Can Law Society President Edward Nally be serious when he says that he is considering a court challenge to the money laundering regulations? On what basis? In which court? What jurisdiction is there for a judge declaring invalid the inclusion of the legal profession in the regulations? And for a profession that has traditionally accounted for no more than about 2% of all suspicious activity reports, where does 80% now come from?

Canada would not be the best analogy for him to choose. Britain, unlike Canada, is subject to European law, and Mr Nally may wish to have regard to EU Directive 2001/97EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. It calls for, among other things, the extension of customer identification record keeping and the reporting of suspicious transactions to be extended to professions which have been shown to be vulnerable to money laundering; the inclusion of independent legal professions when participating in financial or corporative transactions where there is the greatest risk of those services being misused for the purpose of laundering the proceeds of criminal activity; and the retention of legal professional privilege unless the legal counsellor is taking part in money laundering activities, the legal advice is provided for money laundering purposes, or the lawyer knows that the client is seeking legal advice for money laundering purposes.


In what way does Mr Nally say the money laundering regulations are therefore in breach of European law, including the Human Rights Act? And how can the courts (which do not declare laws unconstitutional in this country) base a declaration of incompatibility?


Solicitors are doubtless concerned, and may wish to campaign for a change from the politicians who have imposed this regime - but it seems cruel to promise them the hope of a legal remedy without spelling out how this can be achieved.



David Wurtzel, Inns of Court School of Law, London