"We've already had an HMRC compliance visit that we passed with flying colours, thanks to AMLCC!"

"I was recently asked to complete a compliance questionnaire for my Supervisory Body. They were satisfied that by having the AMLCC product, I was being compliant. They advised me that no further action will be required."

"We've already had an HMRC compliance visit that we passed with flying colours, thanks to AMLCC!"

"I certainly would not wish to be without my AMLCC product. The method of client verification and risk assessment enables me to carry out due diligence with relative ease. Their monthly email is also useful as it contains tips and guidance. Importantly, I also know that I am prepared should I be subjected to an inspection."

"We recently had our Practice Assurance visit from the ICAEW which was really the ultimate test for the product – our reviewer was impressed with the manual along with the online software, so much so that he did not feel the need to focus his efforts as much on the area of money laundering as I had expected."

"The AMLCC product is easy to use and enables me to fulfil my responsibilities of ensuring my practice is compliant with the regulations without significant time input."

"The AMLCC product has enabled us to address the worries and concerns that Money Laundering Compliance causes. All my staff found the online training straightforward and the option of using online ID checking makes everything simpler and less time consuming."

"I view the products major benefits as saving time when clients do not have documents with them, a great tool for training staff cost-effectively and most importantly having an up to date procedural bible that I can turn to when I'm not sure of my obligations and responsibilities."

"The online training is good for us and saves us time and money in not having to spend time out of the office. Also we passed the inspection by our supervisory body because they were satisfied that we were compliant thanks to the AMLCC product."

"Without the AMLCC product it would have been a lot harder and more time consuming for me to be compliant."

ICAEW report the result of a Disciplinary Hearing in November 2011. Very briefly, the member was the appointed MLRO for the firm and the case had previously been heard by the FSA in relation to investment matters.

The member 'failed to exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business and failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the anti-money laundering processes... complied with the relevant requirements and standards of the regulatory system.' In considering the complaint, ICAEW noted that as MLRO of the firm the member had 'responsibility for oversight of the firm's compliance with the FSA's rules on systems and controls to prevent money laundering.' The firm's money laundering procedures were included in a procedures manual and a money laundering compliance manual and the member and some of the partners of the firm had attended money laundering training.

However, one of the partners was involved in raising funds through a share issue for one of the firm's clients and this particular partner had not received training and did not report the fraud to the MLRO. The activity is FSA regulated and the member, in his capacity as the firm's MLRO, had already been disciplined by the FSA for 'failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that the anti-money laundering processes complied with the relevant requirements and standards of the regulatory system and had fallen below the minimum regulatory standards in terms of his competence'.

As a result and as the FSA had already imposed a penalty of £35,000 personally on the MLRO, the ICAEW decided not to impose a second fine but the member was severely reprimanded and has to pay an additional £2350 in costs to ICAEW.

A director of an accountancy and taxation firm is facing a custodial sentence after being found guilty of tipping off a client about a police investigation. Kishor Doshi, director of Sunderland firm Otax, received the warning after he was convicted of an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act. He admitted he rang and told a client that his office had received a police order commanding him to hand over the man's accounts just hours after he discovered it.

The order related to a money laundering investigation by Northumbria Police's Economic Crime Unit into the dealings of the man who cannot be named because of a court ruling. But Doshi told the hearing at Newcastle's Moot Hall that he did not know the document, called a Production Order and authorised by a judge, related to a criminal investigation and was supposed to be kept secret by law.

Instead, he thought it was part of an ongoing civil inquiry by Revenue and Customs officials and said in interview: "I thought he had a right to know". But prosecutor Peter Gair said an accountant of Doshi's experience would have known a Production Order was a criminal investigation led by police.

Doshi will be sentenced at a later date.

Within the ICAEW Disciplinary section this month was news that an accountant was reprimanded relating to non compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations.

The charge was that the member failed to comply with statement 1.304 of the Members Handbook in that he failed to make a suspicious activity report on a timely basis to the National Crime Intelligence Service (now SOCA) when he had a suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr X's activities in relation to the business of Y Limited were unlawful.

The Investigation Committee made an order that the member be severely reprimanded, fined £5,000 and pay costs of £2,075.