Parnalls Solicitors Limited
15-19 Westgate Street, Launceston , PL15 7AB
Licenced body
341398

Decision - Agreement

Outcome: Regulatory settlement agreement

Outcome date: 9 June 2026

Published date: 11 June 2026

Firm details

No detail provided:

Outcome details

This outcome was reached by agreement.

Decision details

1. Agreed outcome

1.1 Parnalls Solicitors Limited (the firm), a Licensed body, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) agrees to the following outcome to the investigation:

1. Parnalls Solicitors Limited will pay a financial penalty in the sum of £32,106,
2. to the publication of this agreement, and,
3. Parnalls Solicitors Limited will pay the costs of the investigation of £600.

2. Summary of Facts

2.1 We carried out an investigation into the firm following an inspection by our AML Proactive Supervision team.

2.2 Our inspection and subsequent 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.

Source of funds (SoF)

2.3 In three files, the firm failed to conduct appropriate customer due diligence (CDD) measures, including the scrutiny of transactions undertaken (including, where necessary, the source of funds (SoF)), pursuant to Regulation 28(11)(a) of the MLRs 2017.

Client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs)

2.4 In four files, the firm failed to conduct client and matter risk assessments (CMRAs), pursuant to Regulation 28(12)(a)(ii) and Regulation 28(13) of the MLRs 2017.

Policies, controls and procedures (PCPs)

2.5 In four files, the firm failed to follow or implement its own policies, controls and procedures (PCPs), pursuant to Regulation 19(3)(e) of the MLRs 2017.

2.6 The firm has since confirmed it has put in place measures to ensure continuing and future compliance, including reviewing all active matters to ensure they contain a documented CMRA, provided training to fee earners on the completion of CMRAs and the importance of obtaining and scrutinising SoF. The firm was placed on a compliance plan to address the issues identified, and we are satisfied the firm has met the requirements of the compliance plan. From the sample files reviewed, there was no evidence of any actual harm caused a result of the misconduct identified.

3. Admissions

3.1 The firm admits, and the SRA accepts, that by failing to comply with the MLRs 2017 it has breached and/or failed to achieve:

1. Paragraph 2.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms – which states you must 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.
2. Paragraph 2.2 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms – which states you must keep and maintain records to demonstrate compliance with your obligations under the SRA's regulatory arrangements.
3. Paragraph 3.1(a) of the SRA Code of Conduct for Firms – which states you must keep up to date with and follow the law and regulation governing the way you work.
4. Principle 2 of the SRA Principles – which states you must act in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons.

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 admissions made by the firm and the following mitigation:

1. The firm took steps to rectify its failings and is now compliant with the MLRs 2017.
2. At the time of the inspection, the firm's firm-wide risk assessment (FWRA), policies, controls and procedures (PCPs) and CMRA template were found to be compliant with the MLRs 2017, so there was a lower exposure to ongoing risks.
3. The firm has cooperated with the SRA's AML Proactive Supervision and AML Investigation teams.
4. The firm has admitted the breaches listed above at the earliest opportunity.

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

1. The conduct showed a disregard towards statutory and regulatory obligations and had potential to cause harm by failing to have compliant AML control documentation and evidence in place at file level, which left the firm susceptible to money laundering and/or terrorist financing.
2. It was incumbent on the firm to meet the requirements set out in the MLRs 2007 and 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 Procedures 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 Procedures 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 We have assessed the nature of conduct in this matter as more serious (score of three). This is because the firm's failure to ensure it had proper documentation in place at file level shows a persistent disregard of the firm's regulatory obligations. This is more serious given the lack of CMRAs and SoF at file level, which translated to a poor understanding of the risks posed by clients and matters and resulted in insufficient scrutiny being applied, as well as a lack of understanding and/or compliance with the firm's own internal controls.

5.3 The firm only became compliant with the MLRs 2017 because of our AML deskbased review and guidance we have provided. The breach has arisen because of recklessness and a failure to pay sufficient regard to money laundering regulations, published guidance and SRA warning notices.

5.4 The firm has failed to ensure that it was fully compliant with its statutory obligations until December 2025, when it satisfied the compliance plan by reviewing all live, inscope files for a completed CMRA and sufficient SoF checks and rolled out training to staff on completing and documenting its CMRA and SoF checks. We reviewed a further sample of live files and are satisfied that the firm is ensuring its PCPs, with respect to CMRAs and SoF checks, were being followed and implemented. The firm was therefore in breach for a period of over eight years since the MLRs 2017 came into effect.

5.5 The impact of the harm or risk of harm is assessed as being medium (score of four). The nature of conveyancing is considered high-risk, owing to the risk of abuse of the system by criminals. We note the firm currently undertakes around two-thirds of its work in scope of the money laundering regulations, via mainly conveyancing. This puts it at a risk of being used to launder money. Conveyancing is a high-risk area for money laundering and terrorist financing, however there is no evidence of there being any direct loss to clients or actual harm caused as a result of the firm's failure to ensure it had proper documentation in place at file level and despite policies, controls and procedures not being followed with respect to CMRAs and SoF.

5.6 The 'nature' of the conduct and the 'impact of harm or risk of harm' added together give a score of seven. This places the penalty in Band “C”, as directed by the Guidance.

5.7 We and the firm agree a financial penalty towards the lower end of the bracket. Despite the lack of compliance until December 2025, we are pleased to see the firm has confirmed it has put in place measures to ensure continuing and future compliance, by rolling out training to staff on the importance of and the process for conducting CMRAs and SoF checks, and reviewed all live files in-scope of the MLRs 2017 to ensure a completed CMRA and sufficient SoF was present on each file.

5.8 Based on the evidence the firm has provided of its annual domestic turnover, this results in a basic penalty of £42,808.

5.9 The SRA considers that the basic penalty should be reduced to £32,106. This reduction reflects the mitigation set out at paragraph 4.2 above.

5.10 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, and the financial penalty is £32,106.

6. Publication

6.1 Section 87(1) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) and the Registers of Licensed Bodies: Section 87(4) rules, require the SRA, as a licensing authority, to maintain and publish a register of licensed bodies, which includes information on enforcement action or sanctions imposed on a licensed body, owner or employee of a licensed body.

6.2 This agreement confirms a decision has been made under Section 95 of the LSA 2007 to fine Parnalls Solicitors Limited, which is a licensed body, which will be published. We do not have any discretion to not publish the decision.

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.

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 immediately following a statement of costs due being issued by the SRA.