SRA sanctions London firm after identifying years of anti-money laundering compliance failures
Pothecary Witham Weld Solicitors has agreed to pay a £25,000 financial penalty after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) identified a series of anti-money laundering (AML) compliance failures during an investigation.
The regulatory settlement agreement, dated 12 June 2026 and published on 30 June 2026, follows a desk-based review carried out by the SRA’s AML Proactive Supervision Team.
The SRA found that the London-based firm failed to comply with several requirements under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. During its review of three client files, the regulator found that the firm had not properly assessed the level of money laundering risk as required under the regulations.
The investigation also concluded that between 26 June 2017 and 31 August 2023, the firm failed to establish and maintain appropriate Policies, Controls and Procedures (PCPs) designed to identify and manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing.
As part of the agreement, the firm admitted that these failures resulted in breaches of the SRA’s regulatory requirements under both the former SRA Handbook 2011 and the current SRA Standards and Regulations, depending on the relevant period.
When deciding the appropriate sanction, the SRA considered several mitigating factors. These included the firm’s early admission of the PCP failures through a self-report, the steps it had already taken to correct the deficiencies before regulatory engagement, its cooperation throughout the investigation, and the absence of any evidence that clients had suffered harm.
Despite these mitigating factors, the regulator concluded that a financial penalty was necessary. It said the firm’s conduct demonstrated a disregard for statutory and regulatory obligations and left it vulnerable to the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing because it did not maintain a compliant AML control environment. The SRA added that the sanction serves the public interest by promoting professional standards and acting as a deterrent to other firms.
In calculating the penalty, the SRA assessed the firm’s conduct as “more serious” due to the prolonged period of non-compliance and the fact that shortcomings were identified across multiple files. The regulator also noted that the firm had recognised the need to implement compliant procedures several years before doing so.
Although the guidance initially produced a basic financial penalty of £37,847, the SRA reduced the amount to £25,000 after taking the firm’s mitigation into account. The firm also agreed to pay £600 towards the SRA’s investigation costs, and the settlement will remain publicly available in the interests of transparency.