Financial crime risk management within the legal sector has become a central focus for regulators, especially as law firms remain attractive channels for illicit funds. Recent years have seen escalating enforcement against legal practices failing to implement robust anti-money laundering (AML) controls. The significant penalty imposed on TG Baynes, a well-established Kent law firm, highlights just how costly long-term non-compliance can be. This article examines the case, the regulatory context, and the wider implications for compliance within the legal profession.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), as the UK’s primary regulator for solicitors, has intensified scrutiny on the profession’s AML standards since the implementation of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017). These rules place legal obligations on firms to assess and mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing risks—obligations that, as the TG Baynes case demonstrates, cannot be overlooked or deferred.

The TG Baynes AML Penalty: Background and Regulatory Context

The TG Baynes case reflects one of the more prominent examples of regulatory action for AML failings within the UK legal sector. Over a six-year period ending in May 2024, the firm failed to implement and maintain adequate policies, controls, and procedures designed to identify and manage the risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing. This persistent lapse left the firm exposed to the kind of financial crime vulnerabilities that regulators are determined to address.

Key requirements of the MLRs 2017 include:

• Conducting a comprehensive firm-wide risk assessment, tailored to the nature and scope of services provided.
• Maintaining documented policies, controls, and procedures to mitigate AML and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) risks, reviewed and updated regularly.
• Performing client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs) for all relevant engagements.
• Ensuring that all staff are trained and equipped to identify and escalate suspicious activity.

TG Baynes reportedly failed to comply with several of these obligations for a significant period. Notably, the absence of documented CMRAs meant the firm had no effective mechanism to assess the risks posed by specific clients or transactions. The firm’s shortcomings were identified through SRA oversight, which, under Regulation 17 of the MLRs 2017, is responsible for monitoring compliance in the legal sector.

Financial Penalty Calculation and Regulatory Response

The financial penalty imposed on TG Baynes—totaling nearly £64,000—was determined using the SRA’s published methodology, which considers factors such as firm turnover, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the need for deterrence. For alternative business structures (ABSs), like TG Baynes, the SRA can apply a fine greater than the standard £25,000 cap for traditional firms, leveraging powers outlined in the Legal Services Act 2007.

Several factors were considered in reaching the penalty amount:

• The fine was set at 1.6% of TG Baynes’ annual domestic turnover, reflecting the seriousness of the breaches.
• A 30% reduction was applied to account for the firm’s cooperation and steps taken to rectify the deficiencies.
• The final penalty amounted to £63,869, with an additional £1,350 in costs.

It is important to note that, while the SRA confirmed there was no evidence of actual money laundering or harm arising from the breaches, the lack of controls significantly increased the risk of financial crime exposure. Regulators have repeatedly warned that insufficient AML frameworks, even if not exploited, create unacceptable vulnerabilities and undermine the credibility of the legal system as a whole.

Additionally, all SRA fines related to AML breaches are directed to HM Treasury, reinforcing the government’s broader anti-financial crime efforts.

Widespread AML Failures Across the Legal Profession

The TG Baynes case is not isolated. The SRA has significantly ramped up enforcement actions against firms that fall short of AML standards. Recent months have seen a string of penalties levied on legal practices, many for similar failings:

• London-based Gordons Partnership received a fine of £77,784 for lapses in its AML program.
• Seven other firms, excluding TG Baynes, have been fined in the past month alone, with total penalties exceeding £88,000.
• Greater Manchester’s Bannister Preston was fined £22,831 after failing to conduct CMRAs on multiple conveyancing files, illustrating a pattern of neglect in high-risk areas such as real estate transactions.

The SRA has identified that many firms do not maintain sufficiently robust AML frameworks, particularly with regard to risk assessments and file monitoring. Frequent failures include outdated or generic risk assessments, lack of periodic reviews, and insufficient training for staff engaged in customer due diligence (CDD).

This trend of enforcement reflects the SRA’s determination to close compliance gaps in the legal sector and ensure that law firms are not exploited as conduits for criminal funds. It also signals to the wider market that enforcement action will become swifter and more severe as regulators deploy new powers, such as the forthcoming ability to levy unlimited fines for economic crime-related misconduct.

Legal and Regulatory Obligations: What Firms Must Do

Law firms in the UK are subject to a complex set of requirements under the MLRs 2017 and supporting guidance from both the SRA and the Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG). Some of the most critical ongoing obligations include:

• Firm-Wide Risk Assessments: Every legal practice must carry out and document a detailed assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risks, considering client types, services offered, geographical exposure, delivery channels, and transaction patterns. The assessment must be reviewed and updated regularly, particularly when business practices or risk factors change.
• Policies, Controls, and Procedures (PCPs): Firms must put in place tailored PCPs to identify and manage financial crime risk. These controls should cover CDD processes, ongoing monitoring, record keeping, suspicious activity reporting (SAR), staff training, and escalation protocols.
• Client and Matter Risk Assessments: For each new client or matter, firms must assess and document specific risk factors, ensuring enhanced due diligence (EDD) is applied for higher-risk cases.
• Staff Training and Awareness: Ongoing training is required to ensure all relevant personnel are familiar with AML obligations and able to recognize and respond to red flags.
• Regular Internal Review: Firms must carry out periodic reviews of their AML systems and controls, learning from regulatory updates and enforcement actions to address emerging risks.

Failure to meet these standards can result not only in regulatory sanctions, as seen in the TG Baynes case, but also criminal liability under sections of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) and other relevant statutes. Non-compliance can also trigger civil penalties and reputational harm.

SRA Supervision and the Future of AML Enforcement

The SRA’s supervisory strategy now emphasizes proactive detection and deterrence of AML failings. This involves targeted visits, thematic reviews, file sampling, and interviews with compliance officers. The SRA has also published a series of warning notices and sector risk assessments to guide firms in identifying and addressing areas of concern.

With new legislative changes underway, the SRA is moving towards greater flexibility in sanctioning powers, particularly regarding economic crime. This development is consistent with broader UK government policy, as reflected in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which seeks to enhance the transparency and accountability of firms handling client funds and assets.

Legal sector participants can expect:

• More frequent onsite inspections and thematic reviews from the SRA.
• Increased expectations for detailed, documented, and dynamic risk assessments.
• Heightened scrutiny on firms serving high-risk sectors or clients, especially in property, corporate, and cross-border transactions.
• Greater emphasis on the role and accountability of Money Laundering Reporting Officers (MLROs) and Compliance Officers for Legal Practice (COLPs).

The Cost of Non-Compliance: Lessons from Recent Cases

The growing number of penalties in the legal sector underscores the high price of ignoring AML responsibilities. Beyond the headline fines, law firms face direct and indirect costs, including legal fees, operational disruption, increased scrutiny from clients and counterparties, and potential exclusion from certain panels or markets.

For legal practices, several key lessons emerge:

• AML compliance is not a one-off project but an ongoing, evolving commitment that requires sustained investment and attention from senior management.
• Regular training, robust documentation, and periodic reviews are non-negotiable elements of an effective AML program.
• Firms must anticipate and respond to regulatory changes quickly, especially as enforcement action becomes more sophisticated and technology-driven.
• A proactive, risk-based approach is essential to safeguard against inadvertent involvement in financial crime and to protect both the firm and the wider public interest.

Conclusion: Raising the Bar for AML Compliance in the Legal Sector

Regulatory enforcement against TG Baynes and other law firms sends a clear message across the legal profession: AML compliance is a central pillar of legal practice in the UK. With regulators sharpening their focus and deploying enhanced sanctioning powers, firms that fall short of their obligations risk substantial penalties, reputational damage, and loss of client trust.

To meet regulatory expectations, law firms must:

• Conduct regular, evidence-based risk assessments at both firm and matter level.
• Ensure that policies, controls, and procedures are fully documented, regularly updated, and tailored to the firm’s specific risk profile.
• Deliver ongoing training and oversight to all staff engaged in regulated activities.
• Respond promptly to regulatory guidance and enforcement trends.

Ongoing vigilance, investment, and leadership commitment are necessary to protect firms from both financial and reputational risks. As the UK legal sector continues to face evolving financial crime threats, robust AML compliance is not just a regulatory requirement but a business imperative.

---

Related Links

• Solicitors Regulation Authority – AML Guidance
• Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017
• Legal Sector Affinity Group AML Guidance
• SRA – Disciplinary and Regulatory Decisions
• HM Treasury – UK Anti-Money Laundering Supervision

Other FinCrime Central Articles About Fines Given to UK Law Firms

• Small Law Firm Faces Heavy AML Penalties for Regulatory Failures
• The SRA Fines Solicitors Over £47k for Failing AML Checks: Key Lessons for Law Firms
• Simpson Thacher & Barlett, a Prestigious US Law firm, hit with £300K AML Fine for Serious Compliance Shortcomings

Source: Legal Futures, by Neil Rose

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand with us or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.