WHITEHEADS SOLICITORS (STAFFORDSHIRE) LTD

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 17 December 2025

Published date: 18 December 2025

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd (the Firm), a recognised body agrees to the following outcome to the investigation of its conduct by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA):

1. it is fined £2,584.
2. to the publication of this agreement.
3. it will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 We carried out an investigation into the firm following a desk-based review by our AML Proactive Supervision Team.

2.2 Our investigation identified areas of concern in relation to the firm’s compliance with The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLRs 2017), the SRA Principles and the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms.

2.3 The review found that the firm failed to sufficiently assess the level of risk, as required by Regulation 28(12) and Regulation 28(13) of the MLRs 2017.

2.4 On one file, it was found that the firm failed to scrutinise the source of funds (SoF) as required by Regulation 28(11)(a) of the MLRs 2017.

2.5 Six files were reviewed for the desk-based review. Three of which did not contain a client and matter risk assessment (CMRA).

2.6 The firm had a procedure for risk assessing clients and matters in its policy and three of the files did contain a documented CMRA. This suggests some awareness of the requirement to undertake CMRAs, but this approach was not consistent across the firm.

2.7 It is therefore unclear how the firm had been consistently risk assessing clients and matters. The Legal Sector Affinity Group (LSAG) guidance suggests risk assessment documentation should be kept up to date and be clear, in providing an audit trail of the decision-making process and rationale throughout the matter. This enables firms to demonstrate adequate consideration of risks to us (as the firm’s AML supervisor), law enforcement or the courts.

2.8 The firm has made assurances that all live in-scope files now contain a CMRA. The firm’s procedures have been updated to ensure a CMRA is completed at the outset of every matter and that this is kept under review should anything change.

2.9 Matter A:

1. Involved the purchase of a property for £89,500.
2. was funded in full by the client’s partner.
3. shows a deposit of £90,333 from the client’s partner on the ledger.
4. contains three savings account statements showing available funds of £114,800 and the only deposits on these statements are the interest payments.
5. did not contain a CMRA.

2.10 The evidence obtained does not indicate how the client (or the client's partner) accrued the funds to purchase the property. There was no scrutiny or rationale applied to show how these funds were accumulated.

3. Admissions

3.1 The firm makes the following admissions, which we accept, that by failing to comply with the MLRs 2017 it has breached:

1. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles – which states you act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.
2. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms – which states you have effective governance structures, arrangements, systems and controls in place that ensure you comply with all the SRA’s regulatory arrangements, as well as with other regulatory and legislative requirements, which apply to you.
3. Paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms – which states that you keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.

4. Why a fine is an appropriate outcome

4.1 The SRA’s Enforcement Strategy sets out its approach to the use of its enforcement powers where there has been a failure to meet its standards or requirements.

4.2 When considering the appropriate sanctions and controls in this matter, the SRA has taken into account the following mitigation:

1. The firm has ensured it is compliant with the MLRs 2017.
2. The firm has cooperated with the SRA’s AML Proactive and Investigation teams.

4.3 The SRA considers that a fine is the appropriate outcome because:

1. The conduct showed a disregard for statutory and regulatory obligations and had the potential to cause harm, by facilitating dubious transactions that could have led to money laundering (and/or terrorist financing). This could have been avoided had the firm established adequate AML documentation and controls.
2. It was incumbent on the firm to meet the requirements set out in the MLRs 2017. The firm failed to do so. The public would expect a firm of solicitors to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations, to protect against these risks as a bare minimum.
3. The agreed outcome is a proportionate outcome in the public interest because it creates a credible deterrent to others and the issuing of such a sanction signifies the risk to the public, and the legal sector, that arises when solicitors do not comply with anti-money laundering legislation and their professional regulatory rules.

4.4 Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Procedure Rules states that a financial penalty may be appropriate to maintain professional standards and uphold public confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. There is nothing within this Agreement which conflicts with Rule 4.1 of the Regulatory and Disciplinary Rules and on that basis, a financial penalty is appropriate.

5. Amount of the fine

5.1 The amount of the fine has been calculated in line with the SRA's published guidance on its approach to setting an appropriate financial penalty (the Guidance).

5.2 Having regard to the Guidance, the SRA and the firm agree that the nature of the misconduct was more serious (score of three). This is because a pattern was identified across the files demonstrating that the requirements of Regulation 28 of the MLRs 2017 were not met.

5.3 The SRA considers that the impact of the misconduct was low (score of two). This is because the firm had adequate AML policies, controls and procedures in place along with a proportionate firm-wide risk assessment to the size and nature of business, save for some minor guidance. Having these documents in place does mitigate the potential risk of impact. Although, this is not substantial mitigation given the lack of CMRAs and SoF checks identified.

5.4 The nature and impact scores add up to five. The Guidance indicates a broad penalty bracket of between 0.4% and 1.2% of the firm's annual domestic turnover is appropriate.

The SRA considers a basic penalty at the top of the bracket to be appropriate which determines a financial penalty of £2,584.

5.5 The firm does not appear to have made any financial gain or received any other benefit as a result of its conduct. Therefore, no adjustment is necessary to remove this and the amount of the fine is £2,584.

6. Publication

6.1 The SRA considers it appropriate that this agreement is published in the interests of transparency in the regulatory and disciplinary process. The firm agrees to the publication of this agreement.

7. Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement

7.1 The firm agrees that it will not deny the admissions made in this agreement or act in any way which is inconsistent with it.

7.2 If the firm denies the admissions or acts in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement, the conduct which is subject to this agreement may be considered further by the SRA. That may result in a disciplinary outcome or a referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on the original facts and allegations.

7.3 Acting in a way which is inconsistent with this agreement may also constitute a separate breach of principles 2 and 5 of the Principles and paragraph 3.2 of the Code of Conduct for Firms.

8. Costs

8.1 The firm agrees to pay the costs of the SRA's investigation in the sum of £600. Such costs are due within 28 days of a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.