Blog
Kingsley Napley’s Medical Negligence Team ‘walks together’ with the Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity
Sharon Burkill
4 March 2019
SFO v ENRC: what did the Court of Appeal decide and what does it mean for lawyers?
In September 2018, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on ENRC’s appeal against Andrews J’s High Court decision in the case of The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v ENRC. The judgment has been praised for going some way to restore sense and order to the protection of legal professional privilege.
13 February 2019
Unexplained Wealth Orders: What we know one year on
The Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO) has been available to law enforcement since February 2018. UWOs are intended to bolster the Proceeds of Crime regime, by making it easier for law enforcement agencies to seize assets suspected of representing criminal property.
15 January 2019
Diamonds are (not) forever: NCA keeps up pressure on unexplained wealth
Further developments in the first (so-called) “McMafia” case (see my related blog Media focus on first 'McMafia law' challenge) were reported yesterday when the National Crime Agency (NCA) secured the seizure of a “high value Cartier diamond ring”.
15 January 2019
Routinely and aggressively pursuing money-laundering investigations: the verdict on the UK’s AML regime
In December 2018, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) published its report on the UK regime to counter money laundering (ML) and terrorist financing (TF). The report praises the strength of the UK regime, noting that the UK has a ‘robust’ understanding of ML/TF risk, and proactively investigates, prosecutes and convicts ML and TF. The report cites that the UK achieves “around 7900 investigations, 2000 prosecutions and 1400 convictions annually for stand-alone ML offences or where ML is the principle offence”.
15 January 2019
Tackling illicit finance: lawyers under the spotlight
At the end of last year the National Crime Agency published its annual report on Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for 2018. Media reporting (such as in the FT, subscription required), on the annual report has focussed, amongst other things, on the relatively small proportion of SARs made by lawyers. Is this a fair criticism and, if so, what is the reason for it?
