Our monthly round up of news items which help businesses regulated for the purposes of AML.
Criminals lose, AML compliance wins, the smarter way to safeguard your business.
Cyber Security
FATF warns that cyber fraud is now a core global AML threat
FATF has issued a stark warning that fast-growing cyber‑enabled fraud is now one of the world’s most significant generators of illicit funds, directly feeding money laundering, terrorist financing and proliferation financing risks. The body highlights how digital scams, rapid cross‑border payments and opaque ownership structures are combining to overwhelm traditional controls, urging countries and financial institutions to strengthen payment traceability, tighten virtual asset oversight and upgrade analytics to detect fraud‑linked flows earlier in the chain.
FATF’s latest paper on cyber‑enabled fraud sets out a clear message: online scams are no longer a side issue, they sit at the heart of today’s financial crime ecosystem. Drawing on input from member countries and recent casework, FATF notes that around 90% of assessed jurisdictions now view fraud as a major money laundering threat, with criminals using social engineering, investment scams, romance frauds and business email compromise to target victims at scale and across borders.
Once stolen, the funds are quickly layered through online banking, instant payments, crypto exchanges and money mules, often routed via shell companies or opaque structures that frustrate recovery efforts. FATF links these flows not only to traditional profit‑motivated laundering, but also to terrorist financing and proliferation financing, warning that fraud proceeds are increasingly attractive to high‑risk actors because they can be generated and moved with relative anonymity.
In response, FATF are calling for stronger payment transparency (including better data on originators and beneficiaries), more effective use of beneficial ownership information, enhanced supervision of virtual asset service providers and closer cooperation between FIUs, law enforcement and the private sector.
Comment – For AML and fraud teams, this means treating cyber‑enabled fraud typologies, mule networks and virtual asset flows as core financial crime risks (not just customer service issues) and ensuring monitoring, investigations and escalation frameworks are designed to follow the full lifecycle of fraud‑generated funds. Our latest SAFE assessments can give you 360 protection across AML, Cyber and Fraud, head to this page to find out more.
Organised Crime
From sweet treat to hot property
UK retailers are locking up chocolate bars in plastic security boxes as thefts surge and police warn that sweets are now being “stolen to order” for resale into illegal markets. Convenience stores report hundreds of thousands of pounds in losses, with organised thieves sweeping entire shelves into backpacks and funnelling stock into other shops, cafés and bars, turning everyday confectionery into a low‑risk, high‑margin commodity for local crime networks
A new BBC report highlights an unexpected trend in UK retail crime: chocolate has become a prime target for organised thieves, to the point where major supermarkets and convenience stores are placing bars in anti‑theft boxes.
The Association of Convenience Stores says chocolate is now frequently “resold by criminals” and has become a repeat target for prolific offenders, second only to alcohol in some groups’ loss data. In one regional co‑op group, confectionery theft alone accounted for around £250,000 in losses last year, prompting more than £3m of investment in additional security.
Shop owners and police describe a clear pattern, individuals and small crews enter stores, strip entire shelves, sometimes £500 worth of stock at a time, and move the chocolate into informal resale channels, including other retailers, hospitality venues and street‑level markets.
This is not opportunistic shoplifting but demand‑driven theft, with stock effectively “stolen to order” as part of a broader illicit supply chain. Retailers are responding with CCTV, AI‑driven offender recognition, reduced shelf‑filling and removal of end‑of‑aisle displays, while the ACS and National Police Chiefs’ Council are calling for tougher penalties and more focused efforts to dismantle the networks buying and distributing stolen goods
Comment -The story is a reminder that seemingly minor retail theft can be one layer in a wider criminal economy, generating sizeable cash flows that are later laundered through cash‑intensive businesses, wholesale accounts or lightly‑scrutinised banking relationships.
Regulatory
List of recent actions taken against AML regulated, registered or supervised businesses
Anthony Clark & Co Limited was investigated following an SRA AML Proactive Supervision Team desk-based review, which found serious and prolonged non-compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLRs). From 26 June 2017 to 11 June 2025, the firm failed to have a documented firm-wide risk assessment for money laundering and terrorist financing, and it did not regularly review and update its AML policies, controls and procedures.
These failures breached the MLRs and, in turn, multiple SRA Principles and Code of Conduct provisions across both the 2011 Handbook and the 2019 Standards and Regulations, particularly around having effective systems and controls, complying with applicable legislation, and upholding public trust.
The SRA assessed the conduct as “more serious” because the requirement to have a compliant firm-wide risk assessment and AML controls has existed since June 2017, and the firm did not pay sufficient regard to the SRA’s AML warning notice first issued in May 2019 (updated November 2019). Although the underlying work (notably conveyancing) is high risk, the SRA considered the actual harm or risk of harm to be low because the firm demonstrated robust risk management at file level and there was no evidence of client harm. Mitigation also included the firm’s cooperation and remedial steps to bring its AML control environment into compliance.
By regulatory settlement agreement, the firm was fined £6,203, reduced from a basic penalty of £6,892 to reflect mitigation, and ordered to pay £600 towards the SRA’s investigation costs. The fine sits in Band B and towards the higher end of that band because the failings formed a pattern of misconduct over an extended period and left the firm susceptible to money laundering or terrorist financing. The decision and financial penalty are to be published in line with the SRA Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules, both to maintain transparency and to provide a credible deterrent to other firms that might neglect their AML obligations.
McLen & Co Accountancy Ltd, Nova Tax Limited and DG Books & Tax Ltd
An ICAEW‑member chartered accountant, Mark Thompson, was disciplined while winding down his small practice for persistent failures to comply with anti‑money laundering requirements. Despite having a tiny turnover, few clients and difficult personal circumstances, he repeatedly failed over several years to carry out basic AML client checks and to submit mandatory annual compliance returns for 2018–2020, even after being advised in 2016 what he needed to do to meet his obligations. This long‑running non‑compliance, and his failure to respond adequately to reminders and supervision, led the Institute to treat the matter as serious misconduct rather than a mere administrative oversight.
The disciplinary tribunal severely reprimanded Thompson and imposed a £7,000 fine, reflecting both the duration of the breaches and the need to send a strong deterrent message to other members about AML documentation and regulatory returns.
Commentators noted there was no evidence of money laundering by his clients and criticised the sanction as heavy‑handed, particularly given his semi‑retired status and intent to leave the Institute, but others argued the penalty was proportionate because AML obligations are legal requirements that cannot be ignored.
The case has been used within the profession as a cautionary example of “supervisory body risk”, the risk of significant regulatory sanctions where AML systems, records and responses to supervisors’ requests are neglected, even in low‑turnover practices with longstanding clients.
HMRC – So far in 2026 HMRC has intensified visible enforcement against supervised firms (notably estate agents, art market participants, and some accountancy/payroll businesses) for failures such as late or missing registration, with hundreds of penalties and a total value close to £1.9m in the latest published round.
Wider supervisory reform is underway and that in future the FCA is expected to have sole responsibility for AML supervision in key sectors, but that this is a structural change, not an enforcement action taken by HMRC against another supervisory body.
Comment – We help supervised firms strengthen their AML due diligence, investigations, and training so they can evidence robust CDD/EDD, mitigate reputational risk, and stay aligned with regulatory expectations.
Our new enhanced due diligence platform at EDD-Pro enables small businesses all the way to Compliance Teams streamline onboarding and investigations with integrated ID verification, structured searches, and investigator‑grade reporting. Join the wait list here!!
