Financial criminals have long viewed property transactions as an attractive vehicle for laundering illicit funds. As a Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) and Finance (COFA) at a busy conveyancing firm, I see first-hand how robust anti-money laundering (AML) systems can make or break the integrity of a deal.
Recent analyses estimate that billions of pounds in suspicious wealth have flowed into UK real estate – Transparency International UK identified £5.9 billion in questionable funds used to buy UK properties through offshore shell companies. Given the scale of the threat, it’s no surprise that regulators are cracking down and expecting more vigilance than ever from both legal professionals and lenders.
In this article, I’ll outline why strong AML controls are crucial in conveyancing, where weak points often lie, what lenders should demand from their panel solicitors, and how emerging trends like digital onboarding and heightened fraud risks are reshaping our approach. The goal is to offer practical insight for finance professionals on working together with legal partners to keep dirty money out of property deals.
This blog post examines the Court of Appeal hearing in Carter v Chief Constable of Essex Police, a significant case concerning the interpretation of Section 54(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The case centres on whether custody officers must have objectively reasonable grounds to remove a detainee’s clothing for safety reasons, or whether a subjective belief alone suffices. Mr. Carter, who was forcibly stripped following his arrest in 2017, brought a civil claim for battery. While the County Court sided with him, the High Court overturned that decision—ruling in favour of Essex Police. The Court of Appeal is now tasked with clarifying the threshold required under Section 54(4), with significant implications for detainee rights and police powers in custody settings. Judgment is pending.
In the workplace, ensuring the safety of employees is paramount. However, some employers neglect their responsibilities to provide adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), unnecessarily endangering their workers. This blog explores the rights of claimants in personal injury cases stemming from inadequate PPE provision. From understanding legal obligations to seeking compensation, learn how to hold employers accountable and protect your rights in the event of a workplace injury.
