Update on Anti-Money Laundering Rules For Barristers Paul Radich QC and Ollie Nees
Paul Radich QC and Ollie Nees have provided an update on the NZBA’s efforts to seek a class exemption for barristers. Recent changes to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/ CFT) regime impose significant obligations on a limited number of barristers. This article provides an update on the NZBA’s efforts to seek a class exemption for barristers to better align the regime with the day-to-day realities of legal practice. The AML/CFT Amendment Act 2017 extended the AML/CFT regime to cover a range of new entities - including many lawyers. The aim of the regime is important, seeking to improve New Zealand’s ability to tackle money laundering and the financing of terrorism. But the changes impose stringent obligations for those affected, requiring significant changes to the day-to-day practice of some barristers. To address this issue, the NZBA applied in May 2018 for a class exemption for barristers. In January this year, the Ministry of Justice released a class exemption notice for barristers in draft form. Since then, the NZBA has continued to consult with the Ministry to ensure the exemption meets the objectives of the regime
www.nzbar.org.nz
12
without disproportionately impacting the work of barristers in New Zealand. Limited number of barristers affected In practice, the number of barristers caught by the AML/CFT regime is small: the regime applies only to any involvement that a barrister has, in the ordinary course of their business, in advising on, documenting or effecting a transaction involving real property. Most barristers will rarely be involved in the transactional aspects of conveyancing or receiving or holding money on another’s behalf, as discussed in a previous issue of At the Bar (March 2018). But for those who are caught, the regime imposes a range of obligations - from customer due diligence to suspicious activity reporting and record keeping requirements. Given the limited administrative resources of most barristers, these obligations are onerous. The NZBA also considers many of these obligations to be unnecessary where a barrister is instructed by a solicitor or the Crown, as these parties will themselves be subject to the regime.
