Anti-Money Laundering: Discrepancies in Persons with Significant Control
IPA Insolvency Practitioner newsletter, January 2022
- Paul Smith, CEO
- Kevin Hellard, President
- Licence-holder reminder: Risk-based monitoring
- Updates to the dedicated Anti-Money Laundering section of the IPA website
- Failing to file a HR1 form (even if inadvertent) could result in criminal prosecution for administrators
- HMRC updates
- Upcoming events: Practical approach to AML webinar, special Annual Conference early booking rates and other important dates for your diary
- Exclusive discounts on training from the IPA and our partners
- Change of IPA address
- Vacancy: Lay member of the IPA’s Anti-Money Laundering Committee
- Case law update
Members are reminded that Regulation 30A of the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations (as amended) was introduced in January 2020 as part of the changes arising from the 5th Money Laundering Directive.
Regulation 30A requires a relevant person (i.e. an IP) to report to Companies House any discrepancy in the Persons with Significant Control (PSC) details showing on the register for a corporate entity. A report should be made to Companies House of any discrepancy that is found from information collected prior to establishing a business relationship or becomes known in carrying out your duties under the 2017 Regulations when establishing a business relationship with that customer. A link to Regulation 30A to review the requirements in full can be found here.
You are not required to report information under Regulation 30A which you would be entitled to refuse to provide on grounds of legal professional privilege in the High Court (or in Scotland, on the ground of confidentiality of communications in the Court of Session).
Companies House has further guidance and a link to make a discrepancy report on its website. Members should ensure that you and your Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO) review your internal policy regarding due diligence requirements to ensure that staff are required to highlight any PSC discrepancies as part of the due diligence work undertaken prior to accepting an appointment. The addition to the policy will ensure that any PSC discrepancy is reviewed by the IP taking the appointment as part of the specific case AML risk assessment, as well as prompting for the discrepancy report to be made to Companies House, as required by Regulation 30A.