Decisions

The SDT ordered that the allegations against the respondent should be dismissed.

The allegations were that, while in practice as a solicitor, and as manager at MZ Law Solicitors Ltd, the respondent had failed to ensure that the firm had in place a compliant, firm-wide anti-money laundering risk assessment between 26 June 2017 and, at the earliest, 15 April 2020, as required by regulations 18(1) and 18(4) of the Money Laundering Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

She had thereby breached principles 6, 7 and 8 of the SRA Principles 2011 and had failed to achieve outcome 7.5 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011, and had breached principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rules 2.1(a) and 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

The respondent had made a false declaration to the SRA in that the firm had in place a compliant, firm-wide anti-money laundering risk assessment in place, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5 of the SRA Principles 2019 and rules 1.4 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

She had attempted to mislead the SRA by producing a firm-wide risk-assessment document falsely dated 1 January 2020, thereby breaching principles 2, 4 and 5, and rules 1.4 and 7.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs.

The SDT had not found that the factual basis for any of the allegations had been proved to the requisite civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. In these circumstances the SDT was not required to consider the specific breaches of the principles and it dismissed all of the allegations.

The SDT made no order as to costs.