mistakes for accountancy firms
Government documents and OPBAS commentary point toward stronger and more consistent supervision. The most likely risk areas for small firms may already be familiar:
- 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.
- 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, and procedures), and Regulation 24 (training).
- Failure to respond to supervisory information requests. The AAT’s published outcomes include termination of licence or 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. Firms are expected to keep due diligence and risk assessments current, design controls that match the risk, and act on obvious warning signs.
While the scale differs for small accountancy firms, the same control logic still applies. Practices should assess risk properly, monitor the business relationship, and deal with AML concerns promptly.
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. This includes missed returns or failure to maintain AML supervision.
Pitfall 02
“The documents exist somewhere.”
Why it matters
A file is more difficult to defend if the evidence trail is unclear. FCA guidance emphasises effective systems and controls, including AML documents that guide decisions and support the record in practice.
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. It also explains the submission process and timing rules for proceeding with suspicious activity. Firms need a written workflow before pressure hits.
How accountancy firms should prepare to engage with the FCA
The next stage is delivery, with open questions around existing firm data, current approvals, and coordination between the FCA, HMRC, and professional body supervisors.
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, also referred to as the 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 and controllers, BOOMs, nominated officer or 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. Our separate guide on AML responsibilities for sole practitioners explains how to stay compliant when the practice has no relevant employees.
- 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. It points toward a more demanding supervisory environment for small accountancy firms, where AML work needs to be more traceable and better supported by evidence.
The exact timing still depends on the legislative process and the FCA’s implementation work. But firms should not wait for the final rulebook before improving the basics. Existing AML records should already make review decisions, unresolved issues, and follow-up actions easier to follow.
Separately, firms should also be aware of the 2026 AML Amendment Regulations, which may affect specific AML procedures before wider supervision reform takes effect.
FAQs
Yes. The UK government has confirmed that the FCA will become the single public AML supervisor for professional services firms, including accountancy firms.
The exact start date has not been fixed. The Bill is now in the Lords Committee stage, and FCA rules, fees, registration mechanics, and transition arrangements are still to follow. For planning purposes, small accountancy firms should treat 2028/29 as a sensible preparation window.
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.
Yes, although there is no FCA registration process for accountants to complete yet. The FCA is expected to register professional services firms carrying out AML-regulated activity and maintain a public register.
Most likely, yes. Firms should plan for a direct FCA supervisory charge and extra administration, although the actual fee levels and billing method have not yet been set.
Accountancy firms should start by making current AML records easier to evidence. This means checking whether the firm’s core AML documents, client files, monitoring notes, and responsibility records are complete and retrievable.
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.
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 regulatory sources
- HM Treasury, Reform of the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing supervision regime: consultation response
- HM Treasury, AML/CTF supervision reform: duties, powers and accountability consultation
- HM Treasury, Reforming anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing supervision consultation
- FCA, Government’s decision on reforming AML/CTF supervision
- FCA, OPBAS: AML supervisors have areas to improve
- FCA, Financial Crime Guide
- HMRC, Risks common to accountancy service providers
- GOV.UK, Anti-money laundering guidance for the accountancy sector
- GOV.UK, Money laundering regulations: report suspicious activities
- GOV.UK, Money laundering regulations: nominated officers and employee training
Professional body and sector sources
- CCAB, Anti-Money Laundering Guidance for the Accountancy Sector
- ICAEW, HM Treasury to consolidate AML supervision to a single regulator
- ATT, AML supervision moving to the FCA
- AAT, Disciplinary outcomes
Legislation
- Money Laundering Regulations 2017
- Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Regulation 19
- Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Regulation 21
- Money Laundering Regulations 2017, Regulation 40
- Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Section 330
Enforcement and disciplinary examples
