SRA fines EDMC Legal Limited £2,268 after an AML review uncovered an inadequate firm-wide risk assessment
A solicitors’ firm trading as RMZ Law Offices has been fined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) after failing to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering risk assessment for several years.
EDMC Legal Limited, which operates as RMZ Law Offices, agreed to pay a financial penalty of £2,268 following an investigation by the regulator. The firm will also pay £600 in investigation costs as part of a regulatory settlement agreement published on 13 March 2026.
The SRA launched its investigation after a desk-based review conducted by its anti-money laundering (AML) proactive supervision team identified concerns about the firm’s compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017.
At the time of the review, the firm was operating under the name Raims Mahmood Zaeem Limited. The name was formally changed on 8 January 2026.
The investigation found that between 1 January 2020 and 10 December 2025, the firm did not have an adequate firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA) in place. Under the 2017 regulations, law firms must maintain a written risk assessment identifying and managing potential exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing.
The SRA said the failure meant the firm did not have effective arrangements in place to assess and manage money laundering risks associated with its legal work.
As part of the settlement, the firm admitted that its conduct breached several regulatory requirements. These included principles requiring solicitors to maintain public trust in legal services and to run their businesses with proper governance and sound financial risk management.
The regulator also found the firm failed to maintain systems and controls necessary to comply with applicable legislation, including anti-money laundering regulations.
The SRA stated that the firm should have been aware of its obligations under the 2017 regulations, particularly as a compliant firm-wide risk assessment has been mandatory since those rules came into force in June 2017.
Although the firm had drafted a document in January 2020, the SRA concluded it was not compliant with regulatory requirements. The regulator also raised concerns that the firm’s compliance officer had misunderstood the difference between a firm-wide risk assessment and other AML obligations, such as client due diligence and matter-specific risk assessments.
The firm acknowledged the breaches and cooperated with the SRA during the investigation. The regulator said the risk of repetition is considered low and that the firm has since implemented a compliant firm-wide risk assessment.
In determining the sanction, the SRA assessed the nature of the misconduct as more serious because the firm failed to meet its obligations for an extended period of time. However, the impact of harm was assessed as low because there was no evidence that consumers or third parties suffered losses.
The regulator said the financial penalty was appropriate to maintain professional standards and to underline the importance of compliance with anti-money laundering regulations in the legal sector.