Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 68ZA and will refer to the other amendments standing in my name. The rationale for this amendment springs from the considerable and widespread concern that there is insufficient democratic oversight of the future anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regime, which together with broad delegated powers will permit any future Government to both bypass Parliament and weaken the UK’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to impose an expressly ameliorative obligation on ministerially created regulation in detecting, investigating or preventing money laundering or terrorist financing, or indeed implementing the standards of the Financial Action Task Force.

When the current Foreign Secretary talks of a low-tax, low-regulation dream of a post-Brexit UK, it will be appreciated that he creates concern over whether this includes deregulating our current anti-money laundering and terrorist financing regime in due course. Given the importance hitherto of the UK’s AML and terrorist financing regime marching in lockstep with the EU, the low-regulation rhetoric has a destabilising impact on the perceptions of our European partners. A low-regulation AML and terrorist financing regime in the UK would of course create a new and substantial weakness in the global battle against economic crime, and would be an allurement to organised crime.

The role of the City as the pre-eminent global financial centre places certain responsibilities on the Government, including the maintenance of a strong and up-to-date AML and terrorist financing regime. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what consideration the Government have given to the adverse effect on access to EU financial markets if UK financial services were subject to an AML and terrorist financing regime diverging materially from the EU regime. Obviously, there will not be an impact assessment of this, but some indication might be helpful.

Be that as it may, the amendment would improve confidence that the UK will not succumb to any temptation to weaken its current regime, and go for a low-regulation regime, in the event that the UK leaves the EU. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Kramer. First let me take a brief moment to set the context. At Second Reading the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that this Bill was,

“about powers and not policy—it is a technical Bill”—[Official Report, 1/11/17; col. 1374].

Later, when replying to the debate, stimulated by comments by my noble friend Lord McNally, he amended his comment that the Bill was technical and said that it was about principles.

I do not agree. I would say that the problem with the Bill is that there are no principles, because they have not been carried over; there are only unconstrained powers. That is even more the case in the money-laundering part of the Bill. The principles, the starting points, are not defined. In fact, current law is undermined—and, as has already been well expounded on previous days in Committee, the good intentions of the current Minister and the Opposition Front Bench are no safeguard for the future.

There is also the widening effect when EU legislation is no longer governed by the policy constraints of EU treaties or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has a particular place in relation to the subject matter of the Bill. In transposition, all that has gone. This leaves us with two fears to address: first, that good law might be wantonly minimised or revoked, and, secondly, that wide powers might be used oppressively or for the wrong purpose. Both those prospects take advantage of the inadequacy of statutory instruments as a way to deal with fundamental matters.

Amendment 68A, which would replace Clause 41, Amendment 69E, which is about standards and designations, Amendment 72A, which would delete Clause 44(3), and Amendment 69A, which deals with exemptions from amendment and revocation, together address the fears that I have outlined. Before getting into the detail I will explain how they fit together. Of course, at this stage they are probing and illustrative, and I know that they are not perfect.

Amendment 68A would delete Clause 41 and replace it with an anchored principle that the money laundering regulations 2017 will continue, and that if they are to be amended, it must be done by an Act of Parliament. Amendment 69E, which could have been rolled up into the same amendment but stands separately, would provide an exception to the requirement for an Act of Parliament for amendment, and would allow for regulations to follow Financial Action Task Force standards and to update the definition of high-risk countries.

I think that there is general agreement that that is needed, but within that context—my Amendment 69E is not perfect in this respect—I have to caution that following FATF standards does not necessarily take into account civil liberties, so a framework of policy is also needed for that. Clause 41 does not give any guarantees of any such framework being carried over, and that aspect needs more attention. So the two amendments that I have outlined lay the general shape as I see that it should be. There are, however, many ways in which the provisions of the Bill, and elsewhere, can render complete change or revocation to whatever shape is laid out.

Amendment 72A to Clause 44(3) would remove the prospect of shape shifting from within the Bill. It would remove the potential to change, by regulation, the definitions of terrorist financing that were themselves made in separate Acts of Parliament that did not envisage change by regulation.

Amendment 69A is there to remind us that shape shifting and revocation options exist externally of this Bill via the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which can, by regulation, revoke all or part of any Act or regulation in the name of efficiency. Of course, there is no escaping the fact that procedures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing must impose burdens, which to some means inefficiency. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, has already hinted at some of that. Amendment 69A would, therefore, exempt from revocation or amendment under the two Acts that I have just mentioned.

As regards the deletion of Clause 41, I, too, have had emails from NGOs and others raising concern about the lowering of standards, including one from Global Witness suggesting that Clause 41 be narrowed to permit only enhancement of legislation. I appreciate that is what the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, sets out to do, and I borrowed some of the language from that to use in one of my amendments. However, the problem is that it is not only in Clause 41(1) that legislation can be done away with by regulation. It appears again, particularly in Schedule 2, where, under paragraph 20, there is carte blanche to change or revoke the money laundering regulations 2017, and one can only interpret that as some kind of intention so to do. I have already mentioned the withdrawal Bill—Clauses 7 and 17 of that Bill are prime suspects—and the “revoke anything” provision in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. So we need to do more to protect against revocation of things that we do not want to see revoked.

On the other fear, of being overbearing, there is the prospect that the already wide definitions of money laundering or terrorist financing could be extended. This is where Clause 44(3) comes in, which uses Clause 1 to modify definitions of terrorist financing that appear in the four other pieces of legislation mentioned in Clause 41(3). Thus Clause 1, which we have already heard quite a lot about as regards the sanctions part of this Bill, now creeps into the anti-money laundering part. It is also worth reminding ourselves that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has already said in paragraph 37 of its report that each of prevention, detection and investigation have the potential to allow the grant of significant powers affecting the rights of individuals and bodies—and that is before any tinkering with the definition of terrorist financing and before considering the removal of European protections on civil liberties.

Of course, under Clause 1, one of the objectives for change includes furthering a foreign policy objective of the United Kingdom. I pointed out on the first day of debate how UK terrorist legislation was used to freeze the assets of Landsbanki for having reckless capital adequacy and interest rate policies. This was what got them into difficulty—things that were nothing to do with terrorism. Is that the kind of thing that in future might be a foreign policy objective? In that particular instance, I know that it was cooked up in the Treasury. But what guarantees are there against all kinds of disconnected foreign policy objectives? All that flows from Clause 1 becomes relevant in the money-laundering part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

The Minister said that the reason this is done in regulations is because telling a bank how to do its due diligence is too detailed for primary legislation. But he is rather overstating the case, because Regulation 18 of the 2017 money laundering regulations says that, “A relevant person”—this would be the bank—

“must take appropriate steps to identify and assess the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing to which its business is subject”.

The first requirement there is:

“In carrying out the risk assessment required under paragraph (1), a relevant person must take into account … information made available to them by the supervisory authority”,


under Regulation 17. If you go back, you find that the supervisory authority has to take notice of what the Treasury and the Home Office have said. So this is a cascade that automatically updates. If there is a new risk, the Government identify it, along with mitigating measures, and tell the supervisors, which devise ways to update the information for their sectors. Then the onus is still on the individual businesses to work out how to do this. Yes, there is a list of factors to include, but it is within the power of the Government to say, “This is an extra factor; it does not even need any legislation”. However, it embeds the duties of the Government to have a position and to come out with their reports and then the duties of the supervisors. None of that is definitely retained, because everything to do with this money laundering directive can be rubbed out. So it is not about the excruciating detail that the Minister says it is—the excruciating detail comes from the supervisors.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but it is not about—to use her term—the excruciating detail. Secondary legislation—with parliamentary scrutiny—provides the Government with the ability to react to rapidly changing circumstances. Relying on primary legislation would not allow the Government to do that. We have a difference of opinion in that regard—but, on the point she made, guidance to financial institutions would follow whatever legislation and whatever rules and laws prevail at that given time.

I turn to Amendment 69A. After the EU (Withdrawal) Bill receives Royal Assent, the powers under the Bill as they are drafted will allow changes to the money laundering regulations 2017 and to the funds transfer regulation which are appropriate to prevent deficiencies that arise as a result of the UK ceasing to be a member of the European Union. It will not enable any other changes to be made. I note that the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, are aware of the need to make such changes to the money laundering regulations 2017, as demonstrated by Amendment 69D, which we will discuss later today. However, the Government’s approach in this area is to ensure continuity for regulated firms, and certainty for businesses as to the nature of the obligations with which they need to comply.

In order to ensure that our anti-money laundering regime makes legal sense on withdrawal from the EU, we anticipate laying brief regulations made under the power in Clause 7 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill so as to fix a limited number of deficiencies within the money laundering regulations and the funds transfer regulation. Our approach will make amendments such as—for example—removing references to the Government needing to have regard to reports published by the European Commission and to the Government having to file notifications of risk assessments with EU institutions. It would not be appropriate to keep these obligations, as I am sure noble Lords acknowledge, once the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union.

Given the necessity for such changes in order to have functioning UK law, I do not agree with Amendment 69A, which would remove the ability to make these necessary fixes to our existing laws. Being unable to make necessary changes of the type that I describe would not take account of the fact—the basic fact—that the UK will have ceased to be a member of the European Union.

Legislative reform orders that derive from the 2006 Act are designed to reduce the regulatory burden rather than achieve any policy changes. They must meet a number of preconditions before they can be used to reduce regulatory burdens. Most importantly, they are not allowed to remove any necessary protection, and are therefore not a risk to regulatory safeguards within the money laundering regulations 2017.

I do not agree with the proposed exclusion of a useful tool to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering regimes can be simpler, easier to understand and easier to comply with, while ensuring—a point well made by the noble Baronesses in speaking to their amendments—that standards are not driven down, which I agree with, and the strength of the system is maintained. That is another point of principle I agree with.

I hope the Committee will also consider how legislative reform orders are used. There is no convention to use them to make controversial changes, and the preconditions in the 2006 Act will always apply. I believe that the preconditions of the 2006 Act are the appropriate way of constraining the use of its powers. Further, disapplying legislative reform orders in a single case might suggest that it would be appropriate to use them in other similar contexts.

I turn now to the proposed new clause contained in Amendment 69E that would limit amendments to the money laundering regulations 2017 to only those which implement standards published by the Financial Action Task Force, or that identify or revoke a designation of a high-risk third country. I should add that I am again grateful that within the clause both noble Baronesses recognise that new powers are required to update the UK’s money laundering regime after we leave the EU.

The Government are committed to playing a leading role in shaping global anti-money laundering standards through our membership of the Financial Action Task Force. Noble Lords will be aware that we led a successful campaign through the FATF to clarify that only some charitable organisations, such as those working in conflict zones, are vulnerable to terrorist financing, and in doing so improved the ability of civil society organisations to function and receive funding. We have also actively worked to clarify the obligations on the private sector to share financial intelligence. In doing so, we are addressing a key priority for the private sector, which consistently delivers the message that we will be better able to manage financial crime risk if it is able to share more information regarding suspicious customers.

It is right that the Government have the power to update the UK regime when such standards change. There are, however, several areas where the UK’s anti-money laundering regime already goes beyond these standards. Our recently established register of trusts generating tax consequences, for example, goes beyond the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. Similarly, the decision at Budget 2015 to regulate virtual currency exchanges for the purposes of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing did not reflect an expectation of the Financial Action Task Force—it went beyond and it was a policy decision to which we expect to give effect through transposing amendments to the fourth EU anti-money laundering directive.

Although we will remain aligned with Financial Action Task Force standards after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU, our anti-money laundering regime already exceeds its standards in certain areas and we will wish to ensure that our defences against misuse of the financial system remain ahead of global standards, rather than solely reflecting them. Ensuring that we can make regulations so as to detect, investigate and prevent money laundering or terrorist financing, as well as to implement the standards of the Financial Action Task Force, is the most certain method of placing future changes to our anti-money laundering system on a sound legal basis. Adopting the amendment would limit our ability to do so in future.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I concede that maybe we should have said “be at least as strict as”, but there is nothing in the Bill that says we are going to maintain and be ahead of global standards. We would all be a great deal happier if there were something in there indicating that standards would be maintained. We know there are good intentions, the Government have been doing good things and the Front Bench opposite would do good things, but it is not there in writing. That is what is fundamental to this: the principles are not fixed.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging the actions that this Government have taken and—I am sure I speak for the Front Benches—for the faith that she has in both Front Benches. I have listened carefully to her point. The point that I am making is that the UK has already shown that through our commitment to the FATF, which we will continue to be part of. Not only are we complying but we are leading, and that role will continue and indeed be strengthened by the UK’s membership of the FATF. The objectives and obligations that it asks member states to adhere to will continue after we leave the EU.

I turn to Amendment 72A. The definition of terrorist financing contained in Clause 41 of the Bill is identical to that which already exists in the 2017 money laundering regulations. This definition provides that “terrorist financing” means an act that constitutes an offence under various legislative provisions, being sections of the Terrorism Act 2000; the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 and the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010.

As noble Lords will note, elements of the definition of terrorist financing within Clause 41 cross-refer to secondary legislation that creates a criminal offence; namely regulation 10 of the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011. This provides that any person who contravenes prohibitions contained elsewhere in those regulations commits an offence relating to the financing of terrorism. The offences created through those regulations play an important role in deterring the financing of terrorist organisations. Regulation 14 of those regulations further provides that a person guilty of the relevant offence is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years’ imprisonment or to a fine or indeed both.

Clause 1 of the Bill provides that an appropriate Minister may make sanctions regulations where doing so would further the prevention of terrorism, whether in the UK or elsewhere. It is possible that such regulations made under the powers conferred by Clause 1 could impose targeted sanctions and penalties similar to those that are established through the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011, and which are already captured within the definition of terrorist financing within the 2017 money laundering regulations. If such regulations are made, they will effectively update the UK’s regime for counterterrorist financing. I am sure noble Lords will also note that the reference in the definition to the Terrorist Asset Freezing Act etc. 2010 will become obsolete when Part 1 of that Act is repealed.

In these circumstances, it is right that the definition of terrorist financing within Clause 41 of this Bill can be updated so that the UK’s counterterrorist financing framework can be applied consistently, working off a single definition of terrorist financing. Clause 45(5) of the Bill provides that any regulations updating this definition would rightly be made through the draft affirmative procedure, providing Parliament with an opportunity for fully scrutinising any such changes. In the absence of such a power, the Government would otherwise be obliged to maintain a definition of terrorist financing within this legislation that could quickly go out of date and so limit the effectiveness of our response to the financing of terrorist groups.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, there are a lot of regulations going on here that interact with one another. Will they be considered one by one, so that they can be looked at comprehensively, or will they come in a great big wodge—akin to the sort of thing we get on money laundering?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that there are times when it makes sense to discuss certain regulations together in a group. At other times, they will be discussed individually. We will certainly look at the context of each regulation and introduce it in the appropriate manner. The key point I would make in all this is that, under the procedure we have adopted, we want to ensure that there is effective scrutiny.

I totally accept the point of principle and have noted our difference of opinion on the point made by both noble Baronesses and others on primary and secondary legislation. However, I have explained why the Government believe their approach is the right one. I also appreciate the patience of Members of the Committee in our detailed discussions setting the context, which I am sure will be reflected in our discussions today. I thank noble Lords for their patience and indulgence, and hope that they are minded to withdraw or not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment is directed against all those who would corrupt the integrity of our system and allow our country to be a safe haven for the proceeds of crime. I very much hope that your Lordships’ House will support it, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I have only a little bit to add on this—you may be relieved to know—because I was present during, and participated in, the debates on the Criminal Finances Bill. I saw that this amendment had been tabled and I was available at the time, and I thought that because there had been so much support for it during the passage of that Bill I had better get my name on this amendment quick, before the list got full up. That is why I am second on the list of names attached to the amendment. I did not table an amendment myself because I did not think that it was right to steal somebody else’s good work when I expected that something like this would arrive.

Almost everything has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. This is something that needs to be done, and this is an opportunity to do it. It would need very persuasive reasons for me to concede that it should not be done now. As I did at Second Reading, again I remind noble Lords of the context which stretches across everything to do with money laundering and transparency, and that is that the eyes of the EU are upon us. These issues, such as people purchasing property in London with dubious money, are ones on which I often heard accusations when I was chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. I was often trying to do something useful for the UK, and one weapon to try to take out my contribution was to attack the UK for not being such a good place because we allowed money laundering and the proceeds of money laundering to reside here in the UK and elsewhere. It is in that context that I suggest to the Minister that he looks kindly on this amendment and sees too that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says, now is the time to do it.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I apologise for not having been involved in previous aspects of the Bill, but I participated in the Criminal Finances Bill, and particularly on this area. As we have a new Minister, I shall use that excuse to develop a bit of what we have from history to assist his briefing. But it is a matter of regret that people still consider the UK, and London in particular, a bolthole for dirty money. London is not nicknamed “Londongrad” for no reason.

There is the legacy of the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, to whom I pay a massive tribute on this issue. He took a bigger stand than any previous Prime Minister, and I shall quote him on the record, because it is important. He made that speech in Singapore in July 2015, and he could not have been clearer. I shall quote three or four paragraphs, because it is important to what I want to say and the examples I want to give.

He said that,

“this is a challenge for everyone – including ASEAN, including Britain. We too must get our house in order – and we are. And that is why the UK government has legislated to ensure that from next year, Britain will become the first major country to establish a publicly accessible central registry showing who really owns and controls all British companies.

This will open up a new era of corporate transparency in Britain. But, of course, it will only apply in Britain and for British companies. So the aim should surely be for others to follow. To really tackle corruption effectively, we need to be able to trace data from one country to another. We don’t want criminals to be able to go unnoticed, just because they move money across borders or have assets in different countries. The torchlight should be able to follow them. If we are to win, we must make sure that there is nowhere to hide.


So I’ll continue to make the case for transparency with international partners – including the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. And I am willing to go further, and take concrete steps to force the pace. And that includes looking at whether we can get foreign companies investing in the UK to step up to the same level of transparency.


Now with £122 billion of property in England and Wales owned by offshore companies we know that some high-value properties – particularly in London – are being bought by people overseas through anonymous shell companies, some of them with plundered or laundered cash. Just last week, there were allegations of links between a former Kazakh secret police chief and a London property portfolio worth nearly £150 million.


I’m determined that the UK must not become a safe haven for corrupt money from around the world. We need to stop corrupt officials or organised criminals using anonymous shell companies to invest their ill-gotten gains in London property, without being tracked down”.


It was a seminal speech and an incredible read from a British Prime Minister. In some ways, I much regret that we do not get the same thing from the present Prime Minister, because it looks as though things have gone a bit flaky.

As part of the briefing for the Bill, Global Witness and Transparency International produced some of their previous examples. I will not go through them all but there are a couple that I want to raise. The research from Transparency International identified £4 billion-worth of property bought in London with suspicious wealth. Where information is available, Transparency International has found that 98% of the companies involved in the purchases are based in secrecy jurisdictions and that 90% are incorporated in the British Virgin Islands alone. Among this information—Global Witness was a partner—it was revealed that a £147 million property on London’s Baker Street could be linked back to Rakhat Aliyev, the former head of the Kazakh secret police, as referenced by the Prime Minister.

This made me go back to my monopoly chart, which was provided on the first kleptocracy tour of London in February 2016, when Members were invited to go with journalists to various places in London to hear the story of various properties, who bought them and where the money may have come from. The properties in Baker Street of Rakhat Aliyev, the former KGB chief, and their location in the building were pointed out—we had the address and the postcode. He could never have purchased those properties from his salary; it would have been absolutely impossible. We have to be careful about tracking him down because, in 2015, he was found dead in his prison cell in Austria—he had been up to other things and had been arrested.

There were other properties listed on the chart, but I am not going to go through any more of them because the examples are always there. When we have examples like this, we cannot just ignore them. But nothing seems to happen. Journalists, investigators and people who want a democratic, open, transparent and modern rule-of-law Russia come to London to look at the situation and to talk to people. However, there are issues relating to what we have done so far.

I shall come to the Land Registry in a minute, but the brief from Transparency International went on to say that its analysis of the recent Land Registry data, and that of Who Owns England? and Global Witness, revealed that in the two years since the property register was promised, nothing had changed. Financial investigators, civil society and the wider public are still in the dark about the real people behind the 86,397 properties in England and Wales owned by companies registered offshore in the secrecy jurisdictions. The analysis found that, just in 2015, 87% of all the properties owned by overseas companies had an owner in a secrecy jurisdiction, and 57,318 were owned by companies registered in the British Overseas Territories, jurisdictions which do not publish.

Over the last two years the UK Government have made some progress in tackling corruption and money laundering and set the global standard on beneficial ownership transfers by launching a public register of companies—and in the last Parliament, of course, they introduced the unexplained wealth orders. But we need to know who is behind the companies, and where their money has come from. That is absolutely crucial. Otherwise the proceeds of crime will continue to pour into the UK, particularly into London. Evidence has been given to the consultation that closed in March 2017, but as of today there are no results.

Before I make my final point, I advise the Minister, as I did his predecessor, to see the film “From Russia with Cash”—and I think there is also one called “From Ukraine with Cash”. They are easily available, and watching them would benefit the wider debate about what is actually happening here, in this country. I want to refer to the text of the amendment, regarding bids for UK contracts, because the same issue was raised by David Cameron in his Singapore speech. This should not just be about property, but also about overseas companies bidding for contracts in the UK. We should know who owns them.

Let us see how far we have got in the UK. David Cameron said in his Singapore speech that as a first step, he had asked,

“the Land Registry this autumn”,

that is, autumn 2015,

“to publish data on which foreign companies own which land and property titles in England and Wales. This will apply to around 100,000 titles held on the Land Register”.

One evening last week I put that to the test, and applied to the Land Registry for the overseas ownership data. I went through all the seven steps on the website: status, names, date of birth—which I thought was a bit irrelevant, but I filled it in—address and telephone number; I went through the process to prove I was not a robot, and then I agreed the terms. Fortunately, I was able, as I went through it all, to print each page, so I know exactly what information I gave. However, when I came to step 7—downloading the data sets—it said, “Please note these download links will only remain valid for 4 minutes 47 seconds”. After five minutes my little computer said that there were four minutes still to go—at which time, of course, the thing closed down. So I tried it again, and got exactly the same results.

No wonder people cannot find out information, on the basis of things that we have already done, and which we boast about. We are asking the Government to go further than they have already gone with regard to overseas companies, but it is being made difficult to access what is supposed to be there already for public access. There was no cost, and every step was completed, but I ended up with less than five minutes to download. Perhaps that is down to the barmy broadband speeds we have failed to provide. I was in central London when I tried to do this, by the way; I was not at home in Shropshire. This is crazy, and the Minister needs to look at it—although I may have done something completely wrong, in which case I will take advice.

I just want to strengthen what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said during the earlier attempts to do this. I realise that this discussion will definitely upset a lot of people, as the previous Prime Minister said. However, the fact of the matter is that so much money is piling into London—leaving aside the rest of the country—that there will come a time when it will put our economy at risk. We are talking about huge amounts. The National Crime Agency is concerned about it and people in that agency are on record as having said various things. It looks as though the instruction has been given, “Turn a blind eye to this money coming in because it is good that it comes in”. The fact that it is completely distorting London property prices and making London another country within the UK is beside the point.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

69B: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Failure to prevent money laundering
(1) A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits a money laundering facilitation offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with B.(2) For the purposes of this section “money laundering facilitation offence” means—(a) concealing, disguising, converting, transferring or removing criminal property under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (concealing etc);(b) entering into an arrangement which the person knows, or suspects, facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use, or control of criminal property under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (arrangements); or(c) the acquisition, use or possession of criminal property, under section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (acquisition, use and possession).(3) It is a defence for B to prove that, when the money laundering facilitation offence was committed, B had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B from committing such an offence.(4) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine, or(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether—(a) any relevant conduct of a relevant body, or(b) any conduct which constitutes part of a relevant criminal offence,takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.(6) In this section, “relevant body” and “acting in the capacity of a person associated with B” have the same meaning as in section 44 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 (meaning of relevant body and acting in the capacity of an associated person).”

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, this amendment introduces a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent money laundering. The UK already has two failure to prevent corporate criminal offences. The first is in Section 7 of the Bribery Act and the second was introduced recently in the Criminal Finances Act for tax evasion. The wording of the proposed offence is modelled on those existing offences, especially the more recent one that uses the form of facilitation.

Proposed new subsection (2) contains a definition of what the money laundering facilitation offence would be. Proposed new subsection (3) introduces the defence of adequate procedures being in place. The other proposed new subsections follow the format already established in earlier, similar offence types specifying fines, and also cover behaviour outside the United Kingdom.

The money laundering regulations 2017 already establish provisions about procedures for businesses most likely to be used for money laundering. Under those regulations, there are substantial regulatory fines for a company that fails to comply. However, regulatory fines, even large ones, are often taken as a cost of doing business, and they do not have the same impact on a company as a criminal conviction, which is taken much more seriously by both the company and the directors. As a consequence, it makes them sit up and take notice about the controls that are in place and the quality of their internal audit procedures.

In tandem with the possibility of entering into a deferred prosecution agreement, a “failure to prevent” can be a very powerful tool, both as a deterrent and a means of prosecution. Why do we need it? It is a well-known fact that, in the UK, it is almost impossible to find a large company guilty of a criminal offence because our criminal law applies a doctrine of intent derived from law relevant to an individual. Corporate intent requires the finding of a senior responsible individual or “directing mind”—and that is next to impossible in large companies where directors are not regarded as able to know everything and, indeed, the concept of collective responsibility of boards effectively prevents it. It can pay not to even look too hard. For small companies, a director is far more easily assumed to know everything. With little likelihood of being prosecuted in a large company, there is also little incentive for it to enter into a deferred prosecution arrangement—and that is reflected in prosecution statistics. Various other factors taken into account all favour large companies against small companies. Our law is unbalanced.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance itself says under its “further evidential considerations” in paragraph 21:

“The smaller the corporation, the more likely it will be that guilty knowledge can be attributed to the controlling officer and therefore to the company itself”.


As long ago as 2010, the Law Commission, at paragraph 5.84 of its consultation paper 195 called the identification doctrine,

“an inappropriate and ineffective method of establishing criminal liability of corporations”.

The Attorney-General was not able to prosecute firms for LIBOR and the observation was made by the Telegraph’s chief business correspondent in 2016 with regard to LIBOR and Forex that,

“we outsource corporate accountability for criminality in the City to US prosecutors”.

The same story is repeated for money laundering. The US achieved deferred prosecution agreements against HSBC and a fine of £1.2 billion. In the UK, only regulatory investigations have been opened, and commentators have blamed the identification regime. Jonathan Fisher QC told the press that it would be “difficult and clumsy” for the FCA to criminally prosecute HSBC as the FCA,

“would have to show that a director or some other controlling mind in the parent company in London knew all about the alleged misconduct”.

So there are rewards for ignorance. Indeed, if any noble Lords watched the appearance of the HSBC chair, CEO and chair of audit before the various Commons Select Committees that they made appearances at, they would have seen that the issue of internal audit was one of the issues that was probed—without success. Sitting and saying nothing is by far the safest option.

The UK introduced a failure-to-prevent offence for bribery in Section 7 of the Bribery Act. The effect of that was reinforced by the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements in 2014. It is useful to consider the effect of the “before and after” of those provisions by looking at BAE, which represents the situation before, and Rolls-Royce, which represents the situation after. Before Section 7 of the Bribery Act, we had the longest-running bribery investigation ever: BAE settled with the SFO. I quote from the blog of David Corker, another lawyer specialising in financial crime litigation, who said that,

“BAE’s obduracy resulted in a humiliating settlement for the SFO and a profound defeat for the interests of justice … BAE was able to dictate the terms of the SFO’s surrender: a plea of guilt to an obscure books and records offence buried away in the Companies Act, the payment of a trifling gratuity to faraway governments at BAE’s discretion”—

that is, BAE chose whether to pay it or not—

“and an everlasting immunity for all its employees who had conducted and overseen the bribery”.

No wonder it was called “humiliating”.

In the “after” scenario in 2017, after Section 7, Rolls-Royce admitted its systemic corruption, paid a fine of £500 million and, instead of seeking immunity for its employees, committed itself to helping the SFO. The need for, and effect of, such a corporate criminal offence are therefore clear. Without such an offence, it will continue to be extremely difficult to prosecute large companies for money laundering offences and the UK will continue to outsource its justice to the United States. Again, I pray in aid the EU situation—but it is unlikely to impress in Brussels, which is progressively turning the handle on these issues and is well able to have them in a list of regulatory requirements that need to be in place to gain any equivalence, or any deal, on financial services.

I turn to Amendment 69C, which requires that if the correct anti-money laundering procedures are not in place—meaning that there had been a corporate conviction of a failure to prevent money laundering—the Secretary of State should ask the court to investigate whether the directors were fit and proper. An automatic finding that they were unfit is not intended; the intention is to mirror what happens under competition law where, following a breach of competition law, the director’s role is looked at. It is already possible for the Secretary of State to refer to the court under their own volition, but I am seeking that there should be some kind of routine follow-up to see whether the directors were, in effect, wantonly negligent or disregarding of their duties, in particular with regard to how they handled internal audit.

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins—who submitted Amendment 69F, calling for a public consultation on corporate liability—will note the overlap with the issues of their concern. I will be interested to hear what is said. Personally, from the general evidence available—including from the Law Commission as long ago as 2010—I am not sure whether consultation is needed on the need to reform corporate liability in general. It is a matter of getting on with it and doing it. There are other areas in which the whole identification doctrine rears its head. Hopefully they will be looked at in due course—but right now, I believe that in the field of economic crime, where we have the precedents for failure-to-prevent offences, the mechanism is known and has been effective and we should proceed to avail ourselves of it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to undertake to write to the noble Lord in response.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend. I am conscious that there are issues of due process around consultation, but forgive me if I also think that there was a bit of fancy footwork going on with the alacrity with which a call for evidence went out during the progress of the Criminal Finances Bill, when some distinguished Members of the other place started to take a great deal of interest in including an offence of failure to prevent. It is the best part of nine months since then and probably three months since I was contacted and asked whether it was okay to publish my submission to the call for evidence. I said yes, but still nothing has been published. I do not know why we cannot see some of the responses separately from the response of the Ministry of Justice.

However, one thing that has been established is that we have a pretty rubbish criminal regime on corporate liability. Something has to be done. In that context, it would be good to know how long the Minister thinks it might take for the Government to analyse whether any good has been done by having a second failure-to-prevent offence on tax evasion. I gave an exposition of how good it is to have one, and it will not be shown to be any weaker vis-à-vis tax evasion than it is vis-à-vis bribery. Therefore, to require specific evidence within the economic crime sphere is probably overegging it.

The Minister referenced fines, and there will potentially be more fines under the money laundering regulations 2017. I accept that, as well as what he said about the senior managers regime—but ultimately you have to be able to bet to board level. It is, importantly, board members who ultimately control how much resource goes to internal audit. That is behind the director disqualification point. It is always somebody further down, not the people at the top—the people who are able to pass the buck to some junior person who may not necessarily have been given the resources. They are the ones who carry the can, mainly in the senior managers regime.

I therefore hope that the Minister will listen to and think about these points, and consider how much use the Secretary of State is making of the potential for director disqualification when it is discovered that procedures have not been in place in the regulatory environment. The Secretary of State could still say, “Right, I want investigations of whether the directors are fit and proper because they have allowed these things to go on within the companies for which they are ultimately responsible”.

[Lord Hain]

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Collins would consider putting this amendment to a vote on Report. I worry that the consultation will go on for so long that the Bill will have passed through this House—and possibly the Commons as well—before we have a chance to vote on this important failure to prevent offence.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his support. It is certainly a matter to which we will return—not least because the other place has shown interest in this subject. There are problems with the timing; it may be on the never-never, as he suggests. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 69B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

69D: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Money laundering: technical amendment
(1) Until two years after exit day, as defined by section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2017, an appropriate Minister may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692) in order to—(a) replace references to EU directives and regulations with corresponding references to UK legislation;(b) transpose references to European Supervisory Authorities and any review, report, guideline or Regulatory Technical Standards requirements of the European Supervisory Authorities into corresponding requirements of UK supervisory bodies with any obligations to take account of international developments and to consult also being carried over;(c) transpose requirements for European Commission reports into report requirements from the Treasury and Home Office, including any obligation to take account of international developments;(d) transpose references to delegated acts into provisions for regulations made by the affirmative procedure;(e) update references relating to EEA passport rights or replace them with any corresponding or negotiated right; (f) amend definitions of credit institutions and financial institutions or any other definition lists to eliminate EU cross-references and establish corresponding entity lists;(g) convert any amount in euros to sterling;(h) modify or delete provisions relating to the EEA to retain reference as appropriate or combine with third country provisions;(j) replace reference to the identifying of high risk third countries by the Commission with corresponding UK procedure that takes account of international provisions.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, the amendment is a very probing amendment—a very “proby” probing amendment—and an illustration of what technical changes could look like, not just with the money laundering regulations but in financial services more generally. It is a vehicle to discuss further what transposition from an EU directive means. The interest is in the contrast between the sorts of things I am going to talk about and what happens through the withdrawal Bill. I drafted the amendment as an add-on to preserved money laundering regulations. While it could be what Schedule 2 could look like, it could be used in the context of the withdrawal Bill, which I understand has to be even more generic. However, it all looks rather “smoke and mirrors” and is not clear on the scope of what might be considered appropriate or redundant, or what might emerge from it. I confess that what I have produced was initially based on my own little check-list of what I might look for in the future, and I thought it would be useful to discuss it.

The amendment says that the Minister “may” make regulations, but some of the points are essential and here we should at some point say there “shall” be carry-over of the relevant policy elements. That is what I am driving at—that one should not lose the policy framework.

Paragraphs (a), (f) and (g) are simply terminology corrections: instead of defining financial institutions with reference to the EU capital requirements directive and markets in financial instruments directive, one just transposes that into a UK list of entities. That is doubtless the sort of thing the Government will be doing. I also suggest changing amounts in euros to sterling. In the context of the fifth money laundering directive, one should probably go further and also be able to change the amounts by regulation. I would have no problem with that.

However, paragraph (b) should perhaps contain “shall”. It provides that reports, reviews and guidelines that were previously to be done by European supervisory authorities be taken over and carried out by UK supervisors, and policy guidance be carried over,

“to take account of international developments”.

My fear here is that in eliminating what are regarded as superfluous EU references, we inadvertently end up disregarding the policy. As my noble friend pointed out, the Government have not addressed the loss of policy framework alongside putting in compensation for a loss of power framework. The Government have said repeatedly that they do not intend to change policy in making post-Brexit or ready-for-Brexit changes, but then you cannot leave behind some of the policy that came from the EU. On the money laundering directives, that would include provisions on proportionality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

That may indeed be a very helpful intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. However, for the record, because this is a serious point, the note that I read out may not fully reflect the announcement to which my noble friend has referred. To make sure, I shall seek some additional clarification. The next group is very germane to the issue that he raises in relation to overseas territories. Therefore, perhaps without presuming on my noble friend too much, we may have some further information that will better answer that particular point.

In fact, a note has arrived, and I can say that the list published yesterday relates to tax. The EU maintains a separate list of countries which represent a high risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, to which UK firms must have regard. That may be part of the answer; more will come in the next group, if my noble friend can bear with us.

On the EU withdrawal Bill, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, asked about, Clause 7 is very clear—it is a power to remedy deficiencies in law that arise as a result of the UK leaving the EU, no more and no less. That is a level of certainty which I hope will offer some reassurance to the noble Baroness. We do not intend to make changes to the 2017 regulations other than to make those fixes. The 2017 regulations refer to guidelines issued by the European supervisory authorities. Amendment 69D enables those references to be removed only if they are replaced by references to those issued by the UK supervisory authorities. Those would cause additional work and a risk of duplication with other guidance. So, in response to that, and after what I am sure has been a very helpful debate, if not fully illuminating at this stage, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he perhaps imagines, we will return to the issue again. I take his assurance about the withdrawal Bill not being to make changes of policy, but we still have the problem of what this Bill will be doing. It opens the door to very substantial changes of policy and principle, and that is the problem—nowhere does it have such reassurance that that is not going to happen. I think that the Minister has understood that there are things, especially in financial services regulation, where there is a policy framework, as we have tended to refer to it. Without duplication, you make sure that it is within scope of what the UK supervisory authorities would do—or there are provisions that there should be reviews, which have been put into European legislation for good and proper reason. I probably put a lot of them there myself, and I was probably cheered on by people in the Treasury for doing so. It would be quite appropriate to have something that says that we will continue in the same vein.

I thank the Minister for his comments about my drafting skills. As he probably knows, this involves about 100 directives and I remain available to assist if somebody does not know why they are there, because I probably do. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 69D withdrawn.