Report comment

Having read the judgment now, I really am surprised that the firms who basically failed to carry out identity or money laundering checks were not found negligent. I think the case appears to be more significant than it is. The firms in question left their clients wide open to fraud by having failed to carry out their mandatory checks in a diligent way. Its highly unlikely that the frauds would have worked if either firm had done so (one used a TV licence as evidence of identity and did not check the discrepancy on the client's address; the other did not do an identity check used only a utility bill and checked the residential address given despite the client living abroad).