A fortnight ago, Transparency International labeled Australia the worst money laundering property market in the world, failing to address 10-out-of-10 loopholes.
This followed a similar scathing report from the global anti-money laundering (AML) regulator, the Financial Action Taskforce, which labeled Australia a haven for laundered funds from China, as well as similar warnings from Austrac.
After sitting on its hands for more than a decade, the Federal Government has belatedly undertaken to implement the second tranche of AML legislation covering real estate agents, accountants and lawyers by 2019. And this has attracted the ire of Australia’s legal profession, who wants a blanket exemption presumably so that it can continue to handle (and profit from) dirty money. From The AFR:
Under new anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing AML/CTF) legislation lawyers, along with accountants and real estate agents, will have to run their own checks of their clients and will have an obligation to report any suspicious transactions to authorities…
The Attorney-General’s department has released a consultation paper which explains that after 2019 when the change is supposed to take effect lawyers who have formed “a suspicion on reasonable grounds” will have to dob in their clients…
While accountants and real estate agents who are also being targeted by the new AML/CTF laws have also expressed some reservations about the new laws lawyers have demanded a blanket exemption.
They say that the laws threaten the cherished principle that communications between a lawyer and their client are “privileged” and cannot usually be shared with criminal investigators…
You can’t make this stuff up. The Transparency International report showed that lawyers in the UK are subject to extensive requirements under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, including performing due dilligence, identifying the beneficial ownership of customers, and submitting suspicious transaction reports if they suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering.
Given Australia’s legal (and political) system has been based on the UK’s, then why is it unreasonable for Australia’s lawyers to be subject to the same requirements?
