UK AML Supervision 2023/2024: Are firms keeping pace with regulators?
The latest UK AML/CTF Supervision Report is out, and it’s clear that regulators are increasing pressure on firms that fail to meet compliance expectations. The message is simple: enforcement is not slowing down, and firms that do not adapt will face significant consequences.
Key insights from the report
Regulators continue to highlight weaknesses in how firms manage financial crime risk. This year’s report exposes critical gaps in risk assessments, inconsistent supervisory oversight, and continued struggles with beneficial ownership transparency.
Regulatory action is escalating
Fines and enforcements are not slowing down. A total of 1,227 penalties were issued across the different supervisory bodies in 2023-2024, with HMRC leading in the number of fines handed out (a whopping 977!).
High-risk sectors, including e-money, real estate, and professional services, remain under intense scrutiny due to persistent compliance failures.
Beneficial ownership transparency remains a serious concern, with FATF’s upcoming evaluation set to assess how effectively the UK is addressing these risks.
What’s next?
A new UK National Risk Assessment for money laundering and terrorist financing will be published later this year.
The UK is gearing up for a peer review of its AML/CTF/CPF regime, with results out in 2028. Data collection and preparation are already underway to ensure compliance with FATF's 40 Recommendations. Stay tuned!
How we can help
At Avyse Partners, we bring deep expertise in risk assessments, compliance frameworks and regulatory expectations, no matter the supervisory body. We have firsthand experience with how regulators think, where firms are falling short, and changes that need to be made before enforcement becomes an issue.
The key is to be proactive, not reactive! Get in touch with the team to learn more about proactive compliance and how it can benefit your firm.
What do you think?
Does the current AML supervision model work, or is reform overdue?
Are regulators striking the right balance between enforcement and guidance?
Are the inconsistencies in supervisory practices making things all too confusing?