UT/2023/000092 - [2024] UKUT 00035 (TCC)

As regards identifying the persons intended to be protected by the notice, whereas Mr Auld’s submissions spoke mainly to Nvayo’s existing and future consumers, the Authority’s case was that, to the extent the supervisory notices concerned AML failings, the notices were intended to protect those who were intended to be protected by the MLRs namely the general public. As Mr Temple pointed out, that was in accordance with how the UT approached the issue in Gidiplus v FCA [2022] UKUT 00043 (TCC) (at [25]), a case where the decision notice was issued with the intention of protecting against AML risk. The UT accepted the Authority’s submission that the persons intended to be protected were the public in general, and “in particular potential victims of criminal activity which may be facilitated or incentivised by a criminal’s ability to launder money”. The UT also referred to “the integrity of the UK financial system, in preventing it from being used to launder money”.

Taking account that the analysis on who is sought to be protected may shift focus depending on the relevant requirement I will consider each requirement in turn acknowledging that there is a certain amount of overlap in the issues and concerns raised.