On 13 October, an article from BCL Solicitors LLP noted that NatWest has pleaded guilty to failures under the UK’s money laundering regulations, but asks if it is it right to call this a ‘failure to prevent’ on its part?  It points out that the same sort of offence (in bribery) has been the basis of several DPA in recent years, in which companies have (in effect) made admissions to the SFO about the guilt of ‘associated persons’.  It explains that, while no criticism seems to be made about the bank’s initial CDD, it then failed to institute ongoing monitoring, or to conduct enhanced CDD as it should have done in later years.  It is noted that it is important to note that the FCA did not have to prove that any offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act occurred, but that nevertheless, the money laundering regulations provided a route to prosecute NatWest for its failure in ongoing monitoring with respect to the customer.  The article argues that a comparison with the offence under section 7 of the Bribery Act is instructive.


Any modest contributions for my time and ongoing expenses are welcomed!  I have a page where you can do so, and where one-off contributions start as low as $3, at https://www.buymea3coffee.com/KoIvM842y

Author: raytodd2017

Chartered Legal Executive and former senior manager with Isle of Man Customs and Excise, where I was (amongst other things) Sanctions Officer (for UN/EU sanctions), Export Licensing Officer and Manager of the Legal-Library & Collectorate Support Section

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: