Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 contains the principal money laundering offences and the disclosure and consent regime which governs banks and the regulated sector. We explain the offences, the defences and exemptions, the consent regime behind "frozen" accounts, and the low threshold of "suspicion".

In brief

• The three principal offences each carry up to 14 years' imprisonment.

• The prosecution need not prove a specific predicate offence.

• An authorised disclosure, with the appropriate consent, provides a defence, and explains why banks restrict accounts.

• "Suspicion" requires only a possibility which is more than fanciful.

The scope of Part 7

Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA") contains the money laundering offences and the system of disclosures and consents which supports them. The offences are widely drawn, the mental threshold is low, and the regime extends well beyond organised crime into ordinary banking and professional practice.

The three principal offences

Section 327 makes it an offence to conceal, disguise, convert or transfer criminal property, or to remove it from the jurisdiction. Section 328 makes it an offence to enter into or become concerned in an arrangement which a person knows or suspects facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another. Section 329 makes it an offence to acquire, use or have possession of criminal property, subject to a defence where it was acquired for adequate consideration. Each offence carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment on indictment (section 334).

Section 340 defines "criminal property" as property which constitutes or represents a person's benefit from criminal conduct, where the alleged offender knows or suspects that it does so. The prosecution does not have to prove the commission of a specific predicate offence. In R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354, the Court of Appeal held that the criminal origin of property may be proved either by showing that it derives from conduct of a specific kind or kinds which is unlawful, or by evidence of circumstances giving rise to the irresistible inference that it can only be derived from crime.

Authorised disclosures and consent

A person does not commit a principal offence if he makes an authorised disclosure under section 338 and, where the disclosure is made before he acts, has the "appropriate consent". This is the statutory basis of the "Defence Against Money Laundering" ("DAML") request with which banks are familiar. By section 335, a person is treated as having consent if he receives no refusal within a notice period of seven

working days beginning with the first working day after the disclosure or, if consent is refused, once a moratorium period of 31 days has expired. By section 336A, a senior officer may apply to the court to extend the moratorium period, but the total extension may not exceed 186 days.

That regime explains why a bank will often freeze an account and decline to make a payment whilst a disclosure is considered, since making the payment whilst holding the relevant suspicion could itself be an offence.

Exemptions

There are, however, exemptions from the principal offences. A deposit-taking body does not commit an offence by operating an account where the value of the property concerned is less than the "threshold amount" under section 339A, which is currently £3,000 (having been raised from £1,000 with effect from the 31st July 2025). Since the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, there are also exemptions, in certain circumstances, for dealing with property in order to bring a customer relationship to an end, and for dealing with "mixed property" which includes criminal property (see, for example, section 327(2C) to (2G)).

Duties in the regulated sector

Those working in the regulated sector bear additional duties. Under section 330, it is an offence to fail to make a disclosure where a person knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that another is engaged in money laundering, and that information came to him in the course of business in the regulated sector. The test is objective, so that liability may arise even without actual suspicion. Under section 333A, it is a separate offence to "tip off" by disclosing that a report has been made, or that an investigation is contemplated or under way, where that is likely to prejudice an investigation, and where the information came to him in the course of a business in the regulated sector, subject to the permitted disclosures in sections 333B to 333D.

How low is "suspicion"?

Much of the regime depends on the low threshold of "suspicion". In R v Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654, the Court of Appeal held that to suspect is to think that there is a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant facts exist; a vague feeling of unease will not suffice, but the suspicion need not be clear, firmly grounded or based on reasonable grounds. That test was adopted for civil cases in K Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [2006] EWCA Civ 1039, and applied in Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 31, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed that a bank's suspicion need not rest on reasonable grounds, although the bank may be required to prove at trial that it genuinely held the suspicion.

How DWK Law can help

DWK Law advise individuals and businesses facing money laundering investigations and prosecutions, and we advise regulated-sector firms and professionals on their disclosure obligations, consent requests and the tipping off provisions.

Speak to a member of our team in confidence on 020 3179 2924, or by email to info@dwklaw.co.uk.

DWK Law. This guide is for general information only and is not legal advice. The law is stated as at the 6th November 2026 and may have changed since. Advice should be taken on the facts of any particular case.