Court of Appeal stops short of confirming anonymity for bank employees reporting POCA suspicions
Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Limited
As reported in our earlier eAlert, the High Court previously held that public interest immunity applied to the identity of bank employees who raised and reported suspicions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"), as the prima facie need for anonymity in such cases was the same as for police informers and those reporting on child abuse. However, the Court did order that the claimants were entitled to further details of the employees' positions within the bank in order to assess whether any particular employee's actions in the reporting process warranted further investigation.
The claimants, Mr Shah and his wife, had sued HSBC in respect of alleged losses arising from delays in executing transaction instructions. HSBC had delayed the transactions pending authorisation from SOCA, having made money laundering suspicious activity reports ("SARs"). The bank was awarded summary judgment in respect of the claimants' positive claims that the bank was in the wrong. The narrow issue remaining was whether the bank had reasonably held the suspicions which gave rise to the SARs. In turn, this gave rise to the issue on this application, namely whether the bank was entitled, as it had done, to redact the names of those employees who had reported their suspicions to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer ("MLRO") in accordance with their obligations under POCA.
The claimants appealed against the first instance judge’s refusal to require the bank to reveal the names of the employees in question. The bank's cross-appeal was against the decision that the names were information within its obligation to make standard disclosure under the Civil Procedural Rules. The Court of Appeal last week handed down its judgment, dismissing the claimants' appeal and allowing the bank's cross appeal.
Lawyers Tim Strong, Richard Doble
