TC09647 - [2025] UKFTT 01124 (TC)

This is an appeal against a penalty of £13,000 imposed by the respondents (“HMRC”) for non-compliance with The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (“the Regulations”). The Regulations came into force on 26 June 2017 and replaced the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

The appellant had traded as an Estate Agency Business (“EAB”) whilst not registered with HMRC or any other supervisory authority. The decision was issued on 7 May 2024 and upheld on review on 8 July 2024.

With the consent of the parties, the hearing was conducted by video link using the Tribunal's video hearing system. Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.

The documents to which we were referred comprised a Documents Bundle consisting of 156 pages and an Authorities Bundle consisting of 42 pages. On 11 July 2025, HMRC had lodged an application to admit a further document, extending to six pages, which was a National Archive copy of the GOV.UK Money Laundering registration and renewal guidance which was in force as at 15 September 2022. It was admitted of consent at the outset of the hearing. After the hearing we received a copy of the generic reminder to which we refer at paragraph 27 but which had been lodged with the Tribunal on 21 August 2025. Lastly, at the close of the hearing, the Tribunal directed that HMRC lodge with the Tribunal and the appellant a copy of the section from HMRC’s internal manual “Economic Crime Supervision Handbook”- ECSH82795-Sanctions for non-compliance: financial penalties: financial penalties framework: type 2 (trading whilst unregistered)” (“the Penalties Framework”) since there had been repeated reference to it but it had not been produced. It was lodged on 27 August 2025.

We heard evidence from the appellant and from Officer Ashleigh Little. Both witnesses were straightforward and credible. Neither the relevant Regulations nor the facts are in dispute.