What is money laundering?
Money laundering is the process of disguising the origins of criminally obtained property so it appears legitimate. The principal offences are set out in POCA 2002, ss.327–329: concealing, converting, or transferring criminal property; acquiring, using, or possessing criminal property; and involvement in an arrangement that facilitates the acquisition, use, or control of criminal property. Knowledge or suspicion that property is criminal is a key element.
The property need not be the direct proceeds of any particular offence — it need only be ‘criminal property’, meaning property that derives or represents, in whole or in part, the benefit of criminal conduct, with the person knowing or suspecting that fact. This broad definition is what makes money laundering charges so wide-ranging and so frequently used alongside fraud, drugs, and tax offences.
The three stages of laundering
- Placement — introducing illicit cash or property into the financial system
- Layering — moving funds through transfers to obscure their source
- Integration — returning 'cleaned' funds to apparent legitimacy
How we defend money laundering cases
- Scrutinising the evidence that property was 'criminal' in origin
- Challenging knowledge and suspicion — the mental element of the offence
- Analysing banking, transfer, and cryptocurrency records with experts
- Defending regulated professionals and business owners facing failing-to-report allegations
- Separating legitimate commercial activity from alleged laundering
- Negotiating with investigators and presenting pre-charge representations
Knowledge, suspicion and the mental element
For the principal laundering offences, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew or suspected the property was criminal. Suspicion is a lower threshold than knowledge, but it is not vague unease — it requires some factual basis from which suspicion can properly be inferred. We examine what the defendant actually knew, what was communicated, and whether the required suspicion can fairly be made out on the evidence.
For regulated-sector professionals, the failure to report offence (s.330) creates a positive duty to disclose knowledge or suspicion acquired in the course of business. These cases turn on internal procedures, the information available to the individual, and the scope of the regulated role. We defend individuals and advise on the boundary between legitimate compliance and criminal exposure.
Related risks
- Failure to report suspicions (s.330) — for those in the regulated sector
- Tipping off (s.333A) — disclosing knowledge that may prejudice an investigation
- Confiscation and civil recovery of laundered assets
- Restraint orders freezing accounts and property
Business exposure and regulatory consequences
As well as individual liability, regulated businesses can face enforcement for failing to maintain anti-money-laundering controls. Civil penalties, regulatory censure, and the loss of authorisation can follow alongside, or instead of, criminal charges. We advise individuals and businesses and work with compliance teams to address regulatory as well as criminal exposure.
Cryptocurrency and digital assets are now a routine feature of laundering investigations. Tracing the movement of funds across wallets, exchanges, and jurisdictions requires specialist expertise. We work with digital forensic experts to test the prosecution’s reconstruction and to present the defence’s own analysis where it is needed.
Frequently asked questions
No — not for the principal laundering offences. The prosecution must prove you knew or suspected the property was criminal. Suspicion is an important threshold; we examine what was actually known and whether the required suspicion can properly be inferred.
The maximum on indictment is 14 years’ imprisonment. The Sentencing Council Guideline assesses culpability by your role (leading, significant, or lesser) and the amount laundered. Smaller, unwitting involvement can result in non-custodial outcomes; large-scale professional laundering carries lengthy custodial sentences.
Yes. As well as individual liability, regulated businesses can face enforcement for failing to maintain anti-money-laundering controls. We advise individuals and businesses and work with compliance teams to address regulatory as well as criminal exposure.
It can be, if you knew or suspected the cash was the proceeds of crime and you acquired, used, or possessed it. Mere receipt is not automatically an offence — the prosecution must prove the property was criminal and that you knew or suspected that fact. We examine the source of the funds and what was actually communicated to you.
Yes. Criminal property includes digital assets, and transferring, concealing, or converting cryptocurrency known to be the proceeds of crime can amount to money laundering. These cases require tracing across wallets and exchanges; we work with digital forensic experts to test the prosecution’s reconstruction and present the defence’s own analysis where needed.
Tipping off (POCA s.333A) is disclosing information that may prejudice an investigation where you know or suspect a money laundering report has been made. It is a criminal offence carrying up to two years’ imprisonment. We advise regulated-sector professionals on the boundary between legitimate communication and unlawful tipping off.