Law Society correspondence re new UK reporting requirements published

Parliament6.jpgThe Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the House of Lords has published its correspondence with the Law Society relating to the new sanctions reporting requirements in the EU Financial Sanctions (Amendment of Information Provisions) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/754, which came into force on 8 August 2017.  Those regulations imposed reporting obligations on an expanded group of professionals and businesses, including independent lawyers (see previous blog here).

The correspondence shows the Law Society raising concerns that HM Treasury had undertaken “only minimal discussion with stakeholders” before the Regulations, that the process followed had allowed “almost no opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny” before the Regulations came into effect, and that the Regulations had the potential to cause significant harm to firms providing advice and for individuals subject to sanctions wishing to seek legal advice. HMT’s response states that the regulations do not “represent any substantial change in Government policy”, that there was no consultation requirement, that OFSI did “engage with a number of representative bodies”, and that OFSI’s guidance addresses legal privilege.  The Lords Committee decided not to draw the Regulations to the special attention of the House. The correspondence is in Appendix II of the Committee’s Report.

This entry was posted in United Kingdom by Maya Lester QC. Bookmark the permalink.

About Maya Lester QC

Maya Lester QC has a wide ranging practice in public law, European law, competition law, international law, human rights & civil liberties. She has a particular expertise in sanctions. As the most recent (2016) Chambers & Partners directory put it, she "owns the world of sanctions". She spent 2011-12 in New York at Columbia Law School lecturing and writing on sanctions. She represents and advises hundreds of companies and individuals before the European and English courts and has acted in most of the leading cases, including Kadi, Tay Za, Central Bank of Iran, NITC and IRISL.

Please Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s