Really?!

Really?!

Didn't find your answer?

Well, this is a new one on me, received a 'professional' clearance letter for an outgoing client. Letter asks for the usual - any reason why they shouldn't accept, last years accounts etc.

The letter also included the following in a paragraph:

"...for the purposes of complying with the Money Laundering Regulations, please confirm whether you have any reason to doubt the identity of the above named. Please verify that you are not aware of any matters arising from your dealings with them that would give rise to any suspicion that money laundering might have occurred."

I have no intention of responding to this part but surely they shouldn't be asking this?

First part very unprofessional - do it yourself  - ffs!

As far as I can see the second request would be considered as 'tipping off'.

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By SJRUK
08th Feb 2016 13:20

iGNORE

I've had this request a few times, especially in the early days of ML - I think its part of a standard letter as the wording is exactly the same.  I always ignore it.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Gary Stevens
08th Feb 2016 13:30

We've had this - we just tell them to do their own AML work!

Thanks (1)
David Winch
By David Winch
08th Feb 2016 13:48

It's one approach
First part very unprofessional - do it yourself  - ffs!

 

As far as I can see the second request would be considered as 'tipping off'.

There is provision in the MLR 2007 for 'reliance' - see reg 17 MLR 2007.

I would not say that a response to the second part amounted to tipping off, especially if there were no grounds to suspect money laundering, see s333C PoCA 2002.

But it is not the way I would choose to deal with this.  You can of course just ignore that part of the letter.

David

Thanks (1)
Man of Kent
By Kent accountant
08th Feb 2016 14:05

Interesting

Thanks for the comments.

@David - reliance on another professional. Thanks for the link - clause 17.1.b still leaves the responsibility with the person seeking confirmation, so what's the point?

Just interested as I have no intention of responding to these points.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
08th Feb 2016 14:59

me too

I always ignore those ML requests from the new accountant.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andrew55
08th Feb 2016 16:32

This was quite common

You saw this a lot at one point, and I'm going back before the current AML rules came along.

I'd suggest anyone still using that paragraph probably needs a reresher course!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
08th Feb 2016 16:52

I use:

It is a policy of this firm not to comment on requests such as the one contained in paragraph x of your letter

or something similar

Thanks (0)
avatar
By andrew55
08th Feb 2016 17:01

I just ignore it

Just don't reference that para at all!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
08th Feb 2016 17:24

ACCA told me ...

... you should always ask this question, but, you should never answer this question.

If you doubted the identity or had any suspicions you would have made your own report already!

 

Thanks (1)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
08th Feb 2016 22:13

I saw this some years back
As I recall, I wrote something along the lines of "we trust you will obtain whatever confirmations you require from your prospective client".

ACCA may well think (as OGA advises) that this should be asked, but as an ACCA member myself, I will never ask it, as I don't believe you should rely on the outgoing accountant for such information. Apart from looking stupid, would the outgoing accountant realistically admit to you any such identity concerns?

Thanks (0)