{"id":434,"date":"2010-11-30T15:53:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-30T15:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/?p=434"},"modified":"2013-07-22T10:28:40","modified_gmt":"2013-07-22T09:28:40","slug":"30-11-10-accountant-fined-1080-for-a-failure-to-verify-a-client","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/general-news\/30-11-10-accountant-fined-1080-for-a-failure-to-verify-a-client","title":{"rendered":"30.11.10 Accountant fined \u00a31,080 for a failure to verify a client"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"line-height: 14.25pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: 'Georgia','serif'; font-size: 10pt;\">The ICAEW has made the following regulatory decision in a case for a failure to verify a client in accordance with the Money Laundering Regulations.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>Consent Orders made on 1 June 2010<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>With the agreement of Andrew Nigel Hamilton of 38 Dean Park Mews, Edinburgh EH4<br \/>\n1ED, the Investigation Committee made an order that the member be severely<br \/>\nreprimanded, fined \u00a32,000 and pay costs of \u00a31,080 with respect to a complaint that:<\/p>\n<p>In February 2007, Mr A N Hamilton FCA acted for X on behalf of his firm, Y, when he<br \/>\nhad failed to verify her identity or keep records of the evidence obtained, contrary to<br \/>\nsection 18 of the anti-money laundering \u2018Second Interim Guidance for Accountants\u2019<br \/>\nD6448<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The ICAEW has made the following regulatory decision in a case for a failure to verify a client in accordance with the Money Laundering Regulations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,8],"tags":[41,40],"class_list":["post-434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general-news","category-professional-bodies","tag-disciplinary-procedures","tag-regulatory-decisions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=434"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1274,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/434\/revisions\/1274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.moneylaunderingcompliance.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}