A Hamilton law firm’s $60,000 AML/CFT fine carries a wider warning for the legal sector. The Foster & Milroy case is a reminder that AML/CFT compliance must be current, evidenced and operating in practice, not just sitting on paper.

The proposed AML/CFT levy would see DNFBPs contribute around $1.6 million annually. What might this mean in practical terms for law firms and their clients?

In February 2026 the Department of Internal Affairs reported the findings of a review involving 30 Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs). The Department noted that while many reporting entities had risk assessments and AML/CFT programmes in place, most were not adequately implementing processes to monitor, examine and keep written findings for high-risk customers, activities or transactions. Most DNFBPs sampled are not adequately implementing a process

How AML CFT supervisors respond to non-compliance Recent Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) cases, including those involving Pagemark Limited and Lexington Trust Services Limited, show how enforcement powers are applied in practice. Supervisors are equipped with a range of measures to correct behaviour, protect the financial system, and maintain sector standards. This enforcement approach will sit within a changing supervisory structure. Under the announced single superviso

Recent enforceable undertakings accepted by the Department of Internal Affairs signal a clear shift in New Zealand’s AML CFT regime. These cases reinforce that foundational obligations must be met in practice, and that where compliance failures persist, regulatory action will follow even in the absence of proven money laundering.