Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Noted the selection of amendments for debate, including amendment 63 by David Linden, new clause 41 by the Secretary of State, and amendment 64 by Kevin Hollinrake.

Proposes detailed statements about registered beneficial owners who are listed on the UK Sanctions List, extending duties to update the registrar upon certain trigger events such as changes in ownership, ensuring these updates are made annually. These measures aim to prevent sanctioned individuals from using overseas entities to avoid transparency.

Asked the Minister to accept Amendments 24 and 25 requiring notification when registering or updating a record if an overseas person is a sanctioned individual.

Intervened multiple times to seek clarification from the Minister on his stance towards Opposition amendments and their potential acceptance post-Commons stages in the House of Lords.

Requested an opportunity for intervention but was not given way to during the speech.

Suggested that accepting reasonable amendments regardless of origin would strengthen the Bill and send a positive message about widespread support. Asked whether legislative consent from Northern Ireland Assembly is required or if inclusion in the Bill ensures application to Northern Ireland.

Clarified understanding that Government accepts Amendments 24 to 26 in principle, agreeing to work on these amendments in the House of Lords.

Asked for clarification if proposed law changes would prevent a Russian oligarch from moving, selling or transferring assets before actual sanctioning.

Inquired whether the legislation allows for imposing Iran-like sanctions on Russia to enforce secondary entity trade restrictions with sanctioned companies.

Supports amendments that would shorten the transitional period to 28 days, requiring faster compliance from overseas entities. Expresses concerns about the current loophole in which properties bought before certain dates are exempted. Proposes a more stringent verification process and argues for immediate action against economic crime.

Proposes amendments 24-27 and new clause 10. Argues that the current loophole in clause 31 allows enablers to avoid reporting obligations by claiming ignorance, which should not be an acceptable defence. He also introduces new clause 10 for better scrutiny of sanctions regulations reports.

Intervenes to highlight that constituents expect a stricter approach, similar to HMRC's rules for tax evasion, where ignorance is not an excuse. She suggests the government should ensure legislation is watertight.

Intervenes to echo Stella Creasy's concerns about closing loopholes for oligarchs, suggesting that stricter liability provisions are necessary.

Suggests a strict liability approach to achieve Iain Duncan Smith's aim, proposing a reverse burden of proof where defendants must demonstrate they acted lawfully.

Points out that the proposed amendments align with European and American principles, urging alignment with NATO allies to close potential loopholes in legislation.

Asks about the impact of nominees on the effectiveness of the proposed amendments, suggesting it could be a way to circumvent proper identification requirements.

Questions whether amendment 27 covers individual entities as opposed to legal entities, highlighting potential issues with the wording of the Bill.

Clarifies that the Minister has agreed to look at amendment 3 regarding entity identification loopholes, suggesting a collaborative effort to close them before passing the Bill.

Highlights that if nominees can be used as end-point entities, it would render much of the legislation pointless. Suggests resolving this before finalizing the Bill.

Indicates willingness to work with Iain Duncan Smith on amendments 24, 25 and 26 in the other place but emphasises going further than amendment 27.

She supports the amendments aimed at lowering thresholds for beneficial ownership, shortening registration periods, and enhancing transparency in property registers. She argues that current loopholes have allowed significant evasion of anti-money laundering measures.

Asked Alison Thewliss if she agrees that insurance companies should be involved in tracking and reporting asset movements, citing concerns about assets being hidden.

Asked Alison Thewliss if she has received confirmation from the Government that they will honour previous commitments to lower thresholds through secondary legislation.

Expressed frustration about the lack of movement on Companies House reform despite long-standing knowledge of its problems, and questioned why the Government is only now considering reforms for 2024.

Supports the new clause as it would help to crack down on asset transfers more effectively and could be a strong message to President Zelensky.

Supports the new clause but notes that transparency in respect of beneficial ownership is necessary for its effectiveness. He suggests that the ownership of assets should be made clear to prevent asset transfers.

Supports the new clause but questions whether it covers the gifting of assets, which could be used as a means to circumvent sanctions.

Questions how the process would work if someone should not be on the list and how they can be removed from it. He emphasises the importance of reversing the listing mechanism if a mistake is made.

Argues that new clause 2 is necessary to address the underfunding and inefficiency in enforcement agencies, citing statistics on reduced prosecutions despite increased economic crime. Advocates for innovative funding solutions like retaining a portion of fines within enforcement agencies.

Suggests looking innovatively at how to fund enforcement agencies, proposing that they could take a share from successful prosecutions initially, then exploring longer-term solutions.

Questions whether there is a way forward to have closer cooperation in sanctioning individuals across jurisdictions based on evidence shared by the USA, emphasising that if the US sanctions someone, other countries should follow suit.

Raises concern about cryptocurrency exchanges not taking enforcement action against unnamed individuals on sanctions lists, highlighting the importance of information sharing in combating financial crimes.

Amendment 64 would prevent asset flight by requiring beneficial ownership to be registered with Companies House, which links into the Land Registry's requirement for proper registration before any transfer or sale can take place. This would reveal beneficial owners and allow assets to be frozen if they are on a sanctioned list.

Supports the need for an open relationship between the Land Registry and Companies House, arguing that requiring payment to access the Land Registry diminishes transparency. Suggests making both registries open would enhance light-shining.

Supports Kevin Hollinrake's position on whistleblowers, arguing that protecting domestic whistleblowers is crucial and relevant in the context of sanctions against those who may undermine the law by targeting whistleblowers.

Ms. Creasy supports amendments that address the distinction between carelessness and recklessness, arguing that oligarchs should not be able to claim accidental mistakes if they face billions in penalties. She also proposes changes to ensure civil law principles apply, removing the burden of proof on enforcement agencies and focusing on the balance of probabilities. Additionally, she introduces amendment 39 to address family members being used as a means to hide assets.

Supports amendment 64 which proposes day one restrictions on the sale or transfer of assets during the transition period. Emphasises the need to support Ukraine while addressing past inactions by various political parties. Calls for more resources from the Government to tackle economic crime, reflecting its seriousness.

Mr. Chris Bryant criticises the government for not introducing similar measures earlier, highlighting the need for transparency about asset ownership and enforcement of sanctions. He points out that Companies House needs more powers to verify information provided by registrars and emphasises the urgency of the amendments due to recent geopolitical events.

Neill is concerned that current provisions do not adequately capture economic beneficiaries, especially those holding property through trusts. He suggests amending regulations to ensure all beneficial owners are captured and highlights the need for detailed legal alignment with existing frameworks such as the trust registration service.

Moran supports new clause 5 which aims to release names of those lobbying against anti-corruption measures. She also critiques the exemption for 'economic wellbeing' as a loophole that could be exploited by high net worth individuals seeking to avoid scrutiny.

Olney intervenes, supporting Moran's stance and raises concerns about freeports as potential havens for money laundering. She urges the Minister to reconsider an amendment related to transparency in freeport operations.

Proposes amendments 37 and 38, emphasises the need to remove vague language in the Bill that allows oligarchs to evade sanctions. Criticises government's poor performance in sanctioning and resource allocation compared to other nations.

Supports amendment 63 which seeks to prevent sanctioned individuals from participating in UK democracy or donating money to political parties. Argues that leaving this loophole open would allow Putin's cronies to pollute British politics with dirty money.

Welcomes new clauses 2, 3 and amendment 41 to curb shell companies and obfuscation. Supports measures that tighten loopholes in Companies House registration to prevent illicit money flow from Russia.

Supports amendments intended to close loopholes and strengthen legislation, ensuring transparency for sanctions enforcement. Highlights the underfunding of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation with only 37.8 FTE staff and the lack of Russian-speaking personnel in the National Crime Agency.

Supports new clauses 7 and 8 to clamp down on oligarchs. Criticises Government for inadequate enforcement measures despite evidence of illicit activities by Russian oligarchs in London, advocating for an 'oligarch levy' and application of the Magnitsky clause.

Discussed SLAPPs and likely raised concerns about the effectiveness of measures proposed by the Government.

Made important points related to nominees that were addressed by the Minister.

Collaborated with Sir Robert Neill on points regarding nominees and worked towards a common goal.

Worked with the Minister to refine drafting of proposals for the other place, aiming for a robust legal framework.

Tabled new clause 7 and amendments 10 and 11 to introduce further reforms. The Minister acknowledged these but suggested waiting until the next session for such measures.

Discussed Companies House reform and verification processes that are being introduced by the Government.

Proposed amendments 24 and 25, seeking to add statements required from overseas entities. The Minister acknowledged these proposals but requested further consideration in the other place.

Not mentioned directly in this segment, but likely addressed similar issues as other Conservative MPs supporting or collaborating with the Minister.

Likely raised points on economic crime measures, possibly in line with Government positions.