Invoking privilege on money laundering

ANTI-money laundering legislation that requires professionals to dob in clients to authorities would undoubtedly cut into lawyer-client privilege if extended to the legal sector, experts say.

Monash University associate professor Adrian Evans said if lawyers had an obligation to report suspicious client transactions to authorities, this would act to limit professional privilege.

"I don't think there's much doubt that privilege would be interfered with," he said. "The question is whether as a policy that should be a problem."

Associate professor Evans said he could see why lawyers were worried about the move, but there were powerful public policy reasons to crack down on terrorism and organised crime and he did not want Australia to "lead from the rear".

"Lawyers fulfil an important public purpose in helping people 'fess up (to wrongdoing) ... Clients know privilege exists and prevents that information from being disclosed.

"The idea is that the lawyer then helps the client stay within the law ... so there is a really valid issue in supporting the notion of privilege."

However, he said there were real concerns lawyers were actively involved in supporting money laundering in Ireland and in countries in Africa and the former Soviet Union.

"We don't know if it's a problem in Australia. However we're part of an international movement to prevent money laundering. If other countries decide they're going to get on board in restricting privilege and we don't, then we could attract more criminal activity into this country," he said.

"If we say we won't get on board with things that are arguably necessary for the global economy until everyone else does, then we're not showing leadership and I feel we should show leadership here."

University of Melbourne associate professor Christine Parker said although lawyers would be unhappy, she thought privilege should be limited.

Source: The Australian News