SRA sanctions firm following investigation into historic anti-money laundering failures
An Essex-based law firm has agreed to pay a financial penalty following a regulatory investigation into prolonged failures to comply with anti-money laundering requirements.
Penmans Law Limited, a recognised body authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, entered into a regulatory settlement agreement on 20 January 2026. The agreement was published on 3 February 2026.
Under the terms of the settlement, the firm will pay a financial penalty of £12,128 and £600 in investigation costs. The outcome was reached by agreement and brings the SRA’s investigation to a close.
The investigation followed an inspection by the SRA’s Anti-Money Laundering Proactive Supervision Team. The regulator identified concerns spanning more than a decade in relation to the firm’s compliance with both the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017.
According to the SRA, Penmans Law failed to establish and maintain appropriate and risk-sensitive anti-money laundering policies and procedures between October 2011 and June 2017, as required under the 2007 regulations. The firm was also found to have failed, between June 2017 and August 2025, to put in place fully compliant policies, controls and procedures designed to mitigate and manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.
The regulator said the shortcomings related to documentation and governance arrangements, rather than evidence of criminal activity. There was no finding of direct client loss or confirmed money laundering at the firm.
Penmans Law admitted the breaches and accepted that its conduct amounted to failures under both the former SRA Handbook and the SRA Standards and Regulations introduced in 2019. The admissions included breaches of principles requiring firms to maintain public trust, comply with legal and regulatory obligations, and operate effective governance and risk management systems.
In deciding that a financial penalty was appropriate, the SRA took account of mitigating factors. These included the firm’s cooperation with the investigation, early admissions, and steps taken to rectify the deficiencies. By the time of the desk-based review, the firm’s firm-wide risk assessment and files examined were found to be compliant with the 2017 regulations.
The SRA assessed the misconduct as “more serious” due to its duration, noting that the firm remained non-compliant for several years after the introduction of updated regulations. The risk of harm was assessed as medium, reflecting the firm’s focus on conveyancing work, an area recognised as higher risk for money laundering.
The penalty was placed in Band C under the SRA’s fining guidance but set at the lower end of the range. The regulator concluded that the sanction was proportionate, served as a deterrent, and upheld public confidence in the legal profession.
The agreement will remain published in line with SRA rules on transparency.