SRA fines Bendall & Sons over failures to meet anti-money laundering rules
Bendall & Sons has been fined £13,677 following an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority into breaches of anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.
The sanction was agreed through a regulatory settlement published on 16 April 2026, following a desk-based review conducted by the SRA’s proactive supervision team.
The investigation identified failures by the firm to comply with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. In particular, the firm did not maintain a documented firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA) of exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing risks between June 2017 and April 2025.
In addition, the firm failed to regularly review and update its policies, controls and procedures (PCPs) between 2020 and October 2025, as required under the regulations. These shortcomings meant the firm did not have an effective AML control framework in place for a sustained period.
The SRA found that these breaches amounted to failures under both the SRA Principles 2011 and the updated SRA Principles and Code of Conduct introduced in 2019. The regulator concluded that the firm had not maintained appropriate governance systems or ensured compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
As part of the agreement, the firm admitted the breaches and accepted the findings of the investigation. It also agreed to the publication of the outcome and to pay £600 towards the SRA’s investigation costs.
In determining the penalty, the SRA assessed the nature of the misconduct as serious, citing a persistent failure to meet regulatory obligations. However, it classified the impact of harm or risk of harm as low, noting that there was no evidence of actual harm to clients.
The regulator stated that the absence of a compliant AML framework exposed the firm to the risk of being used for money laundering or terrorist financing activities. It emphasised that firms are required to have appropriate safeguards in place to prevent such risks.
The financial penalty was calculated in line with the SRA’s guidance on sanctions. Although the initial penalty was assessed at £15,197, it was reduced to £13,677 to reflect mitigating factors. These included the firm’s cooperation with the investigation, early admissions, and steps taken to bring its AML systems into compliance.
The SRA concluded that a financial penalty was appropriate to uphold professional standards and maintain public confidence in legal services. It also stated that the sanction serves as a deterrent to other firms regarding the importance of compliance with AML legislation.
The agreement confirms that the firm has since taken corrective action and is now compliant with the relevant regulatory requirements.