Category: AML Legislation updates

Latest updates to ML Legislation

  • Money Laundering Transparency & Trust discussion paper

    HM-TreasuryOn 15 July, Dr Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced the launch of the Transparency & Trust discussion paper. This sets out a number of proposals aimed at addressing opaque ownership structures and improving the accountability of company directors, to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations.

    The proposed reforms seek to promote growth by improving confidence in the UK as an open and trusted place to invest and do business. Greater transparency and improved trust will mean honest entrepreneurs and investors are more willing to do business in the UK and are not disadvantaged by those who don’t play by the rules.

    Business success, and therefore economic growth, depends on investors, employees, consumers and the wider public having confidence in business. When companies do business with each other, those transactions must also be built on trust.
    An effective and trusted system that identifies and deals with poor business behavior reassures people that we operate fairly, and encourages honest entrepreneurs to invest in activities promoting growth and employment.

    This paper considers a range of proposals to enhance the transparency of UK company ownership and increase trust in UK business, by linking closing with the new Money Laundering Regulations. This will help:

    • prevent illegal activity
    • better enable companies to be held to account
    • provide businesses, investors, employees and consumers with confidence that companies are acting fairly

    The extensive range of proposals to aid money laundering compliance includes;

    • A central registry of beneficial ownership information  to be held at Companies House
    • Extension of Part 22 of the Companies Act extended to all companies, not just PLC’s
    • Validation checks for submissions of beneficial ownership information
    • Proposals to update beneficial ownership as it changes bringing into question the future of the annual return.
    • Making information more publicly available
    • Extending the investigative powers of the 1985 Act to other law enforcement agencies.
    • The abolition of bearer shares.

    Changes will be made to the Companies Act and will be introduced alongside the 4th Money Laundering directive, from which many of the proposals are taken. This joint legislative change will take place 2014/2015.

  • The Government published its changes to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007

    The Government today published its response to its consultation on changes to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. Following this consultation the Government is now taking forward proposals to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the current regulations, while strengthening the overall anti-money laundering regime.

    The aim of the changes was to make the UK’s money laundering regime more effective and proportionate, with the proposed changes saving firms around £3 million a year. Relevant regulatory changes will take effect from 1 October 2012.

    Criminal Offences
    The Government has decided to keep the criminal penalties in the Regulations. The consultation highlighted key risks inherent in their removal and there is insufficient evidence to indicate that removing them would achieve either the UK’s policy objectives or address the concerns raised. Indeed, the balance of responses indicates that ‘over-compliance’ behaviour is also influenced by other factors that would not be addressed by removing the penalties. For example, businesses may adopt risk-averse and tick-box approaches if it is more cost-effective for them to do so, in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidelines for front line staff, in order to prevent fraud or in order to comply with other legislation including financial sanctions.

    The Government reiterates the point made by the CPS that it is not in the public interest to prosecute employees of regulated businesses for minor, procedural or accidental regulatory failures.

    Reliance Purposes
    The Government is proceeding with the removal of the distinction between Part 1 and Part 2 bodies. Based on recent and continuing work with Supervisors, it is considered that they are discharging their role satisfactorily and that the proposed change is advisable. This was further confirmed in HM Treasury’s first Annual Report on Supervision1. As suggested in some responses, any new supervisors will be placed in Part 2 until they demonstrate ongoing, robust and effective supervision of their members.

    Small Business Exemptions from the Regulations.
    The Government does not propose to introduce an exemption based on the size or turnover of a business, as it acknowledges the absence of a positive correlation between the size of a business and the money laundering risk it represents. The Government also recognises the risk of the exemption leading to ‘smurfing’ and other criminal practices; and the practical difficulties of introducing such a measure.

    The Government understands the ongoing issues faced by some exceptionally small businesses in relation to the costs of compliance and supervision. Supervisors are encouraged to ensure that the risk-based approach translates into effective, differential treatment in terms of the burden of requirements and, where possible, the fee levied.

    Other Changes to be made include;
    Overseas estate agents are to be bought within the Regulations. The UK is required to regulate all estate agents in order to ensure they minimise their vulnerability to money laundering. These businesses should be regulated, both to ensure the UK is fully compliant with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) global standards and EU requirements and because these businesses are at high risk of money laundering.

    Fit & Proper Tests for MSB’s – The EU Directive allows for all criminal conduct to be taken into account. Given the high risk presented by Money Service Businesses (MSBs) and the case made for enabling the fit and proper test to take into consideration all previous criminal conduct, the Government will proceed with this proposal. The MSB sector is a high-risk sector for terrorism financing and money laundering.

    There are a number of issues that have been resolved concerning supervisors’ powers. The widest reaching change is that Government will proceed with the creation of an information-sharing gateway for supervisors. The Government acknowledges the need for safeguards and clarity around the circumstances under which the information can be shared and the nature of the information.

    Given the issue of overlapping responsibilities, the Government considers it essential that a new Supervisor is able to access information from a previous Supervisor when a business/person seeks to register for anti-money laundering purposes.

    A summary of the changes cited as the Money Laundering (Amendment) Regulations 2012 and come into force on 1st October 2012 are;

    • Partly or Wholly Removing Criminal Sanctions & Strengthening Supervisors Powers to Compensate – No Action
    • Removing Distinction Between Part 1 and Part 2 Bodies – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Extending reliance to OFT-Supervised Debt Purchasers – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Introduction of a De-Minimis Exclusion – No Action
    • Exemption of ‘Non-Lending Credit Institutions’ – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Regulation of Estate Agents Handling Overseas Properties – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Clarifying the Definition of Safe Custody Services – The Government response formalises the FSA definition as the one applicable in the UK. FSA to update its website and include in next edition of Financial Crime newsletter
    • Extending Consideration of Previous Criminal Conduct under HMRC Fit and Proper Test – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Introducing Right of Appeal for HMRC Fit and Proper Test – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Clarifying Supervisory Powers – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Creating an Information Gateway for Supervisors – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Regulating to Penalise Misused of HMRC name and logo by Regulated Businesses – HMRC to monitor this abuse and inform HMT if measures to mitigate it are not working.
    • Appointing the FSA as the Supervisor for Recognised Investment Exchanges – Commencement Date 1 October 2012
    • Removing Regulation 18 – Commencement Date 1 October 2012

    Other Changes to the Regulations which were a part of the proposals of the review and call to evidence which are deferred Subject to Revisions to the EU Third Money Laundering Directive expected early 2013

    • Improving Wording on Beneficial Ownership
    • Streamlining the Supervision of E-Money Issuers
    • Appointed Representatives
    • Pooled Client Accounts

  • Landmark decision in Shah v HSBC Private Bank brings welcome relief for firms

    After four and half years, six reported decisions, three trips to the Court of Appeal and 27 days of trial, the High Court of Justice has today dismissed in its entirety Mr Shah and his wife’s claim for over US$300m against HSBC Private Bank (UK) Limited. This is a landmark decision that confirms a bank’s right to delay execution of a customer’s payment instructions and refuse to provide information in circumstances where the bank has a suspicion of money laundering that has been notified to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”).

    Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP reporting on the case state that Mr and Mrs Shah (the “Claimants”) were customers of the Bank. Between 20 September 2006 and 28 February 2007, the Bank delayed the execution of four separate payment instructions given by the Claimants, including an instruction to transfer approximately US$28 million. The reason for the delay was that the Bank held a suspicion that the funds in the Claimants’ account were criminal property and it had therefore made an authorised disclosure to SOCA seeking consent to make the payments. In each case, whilst the Bank was waiting for a response from SOCA (SOCA has 7 working days to respond), the Bank told the Claimants that it was complying with its statutory obligations but declined to provide any further information to the Claimants or their solicitors. Once consent had been given, the Bank complied with the payment instructions except for one instruction which the Claimants had previously cancelled.

    The Claimants lodged a claim against the Bank for breach of contract contending that the Bank’s failure promptly to carry out the payment instructions and to explain the reasons for not doing so had caused them substantial losses (over US$300m) in Zimbabwe. It was alleged that, upon hearing rumours that Mr Shah was suspected of money laundering in the UK, the Zimbabwean authorities became suspicious, froze and then seized Mr Shah’s assets.

    At trial the court was required to consider the following key questions:

    Did the Bank suspect money laundering? and
    Did the Bank have a duty to provide information about the delay?

    Mr Justice Supperstone of the Queen’s Bench Division rejected the Claimants’ claim in its entirety.

  • Revised FATF Recommendations

    The long awaited revised FATF Recommendations on International Standards on Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation was finally published on 16 February. Following several rounds of consultation the revised Recommendations contain no real surprises in the publishes outcome, but a lot of disappointment has been aired by various groups who feel that the FATF has not gone far enough to tackle corruption and tax evasion despite the FATF’s best intentions.

    Serious tax crimes have now been added to the list of predicate offences. The smuggling offence has also been clarified to include offences relating to customs and excise duties and taxes. These changes mean that financial institutions and other regulated business types need to be on the lookout for suspected tax evasion by their clients. This was an area of concern during the consultation phase as many felt that the many, if not most, private sector regulated businesses  lacked the requisite expertise to detect tax crimes and that the playing field remains far from level creating an inequality and further burden for businesses faced with the task of digging out possible criminality. Whereas many countries did not may tax crime a reportable offence, all countries will now need to ensure that tax crimes are included in their anti-money laundering legislation to track down the proceeds of fiscal offences.

    Another area of contention surrounds the identification of beneficial ownership. Despite the intention of clarifying and simplifying the requirement to identify ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) the corporate veil remains. The new requirements for nominee directors and shareholders to disclose their status to the company registry, or be licensed, will start to reduce the risks in relation to the camouflaging of ownership.

    The FATF have finally included domestic politicians in their definition of PEPs removing what was a somewhat ridiculous anomaly. The focus has increased globally with the risk of corruption high on the agenda of the G20. Non-conviction based asset forfeiture now also features on the agenda.

    The former nine Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing are now incorporated into the main 40 Recommendations reflecting the close connection between terrorist financing and anti-money laundering measures. A new addition of proliferation financing has been added to assess countries’ compliance with targeted financial sanctions of UN Security Council Resolutions that focus on the financing of proliferation activities, specifically targeting Iran and North Korea.

    The revised standards are a first step and countries now need to implement their recommendations into law with the new standards being incorporated into evaluations by February 2013. In the UK we would expect the fourth European Directive in be in place by this date, followed closely by our own revised Money Laundering Regulations.

    The long awaited revised FATF Recommendations on International Standards on Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation was finally published on 16 February. Following several rounds of consultation the revised Recommendations contain no real surprises in the publishes outcome, but a lot of disappointment has been aired by various groups who feel that the FATF has not gone far enough to tackle corruption and tax evasion despite the FATF’s best intentions.

    Serious tax crimes have now been added to the list of predicate offences. The smuggling offence has also been clarified to include offences relating to customs and excise duties and taxes. These changes mean that financial institutions and other regulated business types need to be on the lookout for suspected tax evasion by their clients. This was an area of concern during the consultation phase as many felt that the many, if not most, private sector regulated businesses  lacked the requisite expertise to detect tax crimes and that the playing field remains far from level creating an inequality and further burden for businesses faced with the task of digging out possible criminality. Whereas many countries did not may tax crime a reportable offence, all countries will now need to ensure that tax crimes are included in their anti-money laundering legislation to track down the proceeds of fiscal offences.

    Another area of contention surrounds the identification of beneficial ownership. Despite the intention of clarifying and simplifying the requirement to identify ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) the corporate veil remains. The new requirements for nominee directors and shareholders to disclose their status to the company registry, or be licensed, will start to reduce the risks in relation to the camouflaging of ownership.

    The FATF have finally included domestic politicians in their definition of PEPs removing what was a somewhat ridiculous anomaly. The focus has increased globally with the risk of corruption high on the agenda of the G20. Non-conviction based asset forfeiture now also features on the agenda.

    The former nine Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing are now incorporated into the main 40 Recommendations reflecting the close connection between terrorist financing and anti-money laundering measures. A new addition of proliferation financing has been added to assess countries’ compliance with targeted financial sanctions of UN Security Council Resolutions that focus on the financing of proliferation activities, specifically targeting Iran and North Korea.

    The revised standards are a first step and countries now need to implement their recommendations into law with the new standards being incorporated into evaluations by February 2013. In the UK we would expect the fourth European Directive in be in place by this date, followed closely by our own revised Money Laundering Regulations.

  • FATF Release new guidance

    The Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, has revised the Recommendations after more than two years of efforts by member countries. The Recommendations are used by more than 180 governments to combat these crimes. The revisions, made with inputs from governments, the private sector, and civil society, provide authorities with a stronger framework to act against criminals and address new threats to the international financial system.

    The cost of money laundering and underlying serious crime is very large, estimated between 2 and 5% of global GDP. The revision will enable national authorities to take more effective action against money laundering and terrorist financing at all levels – from the identification of bank customers opening an account through to investigation, prosecution and forfeiture of assets. At the global level, the FATF will also monitor and take action to promote implementation of the standards.

    The revised FATF Recommendations now fully integrate counter-terrorist financing measures with anti-money laundering controls, introduce new measures to counter the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and they will better address the laundering of the proceeds of corruption and tax crimes. They also strengthen the requirements for higher risk situations and allow countries to take a more targeted risk-based approach.

    Giancarlo Del Bufalo, the President of the FATF, said:

    “Adoption of the revised Recommendations demonstrates countries’ shared commitment to fight money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

    “The revised Recommendations include requirements for stronger safeguards in the financial sector, strengthened law enforcement tools and improved international cooperation.”

    The main changes are:

    Combating the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through the consistent implementation of targeted financial sanctions when these are called for by the UN Security Council.

    Improved transparency to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to conceal their identities or hide their assets behind legal persons and arrangements.

    Stronger requirements when dealing with politically exposed persons (PEPs).

    Expanding the scope of money laundering predicate offences by including tax crimes.

    An enhanced risk-based approach which enables countries and the private sector to apply their resources more efficiently by focusing on higher risk areas.

    More effective international cooperation including exchange of information between relevant authorities, conduct of joint investigations, and tracing, freezing and confiscation of illegal assets.

    Better operational tools and a wider range of techniques and powers, both for the financial intelligence units, and for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute money laundering and terrorist financing.

    For more information on the FATF Recommendations, please visit the publication page on www.fatf-gafi.org/recommendations

  • Identifying counterfeit euros

    Identifying counterfeit euros – consultation decision

    HM Treasury (HMT) have published the results of their consultation on the UK’s implementation of European Union (EU) Regulations 44/2009 and 45/2009, requiring Currency Exchange Offices and Money Transmitters to have procedures in place selectively to check euro notes and coins using an approved method.

    Following the consultation, the Government has decided to create a new criminal offence for failure to comply with the checking requirements of the EU regulations in relation to counterfeit euros.

    You can read the full report by following the link below.

    UK enforcement measures for EU Regulations 44/2009 and 45/2009 on counterfeit euros on the HMT website (Opens new window)

  • Shah v HSBC: Court of Appeal Says the Identity of Staff Making SARs in Good Faith is Not Disclosable

    Shah v HSBC: Court of Appeal Says the Identity of Staff Making SARs in Good Faith is Not Disclosable

    The Court of Appeal in London ruled on 13 October that HSBC Private Bank did not have to disclose the identity of employees who had made internal reports which had led to suspicious activity reports (“SARs”) being filed with the authorities unless there was a firm suggestion on bad faith on their part.

    The judgment is the result of satellite litigation arising from the more famous 2010 case of Shah v HSBC, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that parties which had suffered loss as a result of SARs being filed were entitled to demand proof from the regulated institution responsible that the suspicion on which the SAR was founded existed.

    On the particular facts of the original case, the High Court ordered HSBC to identify the employees by function, but not by name. The Shahs appealed the court’s refusal to order the disclosure of the names of the employees, and HSBC cross- appealed against the court’s finding that its obligation to make standard disclosure required their names to be revealed in the first place (with the names only being protected by PII, and not as of right).

    The Judgement of the Court of Appeal
    Within HSBC there were three stages of AML reporting:
    1. The relationship manager with a particular client would report any AML suspicion to the compliance department;
    2. The compliance department would report the matter internally to the MLRO;
    3. The MLRO would then, if appropriate, file an SAR with SOCA.

    HSBC had disclosed a series of memos, internal reports, and similar documents. With the exception of the MLRO, the identity of all employees concerned had been redacted; they were identified only by the department (client relationship, compliance or MLRO) that they worked for. The documents did however reveal the information based on which the MLRO formed his suspicion.

    The Test for Disclosure

    The court found that the redacted identities of the employees concerned was not material on which HSBC relied to prove its case. As a result, the relevant question was: is the material either material which would adversely affect HSBC’s case or material which would support the Shahs’ case?
    In answering the question it was important to remember that the issue remaining in the wider case of Shah v HSBC after the previous decision of the Court of Appeal was a narrow one: did HSBC have a genuine suspicion at the time when the SARs were filed? Accordingly, the Shahs did not put forward a positive “case”; they simply sought to test the bank’s case that it did have such a suspicion. For that reason, the court ruled that the only circumstance in which the employee identities would be disclosable was if they adversely affected HSBC’s case.
    The Shahs had stated that two employees of HSBC (“Ms S” and “Mr J”) might have had the motivation to make an internal AML report in bad faith. One had asked for a loan from Mr Shah and been refused; the other had received an abusive email from him after a transaction had been delayed. The Shahs submitted to the court that if any of the anonymous employees concerned in making an internal report turned out to be Ms S or Mr J, they might be able to allege bad faith.

    Refusing disclosure, Lord Justice Lewison commented:
    The more I listened to the explanation of why the claimants wanted the names, the more convinced I became that, to use the familiar cliché, this was a fishing expedition… [the Shahs] did not say that even if Ms S’s name was revealed as one of the sources [the Shahs] would be able to assert bad faith; merely that they might be able to do so. Even that possibility was only tentatively advanced. It is all speculation and surmise.

    The court concluded that, absent a firm suggestion of bad faith by the Shahs, HSBC was entitled to withhold the identity of the staff concerned as being irrelevant to the matter under dispute. For that reason, the bank did not have to rely on the doctrine of public interest immunity.
    Conclusion

    This important judgment provides reassurance to employees of firms in the regulated sector of England and Wales that their identities will be protected if they make internal AML reports, unless there is a firm suggestion that in doing so they acted in bad faith. It also makes clear that there is no absolute requirement to disclose the identity of the MLRO who makes an external SAR, although as a regulated firm is now required to show that it had suspicion if its reporting is challenged, it may be that it will be necessary for the MLRO (if no one else) to come to court and explain why he made the report that he did.

  • 01.09.11 Money Laundering Regulations cease to apply to stocktakers from 1 October 2011

    As part of its review of the Money Laundering Regulations and in order to ensure its effective and proportionate implementation by businesses in the UK, the Treasury has reviewed the risk of money laundering and terrorist finance with HMRC and the Institute of Licensed Trade Stock Auditors.

    As a result the Treasury has announced that stocktakers who do not carry out bookkeeping or other accountancy services will be exempt from the Money Laundering Regulations (MLR) 2007 from Saturday 1 October 2011.

    This means that they will no longer need to register with HMRC.

    This decision also supports the Government’s policy of reducing regulatory burdens on businesses.

    HMRC continue to encourage stocktakers to be diligent and report suspicious activity to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). More information can be found at www.soca.gov.uk.

    Stocktakers who offer bookkeeping or other accountancy services will stay on HMRC’s register.

    From Monday 3 October 2011 HMRC will be writing to the stocktaking businesses already registered with them to give the opportunity to de-register for MLR.

    If you do not receive a letter from HMRC but wish to deregister, you should write to the registration team to let them know. Your letter should include details of your registration number and the reason you wish to deregister.

    The address for applications to deregister is:

    MLR Registration Team
    7th Floor Central
    Alexander House
    Southend on Sea
    Essex
    SS99 1AG

  • 07.06.11 HM Treasury Publish MLR Review

    HM Treasury published its response to the review of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. It is a consultation document requiring responses to be submitted by 30August 2011.

    It separates itself from the obvious areas from which FATF will review their 40 recommendations such as PEP’s and expansion of the regime. These changes will result in the 4th Directive; however with a proposed implementation date of 1 April 2012 we could be in for two sets of new regulations in a short space of time.

    After going through the document there is lots of discussions. However the main ones are

    • Removal of criminal sanctions
    • Increase supervisor powers to mitigate the risk of the removal of the above
    • Reliance to be extended to all professional bodies in Schedule 3
    • De-minimus exclusion to small businesses of euro 15,000 or below annual turnover
    • UK estate agents selling offshore property to be bought into the Regulations, though not letting agents
    • Powers for all supervisors to impose penalties when not allowed to enter business premises
    • Powers to impose penalties for unreasonable behaviour to provide information
    • Supervisor powers to enforce payment of fees and powers of de-registration
    • More freedom for the exchange of information for supervisors.

    There are a lot of general discussions surrounding policies and procedures and general guidance coupled with the risk based approach and the various sectors. Generally it is perceived that it is not so much as “on the shelf” guidance that does any good but those that promote active participation, the ‘toolkits’, that works. In 7.11 on this subject, I think I can take some pride here, since I believe they may be talking about the one I wrote for one of the supervisors and which is possibly going to adopted by two more.

    In reality the document is a reinforcement of the risk based approach, almost a plea to work in that less rigid way, the end of the tick box approach whilst working without fear of prosecution if we should not always get it right. An approach that can only be undertaken if law enforcement, our supervisors and the regulated businesses themselves work towards the same outcome together. If achieved, it should increase compliance at a reduced cost.

  • 17.05.11 Proposed Changes to the ML Regime

    I have just attended the 8th annual conference of IMLPO where two of the key speakers, Edward Garnier QC MP, Solicitor General and Hugh Burns, Head of Financial Crime Team HM Treasury, gave interesting updates to both the international and UK regimes and a time table for new changes.

    Firstly, the FATF 4th round of evaluation, which proposes changes to the way we approach PEP’s and beneficial owners, reinforcing the risk based approach and importantly, including tax evasion, of both direct and indirect taxation as predicate reportable offences of the money laundering regime. These changes will be formally approved at the February 2012 Plenary. It is expected the EEC will have the 4th European directive passed by the end of 2012 to reflect the changes, prompting the UK to adopt the 2013 or 2014 Money Laundering Regulations. 

    Further to these changes HM Treasury will shortly issue there proposals for changes to the UK’s own regime following their ‘call for evidence’ and other reviews of the regime. These proposals will be made available for review and consultation by all interested parties and on finalisation will be included with the implementation of the 4th directive. 

    The proposed changes will include amendments such as including into the regime businesses that offer high value services for cash and a tightening up of how to demonstrate compliance to a supervisor through formal policies and procedures, amongst other adjustments to the regime.

    Also included will be the two proposals made by the Chancellor in his budget speech which caused a bit of a debate. Firstly, it will be the Governments intent to remove criminality from the Regulations aimed at the private sector. This approach was confirmed by the Attorney General and further expanded to aspects of PoCA, namely sections 330 to 332, for the failure to report SAR’s it would not generally be in the public’s interest to take criminal action against the private sector, but instead make a referral to the relevant supervisor for them to deal with or commence civil proceedings for the breach. S336 concerning consent, is also an area on concern which will see an overhaul making life easier for the reporter.  

    Lastly, the one that got everybody excited, is there going to be an exemption to the Regime for smaller businesses? Yes, they want to propose a £15,000 annual turnover exemption from the requirements of the regulations.  This will help many in the accountancy sector who are caught by the regime, such as part time bookkeepers, semi-retired practitioners and those staff members who do a bit extra on weekends and evenings in their own name.  This will also allow new business to get started, before firstly having to the implement ML Regulations.

    I would suggest that the accountancy sector more than any other would benefit from this piece of deregulation.