Anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing and counter-proliferation financing

Money laundering is the process through which proceeds of crime, and their true origin and ownership, are changed so that they appear legitimate (see Practice Note: Money laundering—key information for businesses).

Terrorist financing is, in general terms, the provision or collection of funds from legitimate or illegitimate sources with the intention or in the knowledge that they should be used to carry out any act of terrorism, whether or not those funds are in fact used for that purpose. For more information, see Practice Note: Counter-terrorist financing—key information for businesses.

Proliferation financing is the act of providing funds or financial services for use, in whole or in part, in connection with the possession or use of, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, in contravention of a relevant financial sanctions obligation. For more information, see Practice Note: Counter-proliferation financing—CPF—the basics.

It is important that corporate transactions are not used to further a criminal purpose. Anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing (CTF) and counter-proliferation financing (CPF) measures are designed to prevent transactions becoming channels for illegal proceeds.

Legal framework

The legal framework for

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Corporate News

High Court dismisses judicial review relating to Government order requiring Russian-backed investment firm to sell broadband provider under the NSIA 2021

Corporate analysis: LetterOne Core Investment, S.A.R.L. and another) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industry, concerning a judicial review of a final order made pursuant to section 26(3) of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA 2021) made by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy requiring LetterOne to sell broadband business Upp Corp Ltd on national security grounds (Final Order). The High Court dismissed the challenge.

CP24/2: FCA further consults on enforcement transparency proposals

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued the second phase of its consultation paper CP24/2 on proposals to increase transparency in enforcement investigations. This follows significant concerns raised in response to the original consultation. The FCA is now seeking further views on the practical implementation of the public interest test, with the FCA Board aiming to reach a final decision in the first quarter of 2025. This consultation forms part of the FCA's broader reforms to enhance the pace and focus of its enforcement efforts. Responses are sought by 17 February 2025.

Corporate weekly highlights—28 November 2024

This week's edition of Corporate weekly highlights includes publication by the FRC of its Annual Review of Corporate Governance Reporting for 2024, the Pre-Emption Group’s second annual report on the adoption of its updated Statement of Principles on the disapplication of pre-emption rights for UK listed companies, and news of fines imposed by the FCA on Barclays and a former executive of Wizz Air. It also includes the publication by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero of a summary of responses to its October 2023 call for evidence on Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions reporting, and the Companies House 2024–5 Christmas and New Year opening times.

FCA fines former Wizz Air executive for MAR breaches

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has imposed a £123,500 fine on former chief supply chain officer at Wizz Air, András Sebők, for breaching Articles 19(1) and 19(11) of the UK Market Abuse Regulation (MAR). Sebők, acting in his capacity as a person discharging managerial responsibility (PDMR), traded the company's shares during restricted periods and failed to disclose his trades within the required timeframe. This is the first time the FCA has fined a PDMR for trading company shares during closed periods under Article 19(11) of MAR, and the second time it has fined a PDMR for failing to disclose personal trades under Article 19(1) of MAR.