Stephen Kinnock
MP for Aberafan Maesteg · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her.”
“Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon.”
“I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,341 lines we hold for Stephen Kinnock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 61 of 107.
“(7) The court, sheriff or justice may make an order under sub-paragraph (1) if satisfied, in relation to the cryptoassets to be further detained, that condition 1, condition 2 or condition 3 is met. (8) Condition 1 is that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cryptoassets are intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism and that either— (a) their continued detention is justified while their intended use is further investigated or consideration is given to bringing (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cryptoassets are connected, or (b) proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cryptoassets are connected have been started and have not been concluded.”
“(5) An application to a magistrates’ court, a justice of the peace or the sheriff to make the first order under sub-paragraph (1) extending a particular period of detention— (a) may be made and heard without notice of the application or hearing having been given to any of the persons affected by the application or to the legal representatives of such a person, and (b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of persons so affected and of their legal representatives. (6) An application for an order under sub-paragraph (1) or (4) may be made— (a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or an authorised officer; (b) in relation to Scotland, by a procurator fiscal.”
“(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may not authorise the detention of any cryptoassets— (a) beyond the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the order, and (b) in the case of any further order under this paragraph, beyond the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date of the first order; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (4). (3) A justice of the peace may also exercise the power of a magistrates’ court to make the first order under sub-paragraph (1). (4) The court or sheriff may make an order for the period of 2 years in sub-paragraph (2)(b) to be extended to a period of up to 3 years beginning with the date of the first order.”
“(3) In calculating a period of 48 hours for the purposes of this paragraph, no account is to be taken of— (a) any Saturday or Sunday, (b) Christmas Day, (c) Good Friday, (d) any day that is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom within which the property is seized, or (e) any day prescribed by virtue of section 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as a court holiday in a sheriff court in the sheriff court district within which the property is seized. (4) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 10Z7AE. Further detention of cryptoassets 10Z7AG (1) The period for which cryptoassets seized under paragraph 10Z7AD may be detained may be extended by an order made— (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by a magistrates’ court; (b) in Scotland, by the sheriff.”
“(3) The court, sheriff or justice may make an order under this paragraph if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cryptoassets that may be seized are terrorist cryptoassets. (4) An order under this paragraph authorises detention of the cryptoassets for the same period of time as the order under paragraph 10Z7AC authorises detention in respect of the cryptoasset-related item to which those cryptoassets relate. Initial detention of cryptoassets 10Z7AF (1) Cryptoassets seized under paragraph 10Z7AD may be detained for an initial period of 48 hours. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) authorises the detention of cryptoassets only for so long as an authorised officer continues to have reasonable grounds for suspicion in relation to those cryptoassets as described in paragraph 10Z7AD(1).”
“(2) The circumstances in which a cryptoasset is “seized” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) include circumstances in which it is transferred into a crypto wallet controlled by the authorised officer. Prior authorisation for detention of cryptoassets 10Z7AE (1) Where an order is made under paragraph 10Z7AC in respect of a cryptoasset-related item, the court, sheriff or justice making the order may, at the same time, make an order to authorise the detention of any cryptoassets that may be seized as a result of information obtained from that item. (2) An application for an order under this paragraph may be made, by a person mentioned in paragraph 10Z7AC(6), at the same time as an application for an order under paragraph 10Z7AC is made by that person.”
“(9) A “request for assistance” in sub-paragraph (8) means a request for assistance in obtaining evidence (including information in any form or article) in connection with the property to be further detained, made — (a) by a judicial authority in the United Kingdom under section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, or (b) by an authorised officer, to an authority exercising equivalent functions in a foreign country. (10) An order under sub-paragraph (1) must provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order. Seizure of cryptoassets 10Z7AD (1) An authorised officer may seize cryptoassets if the authorised officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cryptoassets are terrorist cryptoassets.”
“(6) An application for an order under sub-paragraph (1) or (4) may be made— (a) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or an authorised officer; (b) in relation to Scotland, by a procurator fiscal. (7) The court, sheriff or justice may make an order under sub-paragraph (1) if satisfied, in relation to the item of property to be further detained, that— (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is a cryptoasset-related item, and (b) its continuing detention is justified. (8) The court or sheriff may make an order under sub-paragraph (4) if satisfied that a request for assistance is outstanding in relation to the item of property to be further detained.”
“(4) The court or sheriff may make an order for the period of 2 years in sub-paragraph (2)(b) to be extended to a period of up to 3 years beginning with the date of the first order. (5) An application to a magistrates’ court, a justice of the peace or the sheriff to make the first order under sub-paragraph (1) extending a particular period of detention— (a) may be made and heard without notice of the application or hearing having been given to any of the persons affected by the application or to the legal representatives of such a person, and (b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of persons so affected and of their legal representatives.”
“Further detention of cryptoasset-related items 10Z7AC (1) The period for which property seized under paragraph 10Z7AA may be detained may be extended by an order made— (a) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by a magistrates’ court; (b) in Scotland, by the sheriff. (2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may not authorise the detention of any property— (a) beyond the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the order, and (b) in the case of any further order under this paragraph, beyond the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the date of the first order; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (4). (3) A justice of the peace may also exercise the power of a magistrates’ court to make the first order under sub-paragraph (1).”
“(2) Sub-paragraph (1) authorises the detention of property only for so long as an authorised officer continues to have reasonable grounds for suspicion in relation to that property as described in paragraph 10Z7AA(1). (3) In calculating a period of 48 hours for the purposes of this paragraph, no account is to be taken of— (a) any Saturday or Sunday, (b) Christmas Day, (c) Good Friday, (d) any day that is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom within which the property is seized, or (e) any day prescribed by virtue of section 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as a court holiday in a sheriff court in the sheriff court district within which the property is seized.”
“(4) In this paragraph “privileged information” means information which a person would be entitled to refuse to provide— (a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, on grounds of legal professional privilege in proceedings in the High Court; (b) in Scotland, on grounds of confidentiality of communications in proceedings in the Court of Session. (5) Where an authorised officer has seized a cryptoasset-related item under sub-paragraph (1), the officer may use any information obtained from the item for the purpose of— (a) identifying or gaining access to a crypto wallet, and (b) by doing so, enabling or facilitating the seizure under this Part of any cryptoassets. Initial detention of cryptoasset-related items 10Z7AB (1) Property seized under paragraph 10Z7AA may be detained for an initial period of 48 hours.”
“Seizure of cryptoasset-related items 10Z7AA (1) An authorised officer may seize any item of property if the authorised officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the item is a cryptoasset-related item. (2) If an authorised officer is lawfully on any premises, the officer may, for the purpose of— (a) determining whether any property is a cryptoasset-related item, or (b) enabling or facilitating the seizure under this Part of any terrorist cryptoasset, require any information which is stored in any electronic form and accessible from the premises to be produced in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible, or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form. (3) But sub-paragraph (2) does not authorise an authorised officer to require a person to produce privileged information.”
“(5) In this Part— “cryptoasset-related item” means an item of property that is, or that contains or gives access to information that is, likely to assist in the seizure under this Part of terrorist cryptoassets; “senior officer” means— (a) a senior police officer; (b) an officer of Revenue and Customs of a rank designated by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as equivalent to that of a senior police officer; (c) an immigration officer of a rank designated by the Secretary of State as equivalent to that of a senior police officer; “senior police officer” means a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.”
“(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definitions of “cryptoasset” and “crypto wallet” in sub-paragraph (1). (3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)— (a) may make different provision for different purposes; (b) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision. (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
“2 After Part 4B insert— ‘Part 4BA Seizure and detention of terrorist cryptoassets Interpretation 10Z7A (1) In this Schedule— “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically; “crypto wallet” means— (a) software, (b) hardware, (c) a physical item, or (d) any combination of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c), which is used to store the cryptographic private key that allows cryptoassets to be accessed. “terrorist cryptoasset” means a cryptoasset which— (a) is within subsection (1)(a) or (b) of section 1, or (b) is earmarked as terrorist property.”
“I have no further comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Schedule 1 Cryptoassets: terrorism “ Part 1 Amendments to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 1 Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist property) is amended as follows.”
“Given that the entire point of the Bill is to clamp down on the ability of criminals to exploit gaps in laws and regulatory approaches to economic crime across different countries, the Opposition sincerely hope that the Government welcome proposals that are intended to provide law enforcement with as much information as possible to facilitate the detection of economic crime. Requiring Companies House to record information on the location of relevant individuals’ bank accounts seems like an eminently reasonable measure that could make a valuable contribution to the fight against economic crime.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. New clause 24, tabled by SNP Members, would add to the transparency of the companies register and enhance the ability of law enforcement to identify suspect registrations. It would do so by requiring the subscribers or initial shareholders of a company to provide information on the location of any bank account held either by the individual shareholders or in the name of the company itself. The new clause reflects an acknowledgement of the realities that have been exposed by many of the recent leaks and investigative reporting by the media of the widespread criminal use of bank accounts registered in jurisdictions known for exercising minimal oversight over financial activity and for lax controls on money laundering offences.”
“New clause 50 would make it a requirement that every company registering in the UK has at least one director who is ordinarily resident here. I have already spoken in Committee about the risks that often come with a system that allows companies to register in places to which they have a tenuous connection in terms of actually doing business there. Although there may be certain limited circumstances in which it might be legitimate for a company with no UK-based directors to register with Companies House, I am struggling to see what they might be. On the other hand, I can think of plenty of reasons why the fact that a company has no UK-based directors might be considered a red flag for money laundering risks, calling for additional scrutiny from the registrar.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 49 sought to ensure that the provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which require company directors to be natural persons, would be brought into force. The Opposition welcomed the Minister’s commitment to introducing the necessary regulations to enact that measure in the near future, and we are very pleased to have that on the record. At the same time, however, the Opposition remain convinced that there is much more that the Government could and should be doing to reduce the risks of money laundering and economic crime within the company registration requirements. The new clauses we are about to discuss provide a number of different means by which the law could be further strengthened against the risk of such abuses.”
“We argue that exception reporting could be conducted on the basis of explaining why there is not a single UK-based company director while maintaining the blanket provision that there should always be such an individual in order to minimise risk.”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks. We are talking about how to make it as easy as possible for those red flags to be clear. If we were to do exception reporting, there may, of course, be a clear explanation in certain circumstances for why there is not a single UK-based company director and perfectly legitimate reasons for that. We think that it would be better to do the exception reporting on that basis, so that we are casting the net and identifying red flag areas because of the nature of the company directors and where the risk would appear to be. I take it from the Minister’s remarks that there is not a great deal of room for negotiation on that point. However, we are trying to put forward a sensible and pragmatic solution. Can the Minister say any more about how to look through the telescope in terms of exception reporting?”
“(2) In Schedule 2— (a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, for “and” substitute “or”; (b) after sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 insert— (aa) is a beneficial owner of any UK-based assets held by overseas entity, and”.’— (Stephen Kinnock.) The intention of this new clause is to broaden the scope of registration requirements for overseas entities, as set out in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, to include the beneficial owners of any UK-based assets owned by an overseas company, as well as the beneficial owners of the company itself. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“I thank the Minister for those points. I see that we will agree to disagree on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 51 Registration requirements: UK-based assets held by overseas entity ‘(1) The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 is amended as follows.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The purpose of the new clause is to close what appears to be a loophole in the current requirements on the registration of overseas entities that own property in the UK. The case for the new clause is simple. Under the current rules, as set out primarily in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, a foreign company that owns property or land in the UK is required to declare the beneficial ownership of the company itself. It is, however, unclear whether it would also be required to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any property owned by that company. In recent years, we have seen ample evidence of how easy it can be—”
“To make a significant difference in terms of transparency, the register must require all companies to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any UK property under their control. It must publish that information. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether the legislation currently provides an adequate degree of clarity. If he agrees that the requirements could be made clearer, I hope that we can trust that the necessary changes will be incorporated in the Bill, or set out in regulation.”
“We already know that the beneficial ownership of property and other assets is often shrouded in layer on layer of corporate secrecy. In its official guidance and examples of best practice on beneficial ownership, the Financial Action Task Force draws a distinction between the ownership of a company on the one hand and the ultimate beneficial ownership of any assets held by that company on the other. The guidance makes it clear that they are not necessarily the same thing. One of the most salient differences is that although a company can be the legal owner of a property, the ultimate beneficial owner of that property will always be a natural person, or, in layman’s terms, a human being. It is not clear whether the current legal framework for the register of overseas entities is sufficiently clear on that point.”
“According to our interpretation, schedule 2 of the 2022 Act is unclear about whether a company would be required to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any property owned by that company. Our worry is that there is a loophole in the law that talks about the beneficial owner but does not give us the tools to obtain disclosure of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the property. In recent years, we have seen ample evidence of how easy it can be for money launderers and the enablers of economic crime to exploit any grey area, perceived or actual, in the laws that apply to them. Therefore it is essential that the law is absolutely crystal clear on that point. It is about tightening up the law as it stands.”
“I thank the Minister for that clarification. What rang alarm bells with us were the comments of the Financial Action Task Force, which drew the distinction between the ownership of a company and the ultimate beneficial ownership of any assets held by that company. The Minister has made his position clear, and, again, we just agree to disagree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)”
“Although it should be acknowledged that similar issues involving the use of nominee directors, for example, raise some complicated legal questions, the use of family members to conceal the beneficial ownership of a foreign company is surely an issue that can be easily dealt with. New clause 52 provides a simple solution that I hope the Government will accept in the constructive spirit in which it is proposed.”
“Given how high the Government have set the threshold at which ownership of a company’s shares must be declared—at 25%—the need to tackle risks of concealing ownership by spreading shares among several different people becomes all the more urgent. Splitting ownership between family members would appear to be the easiest and most obvious way to do this. If the threshold for declaring ownership is set at 25% of a company’s shares or voting rights, it takes little imagination to come up with a solution: simply break up the shares so that on paper, if not in reality, five members of the same family appear to own no more than 20% of the company each. As a result, none of them have to disclose their connections with the company under our current laws.”
“This issue can be addressed by placing obligations on the nominee to disclose to the company registry the identity of the person on behalf of whom they are acting and imposing sanctions for false declarations.” Going back as far as the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 as well as in more recent legislation, the Government have made significant strides toward eliminating legal loopholes used to conceal economic crime—for instance by abolishing bearer shares and providing for a requirement for company directors to be natural persons, which the Minister assures us will be brought into effect shortly. Although I commend the Government for having taken those steps, it is clear that we need to go further.”
“As the Financial Action Task Force guidance on transparency and beneficial ownership explains: “Criminals often use informal nominee arrangements whereby friends, family members or associates purport to be the beneficial owners of corporate vehicles. This can be particularly challenging given the informal and private nature of such arrangements.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Conservative Members will have gathered by now that the common theme of many of the new clauses tabled by the Opposition on the register of overseas entities is really closing loopholes. We may not, even will the best will in the world, be able to foresee at this stage exactly where any loopholes may arise, but we can at least act now to close the most obvious and predictable ones. In that spirit, new clause 52 seeks to address one of the most widely documented and understood means by which criminals attempt to conceal the true owners of property in places such as the UK.”
“Does the Minister agree that where family members are concerned things are more likely to be at the more opaque end of the spectrum and therefore the Bill should reflect that and have the lower threshold, as set out in the new clause?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I think the spirit of the new clauses is about prevention being better than cure. The Opposition feel that, if we look at the spectrum from deeply opaque business practices to fully transparent ones, when family members are involved we are almost by definition at the more opaque end of the spectrum. By definition, family members will be in a position to communicate with one another, things will not be on the record and the whole thing can be easily cooked up in the way that I outlined. For example, if five family members were given 20% each, they would come in under the 25% threshold.”
“(2) In section 51, after subsection (5) insert— “(5A) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Order in Council under subsection (2) above comes into effect on date no later than 30 June 2023.”’— (Stephen Kinnock.) This new clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that an Order in Council requiring open registers of beneficial ownership in the British Overseas Territories comes into force no later than 30 June 2023. Brought up, and read the First time .”
“As I have said, we are very much about prevention being better than cure and a smart as possible approach to risk management. However, I take the Minister’s comments on board and I have no further comments to make. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 53 Beneficial owners in overseas territories ‘(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.”
“The Minister also deserves recognition for his advocacy on the need for transparency to be extended to the overseas territories, albeit in his previous incarnation as a Back-Bench Member of this House.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 53 would amend the wording of provisions in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to require the introduction of open registers of beneficial ownership in each of the UK’s overseas territories. Some of the Committee’s Members are veterans of the struggle to incorporate the requirement into the 2018 Act and will no doubt recall that it was only thanks to the persistent effort of certain Back Benchers against the determined resistance of Ministers that the necessary amendment was ultimately made. It would be remiss of me not to pay particular tribute to the efforts on this issue of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking.”
“My right hon. Friend asks a very good question, while chuntering from a sedentary position. I trust that the Minister’s views have not changed with his recent promotion. The fundamental principle behind new clause 53 is simply that there should be no double standards in the legal requirements for transparency of beneficial ownership across different parts of the UK, including in the overseas territories. To put it bluntly, we have simply witnessed too many scandals involving money being laundered through territories for whose administration the UK is ultimately responsible to accept the idea that we must simply leave them to their own devices. I will not name names here, but I think—”
“Members are still awake on the Back Benches.”
“It seemed clear to those who pushed for section 51 of the 2018 Act that what it required was for beneficial ownership registries to be in place by the end of 2020, whether as a result of the overseas territories’ own legislation or an Order in Council. According to the spin the Government chose to put on it, its obligation had been met simply by the publication of a draft Order in Council, regardless of when, or even whether, such an order might actually come into force. The result is that we are here yet again—almost five years later—still discussing how to ensure the implementation of registers to the same standards across all of the UK’s territories. Surely it should not be beyond the wit of Ministers—even in this Government—to have sorted this out by now— [ Interruption. ] I am just checking that hon.”
“The result of that consensus was the provision in section 51 of the 2018 Act that any overseas territory that had not established a beneficial ownership registry in line with the standards of our own by the end of 2020 should be subject to direct legislation by an Order in Council. As I have already mentioned, the Government practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they accepted that provision in the first place. However, as subsequent events have demonstrated, the real problem is that Ministers have interpreted section 51 of the Act so creatively that in effect they have completely undermined if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the law.”
“My right hon. Friend may well wish to do so. I think that any member of this Committee will understand what I mean when I refer to certain “usual suspects” in cases involving financial dealings that, even with the most charitable interpretation, can only be described as being questionable at best. The language that was ultimately added to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 reflected a recognition from Members of all parties and in both Houses that the same standards requiring open, publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership should apply to both the UK and its overseas territories. It also reflected the widespread consensus that if we wanted to ensure that the overseas territories played by the same standards, we should be prepared to use sticks as well as carrots.”
“I fear that it is a bit naive and complacent to think that this is going to be done by consensus. Five years have gone by since the 2018 Act was introduced and it is extraordinary that we may have to wait another 12 months, as the Minister says. Frankly, I remain sceptical that, without a stick as well as a carrot in this conversation, anything will ever happen. I would welcome any feedback that the Minister has on that point. I do not really have a specific question for him, but I am struggling to understand why we can possibly think it is acceptable that here we are, five years later, with a chasm in our ability to implement and go after the things that we want to go after. Does he really think it is justifiable to wait another 12 months, rather than just accepting the new clause?”
“Unfortunately, we remain unconvinced by the Minister’s answers on these points and we wish to push the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“It would go a long way towards driving tainted money out of the UK property market. I hope that, on this basis, the Government will support new clause 54.”
“As we have already discussed, the primary purpose of the Treasury’s list of designated high-risk countries is to mirror the list of jurisdictions identified by the Financial Action Task Force as posing serious threats of money laundering and terrorist financing on account of weaknesses in their laws, inadequate law enforcement or some combination of the two. New clause 54 seeks to incorporate into the Bill what we on the Opposition Benches believe to be a matter of basic common sense: if a company was initially formed under laws designated by the Treasury, under international guidelines, as seriously deficient in their approach to money laundering risks, that company should not be allowed to own land or property in the UK. It is a straightforward solution to a very serious problem.”