A selfemployed interpretor is engaged by a interpreting agency to provide services to a Government agency.
During the interpreting exercise (at which a claimant and official are present throughout)all conversation is accurately conveyed to either side.
In some examples before, in others after the formal meeting takes place, the claimant or members of their family (or alleged family) disclose their true indentity or past conduct or future intentions.
Whilst they 'warn' the interpretor of 'mis-using that knowledge, they have previously disclosed such instances to an agency official.
What further action should be taken by the interpretor to ensure that the detail are passed on to the appropriate parties?
Has the interpretor any obligation to pass on the information to the agency?
Has the agency any obligation to pass the information on to anyone and, if so, who?
(note.....not my problem(s)
Robert Clubb
Replies (2)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
The interpreter is a member of the public
Robert
As far as I can see the interpreter is not engaged in 'relevant business' (as defined by reg 2(2) Money Laundering Regulations 2003).
Therefore the interpreter is not subject to the Money Laundering Regulations and he is not subject to section 330 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This means that he does not have to disclose any knowledge or suspicion which he may have that someone (other than himself) is engaged in money laundering.
However, just like every other individual in the UK, he does have to report (and obtain consent from SOCA for) any money laundering in which he is engaged in himself. See sections 327 to 329 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This includes his own actions which facilitate the retention, control or use of the proceeds of crime by others.
Also, just like every other individual in the UK, he has to report to SOCA any belief or suspicion he has (based on information received by him in the course of his employment or self-employment) that any person is engaged in a terrorist property offence (such as fund raising for terrorism, dealing with terrorists' funds, or handling proceeds of offences by terrorists).
All that having been said, from your brief description of the circumstances I cannot see that the interpreter has any obligation to notify the authorities of the conversations which he interpreted for the benefit of a government officer (since his action presumably would not facilitate money laundering by others, nor was he engaged in money laundering himself), unless he has concerns about terrorist related offences.
If you are an MLRO you can get confidential one-to-one email support, information and NewsAlerts from my website www.mlrosupport.co.uk.
David
[email protected]