Conveyancers continue to attract significant penalties from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) due to lax AML controls in the “high-risk” sector.
In its latest round of published decisions, the SRA has shared eight instances of firms with large volumes of conveyancing work, which the regulatory body views as being at high risk of exploitation from criminals.
Regler & Company Solicitors in Thame, Oxon, received a penalty of £9,500 for failing to establish and maintain PCPs between June 2017 and June 2025 and not having CMRAs in place, including in residential property transactions. The review found that half of the firm’s work came from residential conveyancing, with multiple inadequate source of funds checks identified in residential purchases.
A £428,000 ‘mortgage advance’ and £30,000 ‘gift’ were accepted for a £475,000 residential purchase, with no evidence to prove how the funds became available; £25,000 was deposited into the client account for a £235,000 purchase with no evidence of the source; £17,929 was received ‘from savings and mortgage equity’ towards a £315,000 purchase with no evidence of where it came from; and a residential purchase for £580,000 was completed with no source of funds checks obtained.
Nigel Pullen Solicitors Limited in St Agnes was fined £4,430 following an investigation by the SRA, which found the firm had failed to maintain records of its risk assemment between June 2017 and July 2025. With 55% of its in-scope service in conveyancing, the risk of money laundering or terrorist financing was high, the SRA said.
In Manchester, TM Fortis Solicitors Limited agreed to pay a penalty of £12,962 after failing to have a firm wide risk assessment (FWRA) in place between June 2017 and June 2025.
More than half of the firm’s business comes from conveyancing, yet it failed to establish and maintain compliant policies, controls and procedures (PCPs) to mitigate and effectively manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing, the SRA found.
Vincent Yee Solicitors in Birmingham, where conveyancing forms “a significant percentage” of the work carried out, was fined £6,804 following a desk-based review by the SRA’s AML team. The investigation identified areas of concern including failure to establish PCPs between August 2017 and July 2025, not having in place an FWRA, and failing to conduct client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs).
London-based Sylvester Amiel Lewin & Horne LLP received a £17,302 penalty for the absence of an appropriate FWRA between June 2017 and September 2024, despite over half of its business coming from conveyancing.
Three quarters of Newman Law LLP’s work comes from conveyancing, but an SRA AML review found the firm had failed to conduct appropriate customer due diligence (CDD) measures in seven of nine files reviewed, no CMRAs in six out of nine files, and a lack of PCPs in seven of nine files reviewed. The firm was fined £8,885.
Waterman’s in Palmers Green, London, was fined £4,584 for failing to maintain compliant PCPs between June 2017 and September 2025 and having no CMRA in five out of six files reviewed. A “significant proportion” of the firm’s work involved conveyancing, the SRA said.
And in Oxford, Trueman’s Solicitors received a penalty of £21,764 for failing to maintain fully compliant PCPs between August 2018 and May 2025, having no CDD and SoF measures in four files reviewed by the AML team, and failing to maintain records of CMRAs in two files.
The conduct showed a disregard for statutory and regulatory obligations and had the potential to cause harm, by failing to have a fully compliant AML control environment, or to undertake CMRAs and SoF checks in conveyancing transactions, which form a large percentage of the work undertaken by the firm, the SRA said.
One Response
Where were the COLPs, MLROs, MLCOs, SROs, independent audit functions, and partners who are ultimately responsible for compliance, in these firms – surely if the people filling these roles had done what these roles required, fines wouldn’t have been incurred?