Solicitor advocate Mike Dailly calls on lawyers to stop acting for SLPs that ignore transparency rules.

When the Panama Papers scandal broke two years ago, few would have thought such murkiness would wash up on the shores of Scotland. The use and abuse of shell companies to facilitate massive tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime didn’t happen here. Or so we thought.

A naïve belief that Scotland was somehow beyond the shady world of global finance and international crime has been shattered by good investigative journalism from The Herald, confirming that we are not so different to Panama. The reality is that no country in the world is immune from international crime. But that doesn’t mean to say we should make it easy for fraudsters.

While Scottish Limited Partnerships (SLPs) have been a respected and legitimate business model for over a century, this vehicle has now been car-jacked by those with something to hide. In the four years before 2016, the number of SLPs registered in Scotland increased by 237 per cent, while those registered elsewhere in the UK increased by 43 per cent. 16,461 new SLPs were registered at just 10 addresses in Scotland. Something was happening.

The attraction of SLPs is a combination of their secrecy and separate legal persona in law. Unlike in England, a SLP is a legal entity in its own right that can enter into contracts, own and control assets. As a partnership it is ‘tax transparent’ so only the partners are taxed as individuals, and no accounts need be filed with Companies House. Until last year, the owners of a SLP were entitled to secrecy. In short, it was the perfect partner to a shell company in Panama City.

Responding to growing concern over the abuse of SLPs for criminal activity, the UK government introduced new transparency regulations last June requiring SLPs to disclose the identity of “people with significant influence or control” (PSCs) over them. Companies House maintains a register of PSCs, and it was thought that removing the secrecy of SLPs would dissuade those with unlawful intentions. However, many partners of SLPs routinely flout these new regulations.

We must do much more to tackle this problem in Scotland. While SLPs and company law is generally reserved to Westminster, the regulation of Scotland’s professions isn’t. Why should Scottish solicitors, accountants and others act for SLPs who flout the law? Simply explaining that the responsibility for compliance with transparency regulations rests with the SLP isn’t good enough. This should be a matter of professional conduct and ethics.

For example, it isn’t in the public interest for Scottish solicitors to continue to provide services and/or host SLPs who ignore transparency regulations. There is a very real risk that continuing to act for SLPs with something to hide will damage the public interest and reputation of the legal profession in Scotland.

There is nothing to prevent the Law Society of Scotland introducing a professional conduct rule to prohibit a Scottish solicitor from acting for a SLP who fails to demonstrate compliance with the transparency regulations. It should be a matter of professional ethics. The power to do so exists under section 34 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

Scottish law firms could be required to declare the number of SLPs they act for on a six monthly basis, and give a declaration they are satisfied the SLP has complied with the transparency rules. The professional regulatory bodies for accountants and other professionals could easily do likewise using conduct rule making powers.

No professional in Scotland should act for a SLP flouting the 2017 transparency regulations. To do so should give rise to professional misconduct. If regulatory bodies in Scotland are unwilling to do more to combat the misuse of SLPs then there is nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament from legislating. Govan Law Centre offers its support to MSPs in framing an appropriate member’s bill, if so required.