The phrase "professional enabler" has become increasingly common in anti-money laundering discussions, and it should give every accountant, bookkeeper and tax adviser pause for thought.
At first glance the expression appears to refer to dishonest professionals who knowingly assist criminals. However, as David Winch explains in his recent blog, the government's concern extends much further than deliberate wrongdoing. A perfectly honest practitioner can become an unintended professional enabler if criminals are able to exploit weaknesses in the firm's anti-money laundering procedures. That is a very different, and much more uncomfortable, message.The issue is not that most accountants are dishonest. Far from it. The overwhelming majority work hard to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations and to serve their clients professionally. The concern is that organised criminals actively seek opportunities to use legitimate professional services to disguise or facilitate criminal activity.
This means that firms cannot assume that long-standing relationships or an absence of obvious warning signs remove the need for robust AML procedures. Criminals often rely upon trusted professionals who are unaware that their services are being misused.
David Winch argues that the best defence is not suspicion of every client, but the consistent application of sound procedures. Client due diligence should be completed properly, firm-wide risk assessments should be kept up to date, and staff should understand how to recognise and escalate unusual transactions or behaviour. Documentation is equally important. If procedures have not been recorded or cannot be demonstrated to a regulator, it may be difficult to show that appropriate steps have been taken.
The article also reflects a broader shift in the government's approach to AML supervision. Regulators increasingly expect firms to adopt a risk-based approach, regularly review their systems and demonstrate that their procedures are operating effectively in practice rather than merely existing on paper.
For many practitioners, particularly smaller firms, this represents a significant compliance challenge. However, it also provides an opportunity to review existing policies and identify areas that may have been overlooked. An annual review of AML documentation, regular staff training and periodic testing of internal procedures can all help reduce regulatory risk.
Perhaps the most important message is that AML compliance should not be viewed as a box-ticking exercise. Effective systems protect not only the public but also the reputation of the practice and its partners. No firm wants to discover that it has unknowingly assisted criminal activity or face regulatory criticism because essential procedures were inadequate.
The question every practice should ask is not, "Would we knowingly help a criminal?" but rather, "Could someone misuse our services because our AML controls are not as strong as they should be?" Answering that question honestly may be one of the most valuable compliance exercises a firm undertakes this year.
For a fuller discussion of this important topic and the reasoning behind the concept of the "professional enabler", David Winch's original article is well worth reading. It is available on the MLRO Support blog, where David regularly publishes practical guidance and commentary on anti-money laundering compliance for UK accountancy practices.
