Tribunal dismisses anti-money laundering case against Dentons

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has dismissed an anti-money laundering claim against law firm Dentons.

Dentons was at trial last week after the legal regulator Solicitors Regulation Authority referred the firm to the Tribunal. The SRA said the firm failed when acting for a politically exposed person (PEP) to take adequate measures to establish his source of wealth.

The regulator’s case was Dentons breached its anti-money laundering regulations when acting for an unnamed client.

However, the law firm said it took adequate measures in accordance with the then Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which have now been replaced by the 2017 MLRs, to establish the source of the client’s wealth and funds.

On Monday the Tribunal dismissed the case against the worlds largest law firm (by size), after finding it didn’t breach the SRA principles.

According to a spokesperson from Dentons, “we welcome the SDT’s finding that the SRA’s case is dismissed. There has been no breach of the SRA Principles and therefore no sanction against Dentons.”

“It was accepted throughout the case that Dentons at the time had ‘gold standard’ anti-money laundering systems and processes. Notwithstanding this, we recognise that risk management and regulatory compliance requires constant vigilance and attention and, since the period in question, we have significantly enhanced our capabilities and procedures.”

“We remain committed to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and have co-operated with the SRA throughout its investigation,” they added.

The parties were informed about the dismissal this morning, it is understood that a full judgment from the Tribunal will be published in weeks to come.

The SRA’s barrister was James Ramsden KC of Astraea Group while Dentons had Richard Coleman KC of Fountain Court.

There were no order for costs made against Dentons, so the regulator will pick up their own costs.

An SRA spokesperson said: “We will await the SDT’s written judgment before deciding on any steps”.