复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心-反洗钱新闻

反洗钱新闻

AML NEWS

中文新闻

英文新闻

专题新闻

专题评论

＋更多

相关视频

常州警方收缴单笔最多毒品

＋更多

专家名录

唐朱昌
教授，博士生导师。复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心首任主任，复旦大学俄...

严立新
复旦大学国际金融学院教授，中国反洗钱研究中心执行主任，陆家嘴金...

陈浩然
复旦大学法学院教授、博士生导师；复旦大学国际刑法研究中心主任。...

何　萍
华东政法大学刑法学教授，复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心特聘研究员，荷...

李小杰
安永金融服务风险管理、咨询总监，曾任蚂蚁金服反洗钱总监，复旦大学...

周锦贤
周锦贤先生，香港人，广州暨南大学法律学士，复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中...

童文俊
高级经济师，复旦大学金融学博士，复旦大学经济学博士后。现供职于中...

汤　俊
武汉中南财经政法大学信息安全学院教授。长期专注于反洗钱/反恐...

李　刚
生辰：1977.7.26 籍贯：辽宁抚顺民族：汉党派：九三学社职称：教授研究...

祝亚雄
祝亚雄，1974年生，浙江衢州人。浙江师范大学经济与管理学院副教授，博...

顾卿华
复旦大学中国反洗钱研究中心特聘研究员；现任安永管理咨询服务合伙...

张平
工作履历：曾在国家审计署从事审计工作，是国家第一批政府审计师；曾在...

上传时间： 2015-02-14 浏览次数：1506次

High court excludes lawyers from part of money-laundering law

Sat, Feb 14, 2015

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/high-court-excludes-lawyers-part-money-laundering-law-145314969.html

OTTAWA - Sections of the federal government's anti-terrorism and money laundering financing law are unconstitutional because they violate solicitor-client privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Friday.

In a 7-0 ruling, the court carved out an exemption for lawyers from the federal government's 2000 law that targets money laundering and terrorist financing. The law still applies to other professions, such as financial institutions and accountants.

The court upheld lower court victories by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada that had suspended the implementation of these provisions on lawyers pending the outcome of this case.

The government had wanted lawyers to be subject to provisions of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or Fintrac.

The regulations would have compelled lawyers to keep track of their clients' financial transactions and subjected lawyers' offices to searches without warrants.

The Supreme Court said that violated lawyers' charter rights to be protected from unlawful search and seizure and the undue deprivation of their liberty.

"The regime authorizes sweeping law office searches which inherently risk breaching solicitor-client privilege," Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the court. "It does so in a criminal law setting and for criminal law purposes."

Cromwell said that the law, as originally written, required lawyers "on pain of imprisonment, to obtain and retain information that is not necessary for ethical legal representation and provide inadequate protection for the client's confidences subject to solicitor-client privilege."

Fred Headon, past president of the Canadian Bar Association, said the ruling won't allow criminals or terrorists to hide behind lawyers.

"Lawyers have very clear obligations towards their law societies who regulate what we do — give us our licence to practise — that we are not to be using our offices, our duties, for unlawful purposes," he said.

"If lawyers were involved in criminal activity, well they would have to deal with the Criminal Code like anybody else."

Thomas Conway, president of the Federation of Law Societies, said the ruling allows Canadians to have confidence in their lawyers because it keeps them from becoming "agents of the state."

The law imposed a maximum five-year prison term and-or a fine of up $500,000 for not complying.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said he wants time to review the ruling carefully. He said the government would look at how it would "mesh" with the government's current anti-terror legislation.

And he said the government wants to ensure that terrorist funding is not hidden "in any way, shape or form."

Five of the seven justices also enshrined in the Constitution an established legal principle that lawyers have a "duty of commitment to their clients' cause."

"Clients — and the broader public — must justifiably feel confident that lawyers are committed to serving their clients' legitimate interests free of other obligations that might interfere with that duty," said Cromwell.

"Otherwise, the lawyer's ability to do so may be compromised and the trust and confidence necessary for the solicitor-client relationship may be undermined," he added.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Michael Moldaver dissented on supporting that principle, saying charter protections were already in place to protect solicitor-client privilege.