Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome government Amendment 1 and its associated amendments and applaud the Minister for the way he has spoken forthrightly on the human rights agenda and stewarded the Bill, which is a case study in how a Government and a Minister should and can respond to amendments from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers.

At the same time, I crave the indulgence of the Minister, the Whip sitting next to him and your Lordships’ House in returning to a subject which I have raised before—which, I am authoritatively told, has had some impact on the welcome change in the leadership of South Africa. This week marks South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s first 100 days in office. I will be brief, but the official state money laundering and corruption virus he inherited from President Zuma is significantly more virulent and pervasive than even Ramaphosa could have anticipated, made immeasurably worse by the complicity of UK-based global corporates.

Take Hogan Lovells, the international law firm headquartered here in London and in Washington, its role starkly exposed in documents recently released to the parliamentary finance committee in South Africa. In your Lordships’ House, Report on the Bill on 15 January, I first criticised its role for whitewashing corruption by Tom Moyane, chief of the South African Revenue Service, now suspended by the new President. According to these documents, Hogan Lovells kept silent even when its findings related to money laundering and corruption by Moyane’s former deputy, Jonas Makwakwa, and even after Moyane misled the South African Parliament. Through its despicable, fee-grabbing complicity, Hogan Lovells spared these two notorious perpetrators of state capture in South Africa from accountability for their complicity in, and cover up of, serious criminal behaviour, including money laundering and corruption.

At the same time, Hogan Lovells has been undermining the criminal justice system in a series of other cases, as proven by the fearless Forensics for Justice NGO investigator, Paul O’Sullivan. Effectively, Hogan Lovells was acting as former President Zuma’s legal fudger-in-chief.

Brave investigative journalist Pauli van Wyk has exposed lies by the senior partner of Hogan Lovells in South Africa, Mr Lavery Modise. In the Daily Maverick, she pointed out:

“Despite having the benefit of the report by Price Waterhouse Coopers (who actually conducted the investigation), Modise and his team ultimately charged Makwakwa with everything he could explain, and with exactly nothing that he previously struggled to explain, or simply refuse to account for”.


Indeed, the more serious allegations in the PwC report were carefully filtered out of Hogan Lovells’s report, and the firm did not point out that Moyane was preventing critical evidence from being given to PwC.

Hogan Lovells’s most specious piece of lawyer sophistry was to claim that it could look only at the employer-employee issue involved and not at any criminal issue, giving the excuse that the employee, Makwakwa, could otherwise implicate himself. Surely all good employers, and indeed employees, should report on any criminality at their workplace, and surely even more so in the vital state revenue agency when the crime relates to money laundering and tax evasion. Effectively, Hogan Lovells turned a blind eye to the looting of the tax agency. It took a fat fee and ignored the truth. Most astonishing to me is that Hogan Lovells still refuses to acknowledge, let alone apologise for, its complicity, thereby actively supporting those still trying to undermine President Ramaphosa’s reform programme.

The behaviour of Hogan Lovells in South Africa is a classic example of a British-based company obfuscating its behaviour, using the complexities afforded by the law, including client confidentiality, to conceal the crimes of money laundering and corruption. Hogan Lovells fits exactly the behaviour exposed by investigator Pauli van Wyk when she concluded:

“The tale of State Capture ... co-exists in a mutually parasitic relationship where the public purse is the feeding ground and corporates are the enablers and agents of whitewash”.


British based corporates such as Hogan Lovells should be supporting, not thwarting, President Ramaphosa’s anti-money laundering agenda.

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has now declared that Hogan Lovells South Africa is a “connected party” to its UK firm and I therefore request—I hope that I will have the Minister’s support—that the SRA withdraws recognition from Hogan Lovells UK and suspends its UK senior partners from practising here for its scandalous activities in South Africa. I also ask British Ministers to ensure that Hogan Lovells UK receives no more UK public sector contracts until it at least apologises for its shameful and shameless South African role. Additionally I can report that, after I raised this matter at Second Reading in November, the Financial Conduct Authority has recently informed me that it is engaging with the whistleblower who has supplied evidence that I believe should see HSBC prosecuted for conspiracy for facilitating money laundering.

I conclude: unless Ministers ensure that there are penalties for UK-based corporates like Hogan Lovells, HSBC, the Bank of Baroda, Standard Chartered, Bell Pottinger, KPMG, McKinsey—and who knows how many others?—for their complicity in protecting criminals engaged in money laundering in the South African case, I am afraid this legislation will not be worth a candle.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister was asked about safeguards. Can he confirm that the safeguards in the Bill, which we debated at great length in its various stages to ensure fairness to those listed, will apply in exactly the same way to those persons accused of human rights violations as they apply to all those listed for other reasons under the Bill?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked the questions that I considered appropriate. I will not delay the House, but will repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in terms of an amendment we jointly agreed to, ensuring that fair process is considered in relation to this aspect of the Bill.

I very much join other noble Lords in welcoming the Government’s change of heart. There was opposition from the Government on these principles, and we had a successful amendment on human rights being the centre of foreign policy.

I welcome completely the noble Lord’s commitment. My honourable friend Helen Goodman also took the rather unusual step of signing the Government’s Magnitsky amendments, despite the fact that, in Committee, the Government had opposed her own amendments. I welcome very much the new consensus and hope that it is a sign that we can move forward with greater clarity in terms of foreign policy and human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, expressed, the Delegated Powers Committee was very concerned about Amendments 11 and 12. I must say that I found it astonishing to read that yet again, at this late stage of the Bill, the same issues are coming up that we had at the beginning, and to hear the Delegated Powers Committee noting,

“the Department’s failure to explain the width of the powers being granted, and why it is not possible to limit the powers … and to specify on the face of the Bill the persons who are to exercise the powers”.

I hear what the Minister says. I note that the Delegated Powers Committee is reluctantly saying that, if the Lords accepts the way that these amendments have come forward, the powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure in both cases. I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes of the amendments.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very disappointed—at other noble Lords are—at the approach of the Government. All these points were fully debated at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and the constant theme across the House was that it was vital to constrain the powers that Ministers were giving themselves in relation to the Bill. The Minister was very receptive to those concerns and accepted a number of amendments, and it is therefore very disappointing that at this very late stage we see again the same vice. So I share the disappointment and regret that, given the stage we are at, it is too late to do anything about it. But I hope that the Minister will take back to his department our concern and the promise—it is not a threat—that, if similar powers are put before us in another Bill, no doubt noble Lords will have more to say about it.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on this amendment and, of course, I have noted what all noble Lords said and the concerns they expressed. Let me assure them once again—I mention in particular the noble Baroness, who mentioned Amendments 11 and 12—that I will address specifically the powers of the Minister, and give the assurance once again that a detailed response will be provided to the Delegated Powers Committee. I am seeking to ensure that this response will be provided before the Recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we now come to the important issue of criminal offences. This group of amendments would allow powers in the Bill to be used to create criminal offences and penalties in regulations for both sanctions and money laundering breaches, subject to new safeguards.

I say at the outset that I recognise that your Lordships’ House had serious concerns about the inclusion of these powers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in particular, remains very concerned. I assure all noble Lords that once the Bill left your Lordships’ House we continued to listen to those concerns and have sought to address them. That is why these amendments also include an important new procedural safeguard of a requirement to report to Parliament, meaning that the Government have to inform Parliament specifically about the use of the powers to create criminal offences in secondary legislation. This is intended to enable Parliament to be better informed about the use of these powers and to be able to properly hold the Minister to account.

I shall go through each of the amendments in more detail. Amendments 9 and 21 restore the ability to provide for criminal offences and penalties in sanctions and money laundering regulations. In tabling these amendments, I acknowledge your Lordships’ recognition of the importance of rigorous anti-money laundering and sanctions regimes. In order to ensure the robustness of future sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations, corresponding powers to create criminal offences for breaches of those future regimes are necessary so as to preserve the ability of future Governments to impose effective and dissuasive sanctions for breaches of regulations.

I recognise that some in your Lordships’ House had concerns about the scope of these powers when the Bill was first introduced. These amendments address those concerns through additional safeguards, which must be met before the powers can be used. When I come to Amendments 31, 32 and 34, I shall elaborate upon the safeguards, which the Government have discussed with noble Lords since the Bill’s passage through this House.

The amendments restore our ability to enforce sanctions. As noble Lords are aware, sanctions are used to prevent serious threats to national and international peace and security. It is therefore right that breach of them is a criminal offence, and it is also right that penalties should be set at a level that acts as a proper deterrent for these serious crimes. The Bill gives us the ability to set penalties at up to 10 years’ imprisonment, but that does not mean that we will set them at the maximum in every case.

In respect of trade sanctions, offences for breaches of prohibitions made under the Export Control Act 2002 all have maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment. That does not apply to the trade sanction prohibitions created under the European Communities Act 1972, which are capped at two years’ imprisonment, despite the breaches being just as serious a matter. This Bill will enable us to remedy that disparity by harmonising maximum penalties for breaches of all trade sanctions at 10 years.

Currently, breaches of financial sanctions can be punished by up to seven years’ imprisonment, and we plan to continue to set penalties at this level for financial sanctions. We also plan for breaches of other sanctions, such as transport sanctions, to have penalties set to match this level. There will also be offences, such as the failure to provide information when required to do so by law, that require lesser penalties, such as up to two years’ imprisonment, and we do not plan to increase penalties in those areas either.

I have set out in previous debates how the enforceability of new regulations would be seriously weakened without the power to create criminal offences, and how it is not unusual for requirements in delegated legislation to be enforced using criminal penalties. I now turn to the procedural safeguards we have introduced, which I hope will constitute sufficient reassurance to noble Lords who have expressed concerns.

Amendments 10, 25 and 32 introduce the important safeguard of requiring the Government to lay a report before Parliament whenever criminal offences are created or amended in sanctions regulations made under Clause 1 or in anti-money laundering regulations made under Clause 43. The amendments require the report to be laid at the same time as the regulations are laid or when the draft statutory instrument containing the relevant regulations is laid, depending on which parliamentary procedure is used. The report will facilitate effective parliamentary scrutiny of future use of criminal offences in sanctions regulations and goes further than the status quo in enabling Parliament to scrutinise the creation of criminal offences through sanctions or money laundering regulations.

The amendment specifies what elements should be included in these reports. Specifically, this will include: first, the details of the offences that have been created and the requirements to which they refer; secondly, the good reasons why a breach of these requirements should be enforced via criminal offences; thirdly, the maximum prison terms for any offences created which are punishable by imprisonment; and, fourthly, the reasons why those maximum terms have been set at the level they have. I trust noble Lords will agree that these reports will provide increased transparency as to the reasons for creating future criminal offences, and so give both Houses of Parliament a new and solid basis for holding the Government to account on the use of these powers when debating regulations made under the Bill. Nevertheless, the Government remain very aware that creating criminal offences and setting penalties in regulations is a serious matter and not one to be undertaken lightly. We hope that these amendments address that.

I would also like to take this opportunity to assure your Lordships’ House that the requirement contained in Amendment 25—for a Minister, when for whatever reason a report is not laid on time, to make a statement about that failure to the House—does not in any way circumvent the obligation to make the statement. It is an additional requirement, meant to create a further obligation to Parliament that if, for example, there has been some administrative error in publishing a statement, Ministers must provide an explanation to Parliament for that failure.

Amendment 31 is consequential to new paragraph 20A inserted by Amendment 32. The envisaged paragraph 20A(1) of Schedule 2 clarifies the scope of potential offences created for the purposes of the enforcement of requirements imposed by or under regulations under Clause 43.

Amendment 32 also makes the power to create criminal offences in money laundering regulations subject to the requirement for a report to Parliament along the same lines as the amendments for Part 1 of the Bill. This amendment clarifies that the scope of the power for creating future offences is restricted to offences for the purposes of enforcing future anti-money laundering regulations. It is both necessary and, importantly, proportionate.

Amendment 34 ensures that references made to regulations made under Clause 43, with respect to paragraph 15 of Schedule 2, and requirements imposed by regulations made under Clause 43, with respect to paragraph 20A of Schedule 2, also include reference to or requirements imposed by the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. This amendment ensures that new money laundering offences can be created by amending the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. It will therefore enable the Government to create new offences in order to respond, for example, to emerging risks identified by the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing, which was published in October of last year, or in response to the ongoing review by the Financial Action Task Force of the UK’s anti-money laundering and counterterrorist finance regime. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, in the early stages of this Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who is not in his place, expressed the concerns that many of us felt about Ministers being given a power to create new criminal offences and, indeed, to specify maximum sentences. I am very pleased that the Government have recognised a need for safeguards in this context. This is an exceptional circumstance, and I very much hope that the Government will not see this as a precedent to be used in other contexts.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the potential creation of new criminal offences by Ministers was of course the subject of major debate in the Lords, and the Government were defeated. It is the Government’s compromise that we are considering here. I know that the Government and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, spent a great deal of time on this, as did my noble friend Lady Bowles. Noble Lords did not quite get to where they would have liked, but I know that they thought progress had been made. We are therefore content to accept the position that we have reached. However, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes an important point about this not being a precedent.