Anti-money laundering (AML) under FCA: are accountancy firms ready for the new compliance era?

What happened?

The FCA is preparing to take over anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing supervision of the legal and accounting sectors from 23 professional body supervisors. Joe Norburn, CEO of TCC Group, described the move as “transformational” in comments to AB Accounting, warning that firms will no longer be able to rely on broad statements of compliance.

Instead, he said, firms will need to “provide clearer evidence for risk assessment, control testing and governance”, moving beyond tick-box exercises towards a culture of demonstrable compliance.

Why does it matter?

A single regulator taking over from a patchwork of professional body supervisors points to deeper reviews, evidence-based assessments and less tolerance for informal or undocumented AML controls.

Practices will likely need to adopt a more structured approach to governance, with proper reporting, clear escalation routes and senior leaders engaging with AML risk on a regular basis.

As Norburn puts it, accountability has to sit at the top table: AML can no longer be treated as a side task for one individual to manage in isolation.

Who is affected?

Accountancy firms currently supervised by one of the 23 professional body supervisors for AML purposes are directly affected, along with their MLROs and senior leadership teams who will carry greater personal accountability for governance and evidence.

Key risks

• Greater scrutiny, with deeper reviews of AML frameworks and a shift towards evidence-based assessment.
• Governance gaps, where reporting lines, escalation routes and board-level engagement are informal or undocumented.
• Weak data and monitoring, leaving firms unable to demonstrate how AML controls actually operate day to day.
• Regulatory and reputational exposure for firms that are unprepared when the FCA takes over supervision.

Actions to take

1. Review current AML risk assessments and evidence trails against what a single, more rigorous regulator is likely to expect.
2. Establish clear reporting lines and escalation routes for AML risk, rather than leaving this to one individual.
3. Ensure senior leaders engage with AML risk regularly, with outcomes recorded and actioned.
4. Put in place systems that can monitor, document and evidence AML controls on an ongoing basis.

Wider implications

Moving AML supervision for accountancy firms to the FCA signals a shift towards higher, more consistently applied standards and stronger enforcement than a fragmented system of professional body supervisors has delivered.

Firms that treat this as an opportunity rather than a burden, building genuinely demonstrable compliance now, can turn it into a point of difference with clients and stakeholders concerned about financial crime risk.

Recommendations

Accountancy firms should start building the evidence base a single regulator will expect well before supervision transfers, rather than waiting for the change to take effect.

That means structured governance, clear escalation routes, regular senior engagement with AML risk, and systems that can show how controls are tested and monitored in practice.