Понедельник, 12 августа 2019

7. Data analysis. Consultation

Data analysis

7.10 During our examination of authorised disclosures, we recorded how many SARs fell within each of these categories out of our sample of 563 to understand what the impact might be on UKFIU resources were these categories to be exempted from authorised disclosure obligations.

7.11 The following charts show the quantities of each type of authorised disclosure:

Types of authorised disclosure

Types of authorised disclosure continued

7.12 Below we summarise the relevant proportion of disclosures for each category that we identified in the Consultation Paper:

(1) low value transactions under £1000 accounted for 129 authorised disclosures out of 563; approximately 24% of the total number of authorised disclosures we analysed;

(2) those in which funds were simply being moved internally without any risk of dissipation of criminal property amounted to nine out of our sample of 563; approximately 1.5% of the total number of authorised disclosures we considered;

(3) duplicate reporting occurred in 128 disclosures in our sample; approximately 23% of the total number of authorised disclosures we reviewed;

(4) 49 authorised disclosures in our overall sample contained information that was already in the public domain without any additional intelligence being provided by the reporter; 8.7% of the total number of authorised disclosures we considered;

(5) property transactions within the UK accounted for 34 disclosures in our sample; approximately 6% of the total number of authorised disclosures we analysed;

(6) there were 56 authorised disclosures which, although lodged separately, involved related transactions; approximately 10% of the total number of authorised disclosures we analysed;

(7) 60 authorised disclosures were lodged solely to repay victims of fraud; approximately 11% of the total;

(8) only 9 authorised disclosures related to historical crime (defined as a criminal offence which occurred more than five years prior to the date of the disclosure); approximately 1.6% of the total number of authorised disclosures we examined;

(9) there were 25 authorised disclosures which had no UK nexus but where the investigation took place within a UK office; approximately 4% of the total number of authorised disclosures we analysed; and

(10) 37 authorised disclosures were instigated by law enforcement agencies; approximately 7% of the total number of authorised disclosures we considered.

7.13 Given that a substantial amount (23%) of disclosures are duplicates we can infer that a significant proportion of disclosures are of little intelligence value to law enforcement agencies.

7.14 Notwithstanding the other categories of disclosure that we identified in our Consultation Paper on which consultees may take differing views, the proportion of duplicate disclosures in our sample provides evidence of a large number of SARs which are of negligible value to law enforcement agencies.


7.15 In this section, we consider how consultees responded to our non-exhaustive list of examples of circumstances which may amount to a reasonable excuse for failing to lodge an authorised disclosure. We were particularly interested to see if there was any consensus about the categories of authorised disclosure which were of least value.

7.16 In relation to our general proposal that statutory guidance on reasonable excuse should be issued, 36 out of 40 consultees that responded were in favour of such guidance; this amounted to 90% of consultees overall.

7.17 There was clear agreement across the regulated sector, law enforcement agencies and supervisory authorities. All consultees who fell into these categories agreed that statutory guidance on reasonable excuse should be issued in principle.

7.18 Of those who disagreed with our proposal for statutory guidance on reasonable excuse, the Solicitors Regulation Authority («SRA») suggested that guidance would create confusion, make enforcement more difficult and would not succeed in changing behaviour:

In this instance, if a change to the reporting requirements would be beneficial then we believe this is such an important area that guidance would be insufficient to drive the desired type of behaviour.

7.19 The Crown Prosecution Service («CPS») expressed some reservations about our provisional proposal in their written response:

We express some doubt about this proposal. It bears the risk of non-reporting being tailored to meet examples which have the force of statutory guidance. It risks moving the focus away from the facts and circumstances of the specific case to the general ability to claim that the reasonable excuse falls within an example provided by the statutory guidance. Providing broad categories for non-reporting risks the efficacy of the reporting regime.

7.20 However, the CPS indicated that there may be some circumstances in which guidance might rightly address «technical» fixes:

If there are genuinely common areas where there is plainly a reasonable excuse for non-reporting then we agree that these should be openly and transparently stated and be overseen and permitted by way of statutory guidance, but we are unclear about the case for this in contrast to the risks it presents.

Юридический перевод с английского и немецкого языка.


Перевод с английского и немецкого языка: 400 руб./стр.

Стоимость перевода новых редакций ранее переведенных документов: 300 руб./стр.

Перевод законов: индивидуально (пишите).

Любой перевод документа можно заверить подписью/печатью переводчика без дополнительной оплаты (см. образец заверения).



Copyright © 2014-2023. Переводчик с английского и немецкого. Москва.
ИП Скляренко К.В., ОГРНИП 319774600389010, адрес: г. Москва, Рязанский проспект, 10с18
Телефон для вопросов и предложений: +7 (985) 870-90-90 (В чат можно писать в любое время).

Политика конфиденциальности и порядок оказания услуг