The Financial Action Task Force in its consultation document ‘Preparation for the 4th Round of Mutual Evaluations’ states that is considering including tax crimes as a predicate offence for money laundering in the context of its recommendation 1. More precisely, it proposes to amend the list of designated categories of predicate offences for money laundering as follows:
- To clarify the current designated category of smuggling by referring to: smuggling including in relation to customs and excise duties and taxes.
- To add a separate designated offence category: tax crimes – related to direct taxes and indirect taxes.
For the private sector, the key result of this change will not be the impact of this change on recommendation 1, which already states crimes punishable by over 6 months of imprisonment be included within the predicate offences, but rather to the obligation to support suspicious transactions under recommendation 13. Thus transactions related to the laundering of the proceeds of tax crimes would have to be reported as suspicious activity.
In the UK, the accountancy sector has sometimes been reluctant to be included within the money laundering regime, in some ways understandable when comparing the requirements of recommendation 13 and the all powerful PoCA 2002 and the all crimes regime, sometimes seeming to ‘gold plate’ the EU 3rd Directive. This can be seen from the differing approaches from some of the 16 supervisory bodies within the UK, some have more urgency than others.
After another year of advising and training accountants and tax advisors in the UK, probably almost 2,000 firms and individuals of all sizes and expertise in total, I am still surprised that most have no concept of the ‘risk based approach’ and that tax evasion is reportable under PoCA. With a lot I get, I do not deal with my clients funds, I have copied their passport, tick, and I have a copy of a utility bill, tick. I have complied in full.
This concept of ‘transaction’ based compliance seems to have seeped down into the sector, people and firms wanting to believe that they are too small to have to report or indeed be seen or even comply. The concept of transactional limits has even been debated in the House of Lords and other Parliamentary review boards so is in any wonder then given the reluctance of the sector as a whole this is the case? This is backed up by the statistic that there are still around 25,000 firms and business in the accountancy sector who just have not registered for supervision.
However, from a point of clarification the main thrust of the FATF review is the mandatory risk based approach for all countries and regulated firms for risk assessment, risk management and mitigation and higher risk concepts. This is removal once and for all of the doubt of being too small for the Regulations, it is not size that matters rather it is the risk. Couple this with tax evasion becoming a predicate office of money laundering; I would hope finally the sector as whole embraces the UK compliance culture; apparently it is not as gold plated as people thought, just ahead of its time.