SRA fines Minahan Hirst & Co after years of AML compliance failures
Minahan Hirst & Co Limited has agreed to pay a financial penalty of £12,774 following an investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority into anti-money laundering (AML) compliance failures spanning several years.
The outcome, reached through a regulatory settlement agreement dated 13 April 2026 and published on 23 April 2026, also requires the firm to pay £600 in investigation costs.
The SRA’s investigation was initiated following a desk-based review conducted by its AML Proactive Supervision Team. This review identified significant deficiencies in the firm’s policies, controls and procedures (PCPs), which are required under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.
According to the regulator, the firm failed to maintain compliant AML systems between 26 June 2017 and 31 January 2026. During this period, its PCPs were repeatedly found to be incomplete or non-compliant, despite assurances that improvements had been made. At one stage, the firm submitted a firm-wide risk assessment in place of the required procedures.
The investigation also identified weaknesses in the firm’s handling of client matters. A review of selected files found that two out of six lacked an adequate source of funds checks, in breach of regulatory requirements. These checks are considered a key safeguard in preventing money laundering, particularly in conveyancing transactions, which carry higher risk.
The SRA concluded that these failures amounted to breaches of both the SRA Principles 2011 and the updated regulatory framework introduced in 2019. The firm admitted the breaches and accepted that it had not met its obligations to maintain effective governance systems and comply with relevant legislation.
In determining the penalty, the regulator assessed the misconduct as serious, noting that the firm had remained non-compliant for over eight years. It also found that the deficiencies created a risk of facilitating money laundering or terrorist financing, even though no actual harm to clients or third parties was identified.
The financial penalty was calculated in line with the SRA’s guidance, placing the conduct within a higher penalty band due to its duration and nature. The initial penalty figure was reduced to £12,774 to reflect mitigating factors, including the firm’s cooperation, transparency, and remedial actions.
The SRA stated that the sanction was necessary to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in legal services. It also emphasised the importance of compliance with AML regulations, particularly in high-risk areas such as property transactions.
The firm has since implemented compliant systems and procedures, and the regulator confirmed that it is now meeting its obligations under the relevant legislation.