Decision record
(unnamed respondent)
Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision
Max Wiley & Co, a sole practice in rural Norfolk, appealed to the SDT against an SRA Adjudication Panel decision that had upheld four MLR 2017 breach findings (with one file reduced from the CDD allegation), a £3,500 financial penalty, £1,350 investigation costs and publication. The appeal, by way of review not rehearing, argued the firm's size afforded wide discretion under the MLR 2017/LSAG Guidance, that the investigation was flawed and not independent, and that CDD obligations arose only at the establishment of long-standing client relationships. The Tribunal held the discretion went to the 'how' of compliance, not whether required tasks were done at all; the firm's FWRA had not been reviewed since January 2022 and omitted proliferation financing (mandatory from Sept 2022), its PCPs were 'thin', it could not demonstrate client/matter risk assessments were done, and verification (as distinct from identification) material was missing, with a grant of representation insufficient to verify address. Errors by the AML associate and an unconnected withdrawn website allegation did not vitiate the process. The SRA expressly never alleged dishonesty or bad faith and accepted the firm acted in good faith; Mr Wiley was described as conscientious and principled. Appeal dismissed; decision affirmed; costs of £12,299 ordered against the Appellant.
Duties found breached: