Canada and the United Kingdom are reshaping how financial crime is policed and prevented.
Canada has announced a national strategy to fight fraud and a new federal body dedicated to complex financial crime, signalling a shift toward stronger institutional capacity. The United Kingdom, meanwhile, is consolidating anti money laundering and counter terrorism financing supervision for professional services under a single regulator, replacing a patchwork of oversight bodies that often operated in silos.
For compliance leaders, these two reforms redefine how risk is managed, who inspects controls, and where accountability lies when failures emerge. They point to a future where AML oversight is more integrated, data driven, and outcome focused.
The direction is clear. Regulators want fewer blind spots, stronger coordination, and a sharper connection between fraud prevention, consumer protection, and illicit finance detection.
Table of Contents
Effective AML supervision after the Canada and UK shifts
Effective AML supervision depends on three foundations, coherent scope, credible oversight, and measurable outcomes. Coherent scope ensures that the rules and supervisors match the real risk landscape. Credible oversight gives the regulator authority, expertise, and reach. Measurable outcomes show whether controls truly reduce harm or simply document compliance.
Both countries are targeting these foundations, though from different angles. Canada begins with the surge in fraud losses and moves outward, linking consumer protection, fraud analytics, and proceeds recovery in one coordinated effort. The UK starts from a fragmented structure and moves inward, bringing lawyers, accountants, and trust and company service providers under one supervisory roof.
The result is a dual lesson for compliance officers. Canada is embedding fraud prevention within the AML framework, while the UK is embedding AML consistency within professional services. Each approach raises expectations for institutions to integrate, test, and document how their controls work in practice.
The reforms also converge on a single message, effectiveness now matters as much as technical compliance. Firms will need to show how controls prevent harm, not just that policies exist. Preparation is essential as both governments translate these announcements into enforceable regimes.
Canada’s anti fraud strategy and financial crimes agency
Canada’s new anti fraud strategy and financial crimes agency reflect growing pressure to modernise the country’s approach to financial crime. Fraud losses have surged, and most scams remain unreported. Seniors, newcomers, and vulnerable individuals are disproportionately targeted, while criminals exploit online channels and cross border networks to disguise proceeds.
The government’s plan combines prevention, enforcement, and consumer empowerment.
First, banks will face new requirements to adopt stronger fraud prevention policies and provide customers with more control over their accounts. Configurable transaction limits, consent based payment features, and fraud data reporting will become standard. These steps link product design with risk management and allow customers to participate directly in their own protection.
Second, the upcoming Financial Crimes Agency will unite investigative expertise across organised crime, money laundering, and digital fraud. Its mission is to trace and recover illicit assets, breaking down the institutional boundaries that have limited complex investigations. For financial institutions, this means investigators will expect better quality evidence and seamless integration between fraud and AML case files.
Third, a voluntary code of conduct will address economic abuse, a form of financial control often tied to domestic or family dynamics. This initiative brings a social dimension into compliance. Staff must be trained to recognise subtle patterns of coercion or manipulation—such as sudden account access changes or unexplained debt creation—and escalate them safely.
Collectively, these reforms push banks to view fraud, economic abuse, and money laundering as parts of one ecosystem. Compliance functions should review how data from fraud operations flows into AML monitoring, whether escalation triggers overlap, and how second line reviews verify that account controls work as intended.
Data governance is central to this effort. Fraud data must be collected and shared across systems without breaching privacy or retention limits. A clear control map showing where fraud signals intersect with AML monitoring should be maintained and periodically tested. Without it, institutions risk compliance gaps that remain invisible until enforcement arrives.
Cross border institutions will also need to align Canadian requirements with regimes that still separate fraud and AML. Adopting the higher standard across the group is usually safer, provided that harm reduction remains proportionate. Scenario analysis can help balance security and customer experience by testing transaction limits, identity checks, and false positive rates in real conditions.
Ultimately, the Canadian model expands AML’s front line. It recognises that fraud prevention and proceeds tracing are two ends of the same continuum. The new agency will likely become a central partner for both regulators and institutions, creating a feedback loop between consumer harm data and complex crime enforcement.
UK supervision overhaul for professional services
The United Kingdom’s decision to transfer AML supervision for professional services to a single regulator marks one of its most significant structural changes in years.
Previously, law societies, accountancy bodies, and HM Revenue and Customs shared responsibility. Each applied its own approach to risk assessment, inspections, and enforcement. The result was uneven supervision and inconsistent collaboration with law enforcement.
By moving oversight to a single markets regulator, the government aims to simplify supervision and create consistency across legal and accounting sectors. The new framework will align methodologies, reduce duplication, and promote a shared intelligence network that mirrors the system already used for financial institutions.
For law firms, this change will feel substantial. The new supervisor will use data driven testing, structured file sampling, and evidence based enforcement. Firms can expect detailed questions about how client and matter risk ratings are set, how source of funds information is verified, and how beneficial ownership data is maintained.
Inspection depth will increase, and the tolerance for weak documentation will narrow. Firms that previously relied on professional body guidance will need to adjust to a rules based regulator with a higher appetite for enforcement.
Accountancy and trust service providers face similar challenges. Where structures involve layered ownership or offshore elements, the supervisor will expect clear verification paths, documented risk assessments, and refresh cycles that reflect exposure levels. A failure to justify exceptions could now attract direct enforcement rather than advisory feedback.
The transition requires enabling legislation, a funding model, and an operational handover. During this period, firms must avoid drifting into uncertainty. Conducting an internal gap analysis using the new supervisory expectations is a safe first step. Testing policy effectiveness against real file evidence will reveal where controls need strengthening before official inspections begin.
Governance structures should also evolve. AML committees within firms should include senior partners with authority over client matters, compliance officers, and finance heads. They should track remedial actions with deadlines and documented outcomes.
Training should move beyond theory to real case examples. Partners and managers must be able to explain and evidence decisions on risk ratings, due diligence, and matter acceptance. Random file reviews are an effective way to gauge whether policies work in practice.
For global professional networks, alignment will be more complex. A single data model across offices, supported by local annexes that reflect jurisdictional differences, will make supervision easier and demonstrate consistency. This approach helps firms avoid duplicating controls while meeting local expectations.
Overall, the UK’s consolidation strengthens accountability. It sends a message that professional services are as central to AML risk as banks or payment institutions, and they will be supervised accordingly.
A more resilient path ahead
Both reforms share a single goal, a more resilient system capable of disrupting financial crime from multiple angles.
Canada is closing vulnerabilities at the consumer level, embedding fraud controls into daily banking operations and linking prevention to proceeds recovery. The UK is fortifying professional gatekeepers, ensuring that enablers of corporate or legal structures face uniform, data backed scrutiny.
For compliance teams, the lesson is straightforward. Controls can no longer be built as isolated checklists. Fraud, AML, and consumer protection now form a single continuum. Governance, data, and accountability must move in sync.
Waiting for every legislative detail to settle is risky. Supervisory expectations are already evolving, and regulators will reward proactive adaptation over reactive compliance.
A structured roadmap can help firms stay ahead.
Start with a refreshed risk assessment. Update enterprise wide analyses to reflect fraud to laundering pathways, emerging client vulnerabilities, and new supervisory exposure in professional services. Allocate budget where control weaknesses are most material.
Strengthen core controls. In Canada, implement account level risk features and link them directly to fraud analytics. In the UK, review file quality for source of funds, beneficial ownership, and transaction monitoring. Ensure checklists enforce consistent documentation and justification for risk decisions.
Unify fraud and AML casework. Shared identifiers, integrated databases, and joint dashboards make it easier to demonstrate how fraud indicators led to AML escalation. This not only improves reporting but shows regulators that controls work as a connected system.
Measure results. Set clear indicators such as time to freeze scam payments, number of risk ratings corrected after review, and percentage of suspicious cases with asset recovery potential. Report outcomes quarterly to senior management.
Enhance training. Replace passive e learning with interactive workshops using real files. Focus on emerging typologies, such as economic abuse, cross border fraud, and misuse of legal structures.
Finally, rehearse for inspection. Prepare one central evidence pack containing policies, training records, risk assessments, management information, and sample files. Test the ability to present it clearly under time pressure.
When these steps are combined, compliance programs move from policy adherence to demonstrable effectiveness. That shift mirrors the direction regulators are taking on both sides of the Atlantic.
Criminals will continue to exploit social engineering, digital platforms, and professional intermediaries. Supervisors are reorganising to match that reality. Compliance teams must do the same. The best time to adapt is before the first inspection.
Related Links
- Combatting financial fraud, protecting Canadians against scams and abuse
- Government’s decision on reforming anti money laundering and counter terrorism financing supervision
- Reform of the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing Supervision Regime Response Document
- Anti money laundering and counter terrorist financing supervision report 2023 24
Other FinCrime Central Articles About Regulators Extending Their Reach
- Swiss AML Tightening Exposes Consultancy and Beneficial Ownership Gaps
- Austrac’s upcoming AML regime overhaul and gatekeeper exposure
- Summer Series #8: Rapid FATF and Global Policy Shifts Reshape AML Compliance
Source:
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, 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.
