Anti-Money Laundering and Client Due Diligence Policy

Standing Lawyers carries out identity, entitlement and source of funds checks before accepting an engagement. This policy explains what we ask for, why we ask for it, what we do with it, and what happens when we are not satisfied. It applies to every client, including a client we have acted for before.

1. The status of this policy

1.1 This is a voluntary policy, and we would rather say so than imply a legal duty we do not have.

1.2 Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, certain professions were brought within the definition of a person carrying on a designated business or profession by a notification of 3 May 2023. That notification named practising chartered accountants, company secretaries and cost and works accountants. It did not name advocates. A further notification of 9 May 2023 applies to any person who carries on specified activities, including acting as a formation agent of companies, acting as or arranging for a person to act as a director, secretary, partner, nominee shareholder or trustee, and providing a registered office or correspondence address. That notification expressly excludes an advocate whose only role is the filing of the declaration under section 7(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013.

1.3 The result is that, in the practice of law, this firm is not a reporting entity under that Act and has no statutory obligation to file reports with the Financial Intelligence Unit. Where we were ever to undertake one of the specifically designated activities described above, obligations could attach to that activity, and we would comply with them and say so.

1.4 We nevertheless apply the checks in this policy, for the reasons in clause 2. The international standards that India is assessed against continue to develop in this area, and if the position in Indian law changes we will update this policy and tell clients what changes for them.

2. Why we carry out these checks

• To know who we are acting for. A matter conducted on the instructions of someone without authority is a risk to the client above all.
• To know that they are entitled to what is being claimed. This is the check that matters most in recovery work and it is dealt with separately in clause 4A. An asset held in a name is not proof that the person in front of us is that person, or their heir.
• To confirm authority. Where the client is an entity, we need to know who may lawfully instruct us on its behalf.
• To protect the firm and its other clients from being used, however unwittingly, as a route for the proceeds of crime.
• To protect the person actually entitled. A claim allowed to the wrong person is a loss to the right one, and the right one is usually not in the room to object.
• Because a conflict check depends on it. We cannot check a conflict properly against a party we cannot identify.

3. A risk-based approach

3.1 The depth of the checks is proportionate to the risk a matter presents. We assess risk by reference to the client and its ownership, the nature of the work, the jurisdictions involved, whether the parties have been met in person, the source and route of any funds, the strength of the link between the client and the asset claimed, and whether anything about the instruction is unusual for a client of that description.

3.2 A low risk assessment reduces the depth of enquiry. It does not remove the requirement to identify the client.

4. What we ask for

4.1 We accept certified copies where originals cannot reasonably be produced, and we will tell you what certification we need.

4A. Verifying entitlement, which is not the same as verifying identity

4A.1 Identity checks answer who you are. In recovery work the question that decides whether we can act is a different one: whether you are the person entitled to the asset. The characteristic risk of this practice is not that a client is unidentifiable. It is that a properly identified person asks us to recover money belonging to somebody else.

4A.2 We therefore satisfy ourselves, before accepting a mandate, of the link between the client and the asset. Where the holding is in the client's own name, that means reconciling the name, and any historic variation of it, against their identity documents and against the register. Where the client claims through a person who has died, it means establishing the succession position on documents an institution would itself accept, and not on assurance.

4A.3 We take reasonable steps to establish that the other people entitled know of the claim. Where there are co-heirs or surviving joint holders, we ask for their no objection or for an explanation of why it cannot be obtained, and an explanation that does not satisfy us is a reason to decline. A nominee is not necessarily the owner as against the heirs, and where the nomination and the family position differ we deal with it at the outset rather than after the money has moved.

4A.4 Certain features cause us to enquire further, and any of them may end the matter:

• original certificates, policy documents or passbooks in a name unconnected with the client, without a documented chain explaining how they came to hold them;
• a claim to an asset the client learned of from a public register rather than from their own or their family's records;
• succession documents that cannot be verified against the issuing authority, or that appear altered;
• pressure to lodge a claim quickly, or reluctance to notify a co-heir, a surviving joint holder or an institution;
• an instruction that the proceeds be directed to an account in the name of somebody other than the person entitled;
• an intermediary who introduces a claimant and expects to be paid out of the recovery.

4A.5 Where we are not satisfied on entitlement we do not act, and clause 10 governs what we say and do not say about why. We would rather lose a mandate than assist a claim to another person's money, and we would rather state that here than be asked to demonstrate it.

5. Beneficial ownership

5.1 For an entity we identify the natural persons who ultimately own or control it, whether through shareholding, voting rights, the right to appoint the board, or control exercised by any other means.

5.2 Where ownership is layered through intermediate entities, we work through the layers until we reach natural persons. Where no natural person is identifiable as a beneficial owner, we identify the natural persons who exercise senior managing control and record why that basis was used.

6. Enhanced due diligence

6.1 We carry out additional enquiry, and require additional documentation, where any of the following applies:

• the client, a beneficial owner or a close associate is a politically exposed person, meaning a person entrusted with a prominent public function, or an immediate family member or close associate of such a person;
• the client, a party or the funds involve a jurisdiction subject to sanctions, or identified as presenting a higher risk;
• the ownership structure is unusually complex, or opaque without an evident commercial reason;
• we have not met the client or its representatives, and identity has been established only remotely;
• the client's link to the asset claimed is documentary only, is historic, or depends on a succession position that has not yet been established;
• the matter involves a substantial or unexplained movement of funds, or funds from a third party who is not the client; or
• anything about the instruction is inconsistent with what we know of the client.

7. Screening

7.1 We screen clients and, where appropriate, beneficial owners and counterparties against the sanctions and designation lists applicable in India, including lists notified under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and lists arising from United Nations Security Council designations.

7.2 We do not act for a designated person, and we do not act on a matter that would involve dealing with funds or economic resources of a designated person.

8. Funds, and the restriction on cash

8.1 Fees are received by banking channel. We do not accept cash in an amount that would contravene section 186 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, which replaced section 269ST of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1 April 2026. It prohibits receiving two hundred thousand rupees or more otherwise than through banking or prescribed electronic channels, whether from one person in a day, in respect of a single transaction, or in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion, and a receipt in contravention attracts a penalty equal to the amount received.

8.2 We do not act as a banker for a client. We do not hold client funds for onward transmission, we do not receive funds that are not fees or disbursements payable to us, and we do not permit our account to be used as a conduit. Amounts payable to a court, an authority or a third party should be paid to that body, and where we pay a disbursement on your behalf we account for it.

8.3 We do not accept payment from a person who is not the client without an explanation of the relationship and of why the client is not paying, and we may decline the payment.

8.4 Recovered money never passes through this firm. Anything realised on a claim is released by the institution holding it directly to the person entitled, into an account in their own name. We do not receive it, we do not hold it, and we do not deduct our fee from it. The Reserve Bank of India does not permit agents or third parties to retrieve unclaimed deposits for customers on a payment basis, and our arrangement is consistent with that in every category of claim and not only in that one.

8.5 It follows that we will never ask you for an internet banking password, a card number, a card verification value, a one time password or access to any account of yours, and no legitimate adviser will. If anybody asks you for those in connection with recovering an asset, do not give them, and tell us.

9. Ongoing monitoring

9.1 Due diligence is not a formality completed once at the start of a relationship. Records are refreshed periodically and whenever something changes materially, including a change of control, a new authorised signatory, a change in the beneficial ownership, or instructions on a matter of a different character from the work we were engaged for.

9.2 We remain alert during a matter to indications that instructions are not what they appeared to be, including unnecessary complexity without a commercial rationale, a transaction that makes no evident economic sense, reluctance to provide routine information, unexplained urgency, and a request to route funds in a way that obscures their origin or destination.

10. When we are not satisfied

10.1 If satisfactory information is not provided, or if what we learn gives us cause for concern that we cannot resolve, we decline the engagement or, where it has begun, we withdraw from it in accordance with our professional obligations.

10.2 We are not obliged to explain our reasons, and there are circumstances in which we may not lawfully do so.

10.3 Where the law requires a report to an authority, we make it. Where the law prohibits us from telling the client that a report has been made, we comply with that prohibition.

11. Privilege is not displaced

11.1 Nothing in this policy requires or permits the disclosure of a communication protected by section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Client due diligence records are records of identity and authority, and they are not the substance of a client's instructions or of our advice.

11.2 Where any authority seeks information about a client, our Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Policy governs, privilege is asserted on the client's behalf, and the statutory conditions and judicial safeguards described in clause 2 of that policy are required to be satisfied.

12. Records

12.1 Due diligence records are held under the measures in our Data Protection and Information Security Policy, are accessible only to those who need them, and are used only for the purpose for which they were collected.

12.2 They are retained for the period applicable law and professional record-keeping require, and are then securely destroyed. Copies of identity documents are retained no longer than that period requires.

13. Responsibility and review

13.1 The proprietor of the firm is responsible for this policy and for the decisions taken under it, including any decision to decline or withdraw from an engagement.

13.2 Anyone working with the firm is required to be familiar with this policy and to raise a concern immediately rather than resolve it alone.

Effect, review and contact

A This policy takes effect on 7 August 2026 and replaces any earlier version of it published on this website. The version published here is the operative version at any given time.

B We review this policy at least once a year, and additionally whenever the law, our systems or our practice changes in a way that affects it. Where a change is material we will say so on this page and, where the change concerns personal data and we hold a means of reaching you, we will tell you directly.

C Questions about this policy, and any request or complaint arising from it, should be sent to work@standinglawyers.com, marked for the attention of the Grievance Officer where it is a complaint. We can also be reached on +91 63766 28978.