Having read David Wurtzel's letter, I wonder whether he has any idea of the rules relating to money laundering in the real world (see [2004] Gazette, 9 September, 15).


The reason for the increase in reporting is because solicitors have to report any suspicious financial activity to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and not just transactions that could involve a solicitor in money laundering activities.



Clearly he is unaware that the sharp rise in reports to NCIS comes from ancillary relief applications in family law cases, where payment of the cleaning lady in cash is considered to be a money laundering activity to be reported. I would suggest that before Mr Wurtzel puts pen to paper again, he might read the president of the Family Division's judgment in P v P [2003] EWHC Fam 2260.



No solicitor could possibly object to reporting money laundering, but while the sanctions for a solicitor breaching the regulations are the same whether the sums involved are a £10 payment to the cleaning lady or the unexplained transfer of £50 million, it is not surprising that there is a push to clarify the situation.



As a family practitioner, I often find it difficult to obtain identification from clients. Those who have fled violence are hardly likely to remember to take their passports and bank statements with them, while those who have had to leave their own home for other reasons usually do not have evidence of their address available. More than guidance is required. The whole issue needs to be revisited - and if the courts will not do this, then who will?



Roberta Tish, Roberta Tish Solicitors, London