SRA sanctions firm after inspection identifies anti-money laundering compliance failures
A law firm based in Marlow has been fined £11,008 by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) following findings of anti-money laundering compliance failures identified during an inspection.
The SRA published its decision on 19 June 2026 after concluding an investigation into Gabbitas Robins, a recognised body authorised and regulated by the regulator. The agreed outcome was reached on 4 June 2026.
According to the decision, the investigation followed an inspection conducted by the SRA’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Proactive Supervision Team. The regulator identified concerns relating to the firm’s compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, as well as the SRA Principles and Code of Conduct for Firms.
The SRA found that none of the nine files reviewed during the inspection contained a client and matter risk assessment (CMRA) completed at the relevant time. Under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, firms are required to assess and identify the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with clients and matters.
The regulator also found that in six of the nine files reviewed, the firm had failed to carry out sufficient ongoing monitoring of transactions. The SRA stated that source of funds enquiries were necessary in those matters but found either insufficient scrutiny or no documented evidence of such checks on file.
As part of the agreed outcome, Gabbitas Robins admitted that its failure to comply with the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 breached Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019 and provisions of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms 2019 relating to governance, regulatory compliance and adherence to legal obligations.
The SRA said it considered a financial penalty to be the appropriate outcome because the firm’s conduct demonstrated a failure to meet statutory and regulatory obligations. The regulator stated that the deficiencies created the potential risk of the firm being exposed to money laundering or terrorist financing activity through an inadequate AML control environment.
When determining the sanction, the SRA took into account several mitigating factors. These included the firm’s efforts to rectify the issues identified, evidence that more recent files demonstrated adequate risk assessments and source of funds checks, cooperation with the regulator’s AML teams, and the absence of evidence showing harm to clients.
The regulator assessed the conduct as more serious due to what it described as a pattern of non-compliance across a high proportion of files reviewed. It also assessed the risk of harm as medium.
In addition to the £11,008 financial penalty, the firm agreed to pay £600 towards the costs of the SRA’s investigation. The SRA also confirmed that the outcome would be published in the public interest and in the interests of transparency.