Search Results

1. LCRO 82/2024 OB v SA (11 November 2025) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...(11 October 2023). 3 Ms SA’s response4 [15] Ms SA describes the steps which the firm took after Mr HP had referred the matter to her. This included ‘on-boarding’ Mr OB and his brother as the firm’s clients, as well as completing AML requirements. [16] She advises that she took the initial steps necessary to ascertain what was required to commence administration of the estate, including: …providing a copy of the will and advice on the same, noting what we need fr...

2. Regulatory Impact Statement Implementation of the anti money laundering and countering financing of terrorism act 2009 proposed regulations [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...Zealand's key financial trading partners, in particular Australia, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Financial Intelligence Unit of the New Zealand Police and a range of regulatory agencies have Regulatory Impact Statement - Proposed AMLiCFT Regulations I 1 been closely involved in developing the proposals in this paper. Some specific aspects of proposals have been discussed with the Australian Transactions Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). The cost analysis predom...

3. LCRO 82/2018 ZI v WS (30 May 2019) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...$5,000 on 4 September 2017 “On account of costs”; and (c) $5,000 on 21 February 2019 “Cash payment, Further retainer for Barrister. The letter, dated 22 February 2019, refers to two invoices and is headed “Relationship Property & AML Verification”. It says the firm proposed to pay those from a “further $1,000 to be received from you”. The invoice is for a fee of $500 plus GST for “Relationship Property” and is also dated 22 February 2019. The narration to...

4. Russia Sanctions Bill [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...production of or access to records, documents or information, rather than physical entry onto premises, which is less of an intrusion into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy; and ii. the power is exercisable against duty holders, being AML reporting entities, or other persons declared by regulation to be under a duty. These persons will have less of an expectation of privacy than an ordinary citizen. They will also not be required to disclose any privileged communicati...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 013 Port Marlborough New Zealand Ltd v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 918 KB]

   ...Policy 4.2.1; (h) whether the subdivision, use or development activity creates a demand for services or infrastructure that may result in a financial cost to the wider community and/or whether the safety and efficiency of the road network is affected; aml- (i) functionally, whether some uses and developments can only be located on land adjacent to the coast or in the coastal marine area; and (j) whether the effects of an activity on the coastal environment are uncertain, unknown, or little u...

6. [2020] NZREADT 21 - Hanford (12 May 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...lapse, he has taken it upon himself to complete educational training, through the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, and the Real Estate Authority. He listed these as “2020 verifiable training video: ethics”, “2020 verifiable training video: AML – due diligence”, “2018 real estate compliance review – staying safe with the REA", “REA supervision course Webinar”, Code of Conduct Webinar”, and “2019 Compliance Review Webinar”. [36] Mr Hanford submi...

7. LCRO 176/2022 SP v AQ (15 August 2023) [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...travel expenses incurred …”. These are items which fall within the dictionary definition of either a ‘disbursement’ or ‘expense.’ [63] Paragraph 6 of Ms SP’s terms and conditions, includes items such as ‘file opening fees’, ‘AML client due diligence checks’, ‘preparing undertakings’, ‘solicitor’s certificates’, and the like. These are not expenses, or disbursements as commonly understood, and defined. [64] All of the items listed as an ‘expense’...

8. LCRO 32/2024 MP v LG (21 January 2025) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...observe that there is no evidence of the applicant being incommunicative, uncooperative or dilatory in her instructions or in her compliance with the firm’s stringent administrative requirements, which I note included unnecessary compliance with AML4 requirements on an instruction that was plainly outside the scope of the AML regime. [71] The applicant’s one apparent failing was in not paying the firm’s initial invoice within the 10 working days she had agreed in the signed letter...

9. LCRO 95/2024 HC v RB (30 July 2025) [pdf, 428 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2025] NZLCRO 110 Ref: LCRO 95/2024 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN HC Applicant AND RB Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicant, M

10. [2021] NZREADT 37 Watson (20 July 2021) [pdf, 212 KB]

    ...February Ms Berry emailed the appellants, attaching “all the required documents by law to pass onto you for reading prior to signing a Sales and Purchase Agreement”. She identified these as: Expression of Interest Complaints Eligibility AML Disclosures for the Main property Disclosures for the Versatile property Title explanation [43] Ms Berry asked the appellants to sign and initial all the documents and scan and email them back to her. Mr Watson responded that the appe...