As the government lays out its plans for a major expansion of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) anti-money laundering (AML) supervision responsibilities, we look at how these proposals can be strengthened.
After a period of transition, the FCA will become the AML supervisor for over 40,000 firms in the legal, accountancy and trust and company services sectors. These are currently supervised by 22 different professional body supervisors in a regime widely criticised as ineffective.
As recently as March this year, the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS) found that eight years after it was established to enhance supervision of the professional services “continued failures…call into question the consistency and effectiveness of AML supervision”.
The government’s consultation response published yesterday on how this reform should work in practice features some welcome policy proposals. But in other areas, it falls short.
Without addressing these flaws, the government will not only risk the UK backsliding during the transition – which coincides with a high-stakes evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – but also undermine the FCA’s ability to supervise these new sectors effectively in the longer term.
No more powers for OPBAS
First, the failure to provide the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS) with additional powers to oversee a smooth transfer of responsibilities to the FCA will make the transition period riskier.
In its consultation paper released in November 2025, the government noted that “it may be necessary to consider providing additional powers to support OPBAS during [the transition] period”. Proposals included:
- strengthening OPBAS’ current power to issue directions;
- giving OPBAS power to fine failing supervisors; and
- allowing OPBAS to issue de-anonymised reports on supervisors’ performance to promote accountability.
As the government has itself recognised this reform will “inevitably take several years” and the UK’s AML defences “may come under threat if the appropriate safeguards are not in place”. But the government has opted to give OPBAS no additional powers, despite some professional bodies such as the Law Society expressing an openness to limited additional powers to ensure a smooth transfer. This risks letting underperforming professional body supervisors off the hook for any potential failings during the transition period. Meanwhile, the FATF in its upcoming review of the UK’s AML regime is likely to take a dim view of any failings during the transition.
Legal professional privilege – Treasury shies away from a knotty issue
Second, the failure to give the FCA powers to compel disclosure of material protected by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) – only in limited circumstances where this is necessary for the effective AML supervision of lawyers – will critically undermine the FCA’s ability to supervise the legal sector effectively.
LPP undoubtedly has a vital role to play as a fundamental right in securing access to justice. But the unique privileges that lawyers are entrusted with as members of a public profession mean that their regulator – acting in the public interest – must have unique powers to ensure those privileges are not abused or misapplied.
As noted recently by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, whose AML supervision responsibilities the FCA will inherit: “if the SRA cannot consider… [LPP] material, there is a risk that serious wrongdoing on the part of solicitors may be occluded from regulatory oversight”.
The SRA adds that clients’ privilege is safeguarded as the SRA keeps LPP materials confidential and may only use them for its investigation and enforcement proceedings against the solicitor or firm it regulates, and not in regulatory investigations or proceedings against the client themselves.
As with the SRA, if the FCA lacks powers to inspect privileged material, it will be very difficult for it to form a comprehensive assessment of the adequacy of AML due diligence conducted by lawyers.
Fees and funding – some unanswered questions
Third, while start-up funding for the FCA will be unlocked through the Financial Services and Markets Bill before Parliament, supervised firms will have to pay a fee to fund the FCA’s supervisory work once it is up and running. But the government’s consultation response did not confirm that these fees will be ringfenced for AML supervision. This is essential to prevent the fees paid by supervised firms from subsidising other parts of the FCA’s work, and ensure AML supervision of the professional services is adequately resourced.
The government did not take a view on whether the FCA should be able to deduct enforcement costs from its penalties (which some other regulators are able to do). While we believe the FCA should be able to do this, it should not operate in the same way as a current scheme, which lets the FCA use retained penalties to rebate fees paid by regulated financial sector firms.
What the government gets right
Despite the issues outlined above, we welcome many aspects of the government’s response which align with our submission to the consultation.
- The FCA will be required to maintain a public register of firms carrying out regulated AML activity. By providing a single, authoritative source confirming which firms are permitted to carry out work in scope of money laundering rules, the register will support transparency for consumers and law enforcement, and help expose firms that are carrying out regulated activity without supervision.
- The government confirmed that the FCA’s current powers as an AML supervisor for the financial services sector will be rolled out to all those in its expanded population. This includes requirements to conduct fit and proper person checks and order skilled person reviews. This is a welcome move that will make AML supervision more consistent and effective.
- The government has said it will create a statutory duty for the FCA and professional body supervisors to cooperate and share information. This is an essential move for delivering a smooth transition and for ensuring professional bodies continue to work closely with the FCA even after they lose AML supervisory responsibilities.
- Finally, the government confirmed that the new regulatory objective for legal sector supervisors to detect and prevent economic crime will be retained. This is very welcome because legal sector professional bodies’ will need to engage with economic crime related issues even after they relinquish responsibility for AML supervision.
To sum up
It is essential that the government fixes key weaknesses in its proposals by giving OPBAS robust powers to oversee the transition, grasping the nettle of complex questions over legal professional privilege, and making sure the FCA’s new responsibilities are properly resourced.
With an imminent FATF review that will scrutinise the effectiveness of the UK’s AML supervisory regime, the UK can ill-afford anything which weakens this welcome effort to address long-standing flaws in AML supervision for the professional services.
