Legal professional privilege can exempt certain information from disclosure. If the information is genuinely privileged advice privilege or litigation privilege, a solicitor may be prohibited from disclosing it in an STR.

Nothing in the 2010 Act requires a solicitor to disclose information that is subject to legal privilege. Section 46 expressly provides that nothing in the suspicious transaction reporting chapter requires the disclosure of privileged information, and it also provides that a relevant professional adviser is not required to disclose information received from, or obtained in relation to, a client in the course of ascertaining the client’s legal position unless that information was received or obtained with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.

Where privilege may arise, the correct approach is to proceed cautiously, make a careful note, follow your firm’s internal escalation procedures.

Notifying the Judge at the hearing is not, of itself, the statutory reporting mechanism under the 2010 Act, and it does not automatically discharge any separate AML reporting obligation that may arise.

In general, litigation and court representation fall outside the AML-regulated legal services defined in the Act, and the legislation also makes clear that nothing in the customer due diligence provisions is intended to prevent a solicitor from ascertaining a client’s legal position or defending or representing a client in civil or criminal proceedings.

That said, if you are acting in an AML regulated capacity and, on the basis of information obtained through your work, you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, a reporting obligation can arise and must be dealt with through the proper STR route and in accordance with your firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures.

The threshold is not conjecture. There is an important difference between fact-based information that arises from your own enquiries or a client’s admission, and a suspicion based purely on allegations, incomplete disclosure, or assumptions about what the other side may or may not be declaring for tax. If a genuine concern does arise, make a careful file note, escalate internally in line with your procedures, and consider privilege issues where relevant.

Submitting an STR, or considering submitting one, does not automatically mean a sale completes, that a conveyance is void, or that monies must be refunded.

The practical approach is that once the reporting threshold is met you should report, then follow your firm’s AML escalation process by pausing the specific step that gives rise to the concern (for example accepting or transferring funds, exchanging, or completing) while the issue is assessed, making an immediate factual file note, escalating promptly to the MLRO or nominated person, and documenting the decisions and actions taken.

During any delay you must avoid tipping off the client, so communications should be kept neutral and process based, such as referring to routine verification or outstanding paperwork, and you should not indicate that an STR is being considered or has been made.

Making an STR does not automatically mean that the solicitor-client relationship is at an end or that the solicitor must stop acting in every respect. The Criminal Justice (Money Laundering & Terrorist Financing) Act, 2010 (as amended) instead balances reporting, privilege and tipping off. Section 46 preserves legal privilege, and section 47 provides that a disclosure made in accordance with Chapter 4 is not to be treated as a breach of any other restriction on disclosure. So, the making of an STR is not, of itself, a breach of confidence owed to the client.

The practical difficulty identified by solicitors is expressly recognised in section 42(7). Ordinarily a solicitor must not proceed with a suspicious transaction or service before sending an STR but may proceed where it is not practicable to delay or stop, or where not proceeding may itself alert the client or prejudice an investigation. 

At the same time, section 49 prohibits disclosures likely to prejudice an investigation, so the client should not be told that an STR has been made or is being considered. 

Under section 42, solicitors are obliged to make suspicious transactions reports (STRs) to both the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and Revenue if they know, suspect, or have grounds to suspect that a client has been or is engaged in money laundering or terrorist financing.

It is important to remember that FIUs are primarily intelligence units rather than investigative bodies dealing directly with reporting solicitors on a case-by-case basis, so detailed feedback or practical guidance is not always received, and contact may be minimal unless further information is required. For that reason, a lack of response does not mean the report was unnecessary or that nothing has happened; it often simply reflects the nature of the FIU’s role. If FIU Ireland or Revenue seeks further information, it should be provided promptly.

Yes. The Law Society recommends that every firm register with goAML. Solicitors are designated persons for AML purposes when carrying out relevant legal services, and where the reporting threshold is met an STR must be made to FIU Ireland and the Revenue Commissioners as soon as practicable. Registration in advance demonstrates a culture of good compliance and ensures the firm is operationally ready to report promptly if required, rather than trying to set up access and processes in the middle of a live issue. As part of a firm’s policies, controls and procedures, there should also be a clear internal policy on escalation, reporting, and the practical use of goAML.

In that scenario, there is generally no designated person in the courtroom simply because a substantial sum of cash is handed into court in the presence of a Judge and Gardaí.

Under the 2010 Act, a solicitor is a designated person only when providing the specific AML-regulated legal services set out in the Act, and for the most part litigation and court representation fall outside that definition.

The Act also makes clear that nothing in the customer due diligence provisions is intended to prevent a relevant independent legal professional from ascertaining a person’s legal position or defending or representing that person in civil or criminal proceedings. The Court Service is not identified in the Act as a designated person for this purpose, and the fact that cash is handed into court does not of itself create a section 42 reporting role for those present in court.

Once you cross the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect, a reporting obligation exists and the concern should be escalated without delay.

Every firm should have an MLRO (or nominated person) and a clear set of internal policies, controls and procedures that set out exactly what to do when suspicion arises and an STR may be required. It is important that all solicitors are familiar with these procedures before an issue arises, so that escalation is prompt and consistent and does not depend on an individual having to improvise under pressure.

In practical terms, you should pause the step that concerns you where it is safe to do so, make a prompt and factual file note of what triggered the concern (including what is missing, inconsistent or unexplained, and what questions were asked and answers given), and then escalate to the MLRO or nominated person in line with the firm’s procedure, keeping the matter confidential.

You should also record what you did and how the matter proceeded.

An in-house solicitor is not outside the AML regime simply because they are employed. Where a solicitor is acting on behalf of a designated person in the course of AML-regulated legal services, the 2010 Act applies to them, and once the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect is crossed, a reporting obligation arises and must be acted on promptly.

The Act expressly recognises internal reporting procedures, so the correct first step is to escalate immediately through the employer’s internal AML reporting process to the MLRO or nominated person, in line with the firm’s policies, controls and procedures.

In practical terms, the solicitor should pause the step causing concern where it is safe to do so, make an immediate and factual file note of what triggered the concern, record what documents or explanations are missing, inconsistent or unexplained, note what questions were asked and what answers were given, and document how the matter then proceeded.

This is exactly why every firm and business with in-house solicitors should have clear internal reporting procedures, and why every solicitor should be familiar with them before an issue arises.

The Act also provides important protection for an employee who makes a report through an internal reporting procedure, and it further provides that a disclosure made in accordance with Chapter 4 is not to be treated as a breach of any restriction on disclosure.

The legislation does not set out a simple rule that an MLRO can override a solicitor’s suspicion once the statutory threshold is met, nor does it expressly prescribe that an employee must always bypass internal procedures and make a separate unilateral external report in every disagreement scenario. The safest course is therefore prompt internal escalation, careful documentation, adherence to the firm’s procedures.

The duty to make an STR arises the moment the solicitor knows, suspects, or has reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing. This is set out in the statutory reporting obligations for designated persons, who must report suspicions to both FIU Ireland and Revenue. Designated persons are explicitly obliged to file STRs when suspicion exists.

Ceasing to act for the client does not remove this statutory obligation.

Once you cross the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect, a reporting obligation arises and must be dealt with promptly, and it is not avoided simply because you decide not to act, you step off the file, the client is referred elsewhere, or the transaction does not proceed.

Not acting may be an appropriate protective step on the legal work, but it is not a substitute for reporting.

The correct approach is to follow your firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures. Pause the step that concerns you where it is safe to do so, make a careful and factual note of what triggered the concern (including what is missing, inconsistent or unexplained, and the questions asked and answers given), escalate immediately to the MLRO or nominated person in line with the firm’s procedure, and record what you did and how the matter proceeded.

You must make an STR as soon as you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering, regardless of what stage the conveyancing transaction is at.

It is not dependent on receiving funds such as a booking deposit or closing monies. This is because the statutory obligation arises from the suspicion itself, not from the movement of funds, and you are not obliged to wait until the money comes in to the client account.

Suspicion can arise at any point, including prior to the start of the transaction, in the middle of the transaction or after the funds are received.

The reporting obligation is not tied to the point at which deposit monies are received. It arises as soon as you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect, and it can arise at any stage of a conveyancing transaction, including at the very outset during the client risk assessment, client due diligence, or source of funds and source of wealth enquiries.

In practical terms, if the threshold has been crossed you should not wait for the deposit to arrive. You should follow your firm’s internal procedures by pausing the step that concerns you where it is safe to do so, making a prompt and factual note of what triggered the concern (including what is missing, inconsistent or unexplained, and the questions asked and answers given), and escalating immediately to the MLRO or nominated person so that a decision on reporting is taken promptly and the steps on the file are properly documented.  

A solicitor’s source of funds and source of wealth obligations arise in respect of that solicitor’s own client. There is not a general obligation to carry out AML due diligence on the other side’s client. That said, if facts arising on your own file mean that you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect that another person is engaged in money laundering or terrorist financing, a reporting obligation may arise.

The threshold is low, but it is not speculative. It must be based on a rational, fact-based concern after scrutinising the information available, not on conjecture or a mere hunch. If something specific occurs for example, the other side’s client, or an unexplained third party, pays funds directly into your client account, or the payment pattern is inconsistent with the transaction and cannot be properly explained you should take fact based action by pausing the relevant step where safe to do so, examining the background and purpose of the transaction, making a careful file note, and escalating immediately to the MLRO or nominated person in line with your firm’s policies, controls and procedures.

You should not engage in speculative discussions with the other solicitor about their client, and if the reporting threshold is met you should not delay making an STR to FIU Ireland and the Revenue Commissioners while trying to resolve matters informally. Any contact with the other solicitor must be handled very carefully in light of tipping-off obligations and should only be for a legitimate and properly considered purpose connected with preventing money laundering or terrorist financing.

No. Mentioning cash or financial concerns to the Judge in the course of family law litigation is not the same thing as making a statutory suspicious transaction report, and it does not of itself discharge any separate reporting obligation that may arise under the 2010 Act.

For the greater part, family law litigation will fall outside the AML-regulated legal services defined in the Act, and the Act also makes clear that nothing in the customer due diligence provisions is intended to prevent a solicitor from ascertaining a client’s legal position or defending or representing a client in civil or criminal proceedings.

However, that does not mean that anything said in court replaces the statutory reporting regime. If you are acting in an AML regulated service and, on the basis of facts obtained from your own client or your own file, you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering, the obligation is to deal with that through the proper reporting route to FIU Ireland and the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with your firm’s policies, controls and procedures.

Yes. The fact that funds come from a client’s own Irish bank account is relevant, but it is not enough on its own to discharge a solicitor’s AML obligations.

A solicitor’s source of funds and source of wealth obligations relate to the solicitor’s own client, and the solicitor must make reasonable enquiries to verify the specific origin of the funds being used in the transaction and to assess their legitimacy. Put simply, an Irish bank account is one data point, not the answer. It does not explain how the funds were accumulated, whether they are consistent with the client’s profile, or whether they may represent the proceeds of crime. You should not assume that because a bank accepted or transferred the funds, no further enquiry is required.

Depending on the matter, appropriate supporting documentation may include bank statements, evidence of savings, loan documentation, sale proceeds, inheritance papers, or investment records, and those documents should be considered against the client’s instructions and the nature of the transaction. If the explanation or documentation does not add up, or if there are unusual deposits, unexplained transfers, third party funding, or other inconsistencies, the matter should be carefully noted, reviewed, and escalated in line with the firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures.

If the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect is crossed, a reporting obligation arises and an STR must then be considered without delay.

Cryptocurrency does not change the basic AML position. You must apply the same customer due diligence, source of funds, and source of wealth enquiries as you would for any other type of funding. The key practical point is that it is not enough for a client to say, “the funds came from crypto”. You need to understand and evidence how the crypto was acquired in the first place and whether there is any concern that the proceeds of crime were used to purchase it. In other words, you should look behind the crypto to the original funding source and the overall transaction history.

In practice, appropriate enquiries and documents may include confirming the client’s explanation of the crypto history (when acquired, how acquired, what platform or wallet was used, and when and how it was converted back to money for the transaction), obtaining bank statements showing the original purchase funding and any later transfers in or out, obtaining exchange statements or trading history, wallet transaction records, records of any liquidation or sale, and any corroborating documentation that supports the client’s overall financial position, such as payslips, employment contracts, tax returns, company accounts, investment records, loan documentation, or accountant confirmations.

You should assess this material in context, including whether the values involved are consistent with the client’s profile and the transaction, whether there are unusual patterns such as rapid movement, layering, third party involvement, or unexplained transfers, and whether the transaction has an apparent lawful and economic purpose. All steps and conclusions should be recorded clearly on the file and kept under review through the matter.

If, after appropriate enquiries, the information does not add up and you cross the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect, you should follow your firm’s internal escalation process, pause the risky step where safe to do so, and consider an STR promptly.

There is no single fixed number of bank statements that will be reasonable in every case. The obligation is to make sufficient enquiries, and obtain sufficient supporting documentation, to allow you to form a sound and reliable professional judgment on the source of funds and, where relevant, the source of wealth.

In some cases, a short run of statements showing the build-up of funds may be sufficient. In others, you may need a longer period, or different forms of evidence, particularly where the transaction value is high, the funding is complex, or the explanation depends on historic savings or multiple sources. Bank statements are only one tool. Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to corroborate the explanation with other documents such as salary records, loan documentation, a sale completion statement, investment records, company accounts, or tax returns, so that you can understand how the funds were generated and whether the transaction is consistent with what you know about the client and the matter.

The same principle applies to foreign bank accounts. There is no separate number of statements rule, but a foreign or cross-border element can increase the level of risk and may require more scrutiny and more corroboration, especially where the amounts are large, the movement of funds is rapid or layered, the jurisdiction is higher risk, or the transaction pattern is unusual.

Whatever the jurisdiction, the key is that you gather enough reliable evidence to make a reasoned, fact-based assessment. If the information does not add up, or if you reach the point of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect, you should document the concern, escalate internally in line with your firm’s procedures, and deal with the reporting obligation promptly.

The 2010 Act does not use the term foreign transaction and does not specifically classify money coming from Northern Ireland in that way.

The better AML approach is to treat it as a geographical or cross-border factor to be considered as part of the overall risk assessment, rather than as something that is automatically suspicious or automatically low risk. In practical terms, the fact that funds come from Northern Ireland does not remove the need to carry out your own client due diligence, source of funds enquiries, and ongoing monitoring of the transaction. Solicitors must still consider whether the payment is consistent with the client’s profile, the nature of the matter, and the explanation given for the funds.

If the explanation does not add up, or if the threshold of knowledge, suspicion, or reasonable grounds to suspect is crossed, the matter should be escalated and dealt with in accordance with the firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures without delay.

Yes. Solicitors must conduct a Client Risk Assessment (CRA) at the beginning of the transaction and must enquire about the client’s source of funds and wealth. This is required before and during the transaction.

This includes looking at how funds will enter the client account, regardless of whether some funds come from a lender.

The CRA must ensure that all funds, including deposit monies, are:

• consistent with the client’s explanation,
• legitimate,and
• in line with their financial profile.

Even where the balance of the purchase price is coming from a mortgage advance, you still need to carry out client due diligence on your client’s own contribution, including the deposit. The fact that part of the funding comes from a regulated lender does not remove the obligation to make reasonable enquiries into the source of the client’s funds and to gather enough reliable information to form a sound professional view on where the deposit came from and whether it is legitimate.

In practice, the mortgage advance can be recorded as coming from the bank, but the deposit still needs to be explained and supported by appropriate documentation, such as bank statements showing the build-up of funds, savings history, a gift (with appropriate checks), sale proceeds, inheritance documentation, or other corroborating records.

Mortgage lenders carry out their own AML checks, but solicitors cannot rely on a bank’s due diligence to satisfy those required under the 2010 Act.

Your obligation to report suspicion arises as soon as you know, suspect, or have reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering, regardless of whether a bank is providing the remaining funds.

If the deposit cannot be properly explained, comes from an unexplained third party, or the payment pattern is inconsistent with the client’s profile or instructions, you should pause the step that concerns you where safe to do so, make a careful factual note, and escalate immediately to the MLRO or nominated person in line with the firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures. If the threshold of suspicion is crossed, a reporting obligation then arises and an STR must be considered promptly.

Not automatically, but it should not be treated as routine simply because the funds come from an Irish bank account. You must carry out full client due diligence and source of funds enquiries on your own client’s monies, and you must scrutinise the pattern of transactions to assess whether the amounts, frequency and explanations are consistent with the client’s profile, stated business activity and the particular transaction.

The legislation does not prescribe one closed checklist of documents, so the key is whether you have gathered enough reliable information to make a sound professional judgment on the source and legitimacy of the funds. Depending on the circumstances, that may involve reviewing bank statements over a suitable period, the client’s business accounts, tax returns, invoices or sales records, accountant confirmations, and any other documentation that explains how the funds were generated and accumulated.

A cash-intensive business and repeated property purchases can be higher risk and may require enhanced scrutiny, particularly where there are large cash lodgements, rapid movement of funds, unusual funding patterns, or explanations that do not stand up to reasonable enquiry.

If, after making appropriate enquiries, the information does not add up and you cross the threshold of knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect, then a reporting obligation arises. You should record your concerns carefully, pause the step that concerns you where safe to do so, escalate in line with your firm’s internal policies, controls and procedures, and consider an STR promptly. Where a repeated pattern emerges, it may also be appropriate to review other related files internally to ensure the risk is being managed consistently.

There is no single, closed checklist in the legislation that will fit every client, transaction or risk profile, so any list can only ever be illustrative rather than exhaustive. The Act is deliberately risk-based.

In practice, the real question is not simply what type of document you have, but whether you have gathered enough reliable information to make a sound professional judgment about the source of funds, the source of wealth where relevant, the purpose of the transaction, and whether the transaction is consistent with the client’s instructions and overall profile. Depending on the explanation being advanced, appropriate documents may include bank statements over a sufficient period, payslips, employment contracts, tax returns, loan agreements, gift letters, inheritance papers, probate papers, sale completion statements, investment statements, dividend vouchers, accountant letters, company accounts, business financial statements, or other records that explain how the funds were generated or accumulated.

Often it is the combination of documents that matters rather than any one document in isolation. A bank statement may show that funds are in an account, but the solicitor still needs to understand how they got there and whether that explanation makes sense in the context of the matter. Where the transaction is complex, unusually large, conducted in an unusual pattern, or lacks an apparent economic or lawful purpose, further enquiries and further corroboration will be required. If a solicitor is unsure what is sufficient on a particular file, the safest course is to seek further supporting documentation and record the rationale on the file.

There is no single fixed checklist that applies to every global company, and it is not simply a case of taking ID and proof of address from two directors in every matter. The correct AML approach depends on the nature of the entity, its legal structure, its ownership and control chain, the jurisdictions involved, who is instructing you, who is authorised to bind the company, and the overall risk profile of the client and transaction.

As a general rule, you should identify and verify the corporate client itself, understand and document its ownership and control structure, identify and verify the beneficial owner or beneficial owners, and identify and verify the individuals who are authorised to instruct or act on behalf of the company. Where no beneficial owner can be identified in the usual way, or where the structure requires it, you should identify and verify the relevant senior managing officials and keep a clear record of the steps taken.

In practical terms, that usually means obtaining enough reliable documentation to establish the company’s legal existence and registered details; its constitutional and ownership structure; the identity of its beneficial owners; the identity of directors or other controllers where relevant; the identity and authority of the person giving instructions; and the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or transaction.

Depending on the structure and risk, that may include incorporation documents, company registry searches, constitutional documents, shareholder information, group structure charts, board resolutions or other evidence of authority, and identification and address verification documents for relevant individuals. If the matter is higher risk, or if the structure is complex, cross-border, or unusual, further enquiries may also be needed regarding source of funds, source of wealth, and the commercial rationale for the transaction.

The key point is that the solicitor must gather enough information to form a sound and reliable professional judgment on who the client is, who ultimately owns or controls it, who is authorised to act for it, and whether the transaction is consistent with the client’s profile.

Where part of the purchase monies is being provided by way of gift, the fact that the funds are described as a gift does not take them outside AML scrutiny. The solicitor must satisfy themselves that the monies being introduced into the matter are legitimate and do not represent the proceeds of crime, and the gifted funds should be subjected to the same careful source of funds enquiry as the client’s own monies.

In practical terms, best practice is to identify the donor, obtain proof of identity and proof of address, confirm the relationship between the donor and the purchaser, obtain a clear written explanation of the nature of the gift, and establish whether it is an outright gift or whether any repayment, charge, beneficial interest or other condition attaches to it.

The solicitor should also verify that the funds are coming from an account in the donor’s own name and obtain sufficient documentary evidence to make a sound and reliable professional judgment on the source of the gifted funds and, where relevant, the donor’s source of wealth. Depending on the case, that may include bank statements, evidence of accumulated savings, salary records, sale proceeds, inheritance documents, investment records, company accounts, tax returns, loan documentation or other material that explains how the donor came to have the funds.

The level of enquiry should increase where the gift is large, cross-border, time pressured, routed through multiple accounts, paid by an unexpected third party, or otherwise inconsistent with the profile of the matter.

The key point is not the label ‘gift’, but whether the solicitor has gathered enough reliable information to be satisfied that the funds are legitimate. All of this should be documented on the file, reflected in the client risk assessment, and kept under review as the transaction progresses. If the explanation or documents do not add up, the relevant step should be paused and the matter escalated in line with the firm’s policies, controls and procedures and, if the threshold of suspicion is reached, an STR must be considered without delay.

In practice, there may be situations where the solicitor knows the client and the donors of the gift very well (for example, where it is a repeat client or the solicitor knows the source of wealth). In cases like this the solicitor may decide not to obtain documentation because they have satisfied themselves, but they must document the reason for not obtaining documentation/verification.

For many solicitors, the difficulty is not in understanding that a reporting obligation exists once the section 42 threshold is met. The difficulty is often the practical experience of completing forms and using a reporting platform that can feel poorly suited to straightforward legal transactions, such as standard conveyancing matters. A more user-friendly platform would undoubtedly assist compliance.

That said, the fact that the system may be cumbersome does not remove the obligation to report. It remains important that firms register with goAML in advance, that the relevant people are familiar with how it works before a live issue arises, and that firms build clear internal reporting procedures into their policies, controls and procedures so that solicitors are supported when a report has to be made.

If a solicitor is having difficulty completing a report in practice, the correct response is to seek assistance promptly rather than delay or fail to report.

Reporting levels by the legal profession are generally regarded as low across Europe. Some Member States report a higher level and some at a lower level, but the broader view at European and international level, including from bodies such as FATS and Europol, is that suspicious transaction reporting by legal professionals remains low overall.

The key point for solicitors in Ireland is that the position under section 42 is clear. Once the threshold of knowledge, suspicion or reasonable grounds to suspect is crossed, a reporting obligation arises and must be dealt with promptly. It is therefore important that every firm has clear internal policies, controls and procedures for escalation and reporting, and that solicitors are familiar with these procedures before an issue arises.

Yes, section 42 of the 2010 Act, which underpins STRs, requires designated persons to report suspicions of money laundering etc. The locus of any suspected tax evasion is not a relevant consideration under the Act. In evaluating STRs, Revenue may exchange relevant information with competent authorities in other jurisdictions under established legal frameworks.

Yes, section 42 of the 2010 Act, obliges designated persons to report suspicions of money laundering etc to An Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners. While Revenue is aware of discrepancies in the numbers of reports made to both Revenue and the FIU, they are not in a position to comment on statistics provided by the FIU. However, they continue to investigate these discrepancies in collaboration with FIU.