I doubt whether many money laundering reporting officers (MLROs) will agree with David Corker's rather upbeat view of their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act (see [2004] Gazette, 14 October, 14).


He claims that excessive reporting 'serves no useful purpose to anyone, including the law enforcement agencies'. I suspect that most MLROs would reply that defensive reporting means they sleep more easily at night, knowing they are less likely to become a test case on one of the many areas of uncertainty that he highlights in his article.


Mr Corker seems to think that the courts would be lenient towards advisers on many points of interpretation. However, one can hardly blame a firm for taking the risk of a money laundering prosecution just as seriously as the risk of a subsequent conviction.


As to the difficulties of the law enforcement agencies, surely they have it in their power to assist themselves? They have steadfastly refused to issue clear guidelines on the sort of reports that need not be made.



If the National Criminal Intelligence Service were to suggest a de minimis figure, or actions that firms can safely take while awaiting consent after a disclosure, they might expect more willing co-operation from the professions.



They would also then go some way to addressing various objections to the regime expressed by the Law Society President in recent Gazettes.


As long as so many doubts remain, one can hardly blame MLROs for seeing defensive reporting as a sensible money laundering risk strategy.



Matthew Moore, Web4Law, Sutton Coldfield