Print Article



As regulators globally become increasingly assertive in their enforcement activities, organisations in the regulated sector remain under the spotlight for the steps taken in response to corrupt practices.

Compliance with anti-money laundering measures is crucial, and one challenging aspect is:-

  • The need for such organisations to balance their reporting obligations under the ML legislation while maintaining commercial relationships with customers.
  • [ML legislation, e.g. the UK Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), the Mauritius Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act. 2002 [FIAMLA], Jersey's Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 [POCJL] ]

Consider Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1283 and Iraj Parvizi v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC B2 (QB).

  • In these two cases, customers who suffered financial losses due to delays following a suspicious activity report (SAR) may seek redress from the courts – particularly if they feel there was an insufficient basis for any suspicion of money laundering.

Iraj Parvizi v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC B2 (QB).

The Claimant [TC] claimed that he had suffered financially due to a SAR submitted by the BARCLAYS in June 2013 to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (which was replaced by the National Crime Agency as the UK's financial intelligence unit in October 2013).

TC claimed he had been denied access to his funds at a critical time and would otherwise have made considerable gains through his gambling activities.

In assessing the BARCLAYS suspicion of money laundering, the Court considered R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654, a key case which established

  • That suspicion must be a possibility which is more than fanciful – a "vague feeling of unease would not suffice".
  • However, the suspicion need not be clear, firmly grounded, targeted on specific factors, or based on reasonable grounds.

BARCLAYS should establish the primary fact of the suspicion to justify not following the customer's instructions.

In this case, BARCLAYS provided the witness statement and contemporaneous manuscript notes of an analyst in its anti-money laundering team responsible for overseeing disclosures relating to money laundering offences and, ultimately, for submitting the SAR in question. The witness statement revealed that

  • Concerns had existed regarding the significant gambling activity on TC's account, and
  • The source of the underlying funds could not be established.

The Court noted some inconsistencies between the explanation given in the witness statement, the "rather sketchy" manuscript notes and the content of the SAR itself.

However, it was significant that these documents were not envisaged as documents to be pored over by lawyers. Notwithstanding an arguable lack of reasoning in some of the evidence, it did establish an apparent belief that suspicion was more than fanciful.

Accordingly, the Court found no reason the case should continue to trial as there was no real prospect of success.


The cases in this area indicate that any suspicion that the customer is engaged in money laundering must be honestly and genuinely held, but need not be of a settled nature.

Firms in the regulated sector will find their position easier to defend if they have produced and retained clear and comprehensive records to explain why money laundering was suspected

If they do not, they may face criticism if this audit trail is inconsistent with the reasoning provided in the disclosure ultimately made to the FIU.



The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email