The legal profession is anxious to challenge the rigour of the money laundering regulations and the way they have been judicially interpreted.

In particular, it seems unreasonable that we are required to make a suspicious activity report (in most circumstances) for all crime of which we are made aware.


Social workers and other agencies working with children exchange personal data under the terms of the Caldicott Principles. Normally, express or implied consent is required before information may be shared. However, there are exceptions and one of these is 'for the prevention, detection or prosecution of serious crime'. A teenager who tells a social worker that he has stolen £5 is assured that such a minor matter will not be reported. If the same story is repeated to a solicitor then there would usually be a duty to report.


Is this either right or what the legislation intended?


C Langdon, Young Coles & Langdon, Hastings