教授，博士生導師。復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心首任主任，復旦大學俄...
復旦大學國際金融學院教授，中國反洗錢研究中心執行主任，陸家嘴金...
復旦大學法學院教授、博士生導師；復旦大學國際刑法研究中心主任。...
華東政法大學刑法學教授，復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心特聘研究員，荷...
安永金融服務風險管理、咨詢總監，曾任螞蟻金服反洗錢總監，復旦大學...
周錦賢先生，香港人，廣州暨南大學法律學士，復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中...
高級經濟師，復旦大學金融學博士，復旦大學經濟學博士后?，F供職于中...
武漢中南財經政法大學信息安全學院教授。長期專注于反洗錢/反恐...
生辰：1977.7.26 籍貫：遼寧撫順 民族：漢 黨派：九三學社 職稱：教授 研究...
祝亞雄，1974年生，浙江衢州人。浙江師范大學經濟與管理學院副教授，博...
復旦大學中國反洗錢研究中心特聘研究員；現任安永管理咨詢服務合伙...
工作履歷：曾在國家審計署從事審計工作，是國家第一批政府審計師；曾在...
A law firm based in Bracknell, Berkshire, Fairbrother & Darlow, has been fined ￡16,052.80 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for failing to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Regulations, according to a report by The Law Society Gazette.
The firm was also ordered to pay costs of ￡1,350 due to what has been described as "reckless" non-compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. The fine represents a percentage of the firm's turnover, reflecting the severity of the breach.
In March 2022, the SRA's anti-money laundering proactive team conducted a desk-based review of the firm's compliance with AML regulations. The review revealed significant shortcomings, including the absence of a compliant firm-wide risk assessment and the necessary policies, controls, and procedures to prevent money laundering. Furthermore, the investigation uncovered that four in-scope client files lacked proper client or matter risk assessments despite the firm engaging in relevant legal work since 2010.
The SRA emphasized the seriousness of the firm's conduct, noting it "demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance" that persisted unreasonably long and "had the potential to cause serious harm to the public interest and public confidence in the legal profession." The authority criticized Fairbrother & Darlow for not adhering to SRA guidance and warning notices, which outline the requirements for AML compliance, the risks of non-compliance, and the regulatory consequences.
The decision to fine the firm was based on a calculation of 1.6 percent to 3.2 percent of its annual domestic turnover, indicating the SRA's assessment of the conduct as being of "mid-range" severity.
Despite the breach, the SRA acknowledged several mitigating factors in its final judgment. These include the absence of significant harm caused by the non-compliance, the firm's admissions and cooperation with the regulatory investigation, and rectifying the breaches by May 2023.