Playing POCA

Part VII of the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), the money laundering provisions, may have taken effect on 24 February this year but much of the practical detail remains to be worked out; that was the message from Sue Thornhill, Director of MHA Consulting and author of the Money Laundering Guidance notes for the UK financial sector, at CMS Cameron McKenna’s London seminar, “The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 – what you need to know”, on 7 April. Timon Molloy reports.

“My purpose,” Sue Thornhill told delegates, “is to bring out some of the issues that have come to the fore with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 .” She began by noting that the definition of the objective test for suspicion, a source of difficulty when the original bill was drawn up, had proved a knotty problem ever since. “The lawyers, especially the Law Society, have not permitted us to define the objective test in any common-sense way to help you,” she said. “They are concerned that the guidance approved by HM Treasury should not lead a jury to make assumptions and therefore have objected to use of terms such as ‘wilful blindness’.” Ms Thornhill, who is seeking to finalise the latest draft of the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) Guidance Notes, admitted that the current definition of the objective test that appears as a supplement to the December 2001 edition on the JMLSG website ( www.jmlsg.org.uk) is “not terribly useful” as its meaning is continually evolving. Until a resolution is reached she advised firms to refer to the Hansard reports (available online via www.parliament.uk) in order to determine what ministers intended by the test when the bill was on its way through Parliament. She thought it was clear they had negligence and wilful blindness in mind and that they were especially concerned that professionals - lawyers and accountants - should not be able to hide behind spurious claims that they were not suspicious about transactions.