I have noted the American Bar Associations submission to the Senate hearing on incorporation and financial crime today.
Jack Blum of Tax Justice Network USA also gave evidence. He said in response to his fellow lawyers:
Some members of the bar are concerned that imposing AML responsibility of lawyers who act as incorporation agents will violate lawyer client privilege. I believe that there is a bright line between giving a client legal advice, which is protected by privilege, and performing transactional work that requires interaction with government agencies. If a lawyer explains to a client that he must gather certain information and turn it over to the government as a condition of incorporation the client should have no expectation of confidentiality.
If a lawyer handles an incorporation in a situation where that lawyer knows the corporation will be used as part of a money laundering scheme then the lawyer ceases being a lawyer and becomes a co-conspirator. Under those circumstances neither the lawyer nor the client deserves protection.
Quite so. When I wrote my blog on the ABA submission I had not read what Jack had said. I’m always encouraged when I find I’m in agreement with Jack. I am here, absolutely.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Very sensible comments. UK lawyers have need to comply with DOTAS and POCA for some time.
The Americans are years behind in this area.
All the patriot act seems to have done in my opinion is put obstacles in the way of international trade.
Of course their rules such as FBAR have probably been very effective for preventing Americans using out of the jurisdiction accounts, but clearly its a different matter for large US corporates.