Two binding measures introduced in July and August 2026 require Irish law firms to revisit their AML procedures and create a new route to beneficial-ownership intelligence.
Irish solicitors are now operating under amended anti-money laundering requirements. The Solicitors (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 367/2026, took effect on 23 July 2026. A second measure, SI 406/2026, took effect on 4 August 2026 and expands controlled access to Ireland’s Register of Beneficial Ownership.
These are not merely policy proposals. The first measure changes the procedures expected of solicitors when identifying beneficial owners, dealing with politically exposed persons, assessing high-risk clients and examining unusual transactions. The second provides a potentially valuable additional source of beneficial-ownership information for qualifying applicants.
For law firms, the practical message is straightforward: policies, matter-opening forms and file evidence should now be checked against the amended requirements. A policy that still describes the pre-July 2026 position may no longer be adequate.
SI 367/2026 amends the professional AML regulations applying to Irish solicitors. It strengthens and clarifies several areas in which firms must be able to show not only that a check occurred, but how the conclusion was reached and what evidence supports it.
1. Senior managing officials used as beneficial owners
Where a firm cannot identify a natural person as the beneficial owner and instead treats a senior managing official as the beneficial owner, the solicitor must verify that person’s identity. The file should also record the steps taken to verify identity and any difficulties encountered during the process.
The senior managing official route should not become a shortcut. The matter file should first demonstrate the reasonable steps taken to identify the person who ultimately owns or controls the client.
2. Beneficial-ownership register checks
Solicitors must ascertain that the client’s beneficial-ownership information is entered in the relevant register, where an applicable corporate, financial-vehicle or trust register exists. For corporate clients, this puts greater emphasis on an evidenced register check rather than relying only on an organisation chart or information provided by the client.
A register entry is not conclusive proof that the information is correct. Where the ownership structure, transaction documents or source-of-funds evidence points in a different direction, the discrepancy should be investigated and resolved.
3. Complex, unusually large or unusual transactions
The amended regulations require solicitors, as far as possible, to examine the background and purpose of transactions that are complex, unusually large, conducted in an unusual pattern, or have no apparent economic or lawful purpose. The firm’s conclusions should be documented.
The focus is therefore not simply whether a transaction is technically lawful. The solicitor should understand why it is structured in that way, why the parties and payment route make commercial sense, and whether the explanation is consistent with the available evidence.
4. Former politically exposed persons
When a person ceases to be a politically exposed person, enhanced measures cannot automatically end on the date the public function ends. The firm must continue to apply measures appropriate to any continuing PEP-specific risk until that risk no longer exists.
Firms should replace any purely time-based declassification process with a documented risk review considering the former role, seniority, influence, jurisdiction, known associates and the nature of the proposed work.
5. High-risk third countries and enhanced measures
Where a client is established or resident in a high-risk third country, the amended rules prescribe enhanced measures. These can include obtaining additional information about the client and beneficial owner, establishing source of funds and source of wealth, understanding the reasons for the intended or performed transactions, obtaining senior-management approval and applying enhanced ongoing monitoring.
Country risk should not be reduced to a static tick-box list. Firms need a reliable process for keeping relevant country designations current and for applying the correct additional measures on the matter file.
6. Additional risk factors
The amended framework also draws attention to particular risk factors, including citizenship or residence-by-investment arrangements, remote onboarding without adequate safeguards and transactions involving specified high-risk commodities. These factors do not necessarily make a client unacceptable, but they should prompt a more careful and evidenced risk assessment.
The European Union (Anti-Money Laundering: Beneficial Ownership of Corporate Entities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, SI 406/2026, expand access to Ireland’s Register of Beneficial Ownership through a certificate-based legitimate-interest system.
The register has not been reopened to the general public. However, specified categories of applicant may be capable of demonstrating a legitimate AML or counter-terrorist-financing interest. These include certain journalists and media organisations, civil-society bodies, prospective counterparties, third-country obliged entities and providers of AML services. Specified EU authorities also receive access rights.
Successful applicants may obtain defined beneficial-ownership information and, in qualifying cases, historical ownership and control information covering up to five years. The regime includes refusal, revocation, review and District Court appeal procedures, together with protections for minors, persons lacking capacity and beneficial owners exposed to disproportionate risks such as fraud, kidnapping or intimidation.
For solicitors conducting due diligence on complex corporate structures, this access route may become useful where client-provided ownership information is incomplete or inconsistent. Firms should nevertheless confirm eligibility and permitted use before assuming that access will be granted.
The direction of travel is towards more demonstrable AML judgment. Regulators are increasingly concerned with the quality of the analysis and the evidence retained, rather than the existence of a completed checklist alone.
For law firms, weaknesses commonly arise where ownership information is copied from the client without independent checking, risk ratings are selected without a recorded rationale, source-of-funds evidence is collected but not analysed, or unusual features are noticed without being resolved. The 2026 amendments make those gaps more difficult to defend.
1. Update the firm’s AML policy and procedures to reflect SI 367/2026, including senior managing official verification, relevant register checks, former-PEP reviews and prescribed high-risk-country measures.
2. Revise client and matter risk-assessment forms so they prompt the fee earner to explain beneficial ownership, unusual transaction features, source of wealth and source of funds, remote-onboarding safeguards and country risk.
3. Require evidence of the relevant beneficial-ownership register check to be saved on the matter file, together with the date of the search and the action taken on any discrepancy.
4. Introduce a documented former-PEP exit assessment. Do not remove enhanced measures solely because the person’s public function has ended.
5. Review the firm’s high-risk-country process and confirm who owns updates to the list, how fee earners are alerted and what enhanced measures must be completed before work proceeds.
6. Provide a short targeted briefing to partners, fee earners, the MLRO and matter-opening staff. Training should use realistic examples from corporate, property, private-client and litigation work.
7. Assess whether the access procedure created by SI 406/2026 could assist the firm’s complex-company due diligence, investigations or transactional work, without treating the register as a substitute for risk-based CDD.
8. Record the implementation review. Even where an existing control is considered sufficient, document who reviewed it, when it was reviewed and why no change was required.
Clients may experience more detailed questions about ownership, transaction purpose, funding routes, source of wealth and overseas connections. Firms should explain that these questions are part of statutory and professional AML obligations, not a judgment about the client. Clear advance communication can reduce frustration and avoid delays at closing.
Sherwin O’Riordan advises businesses and regulated professionals on anti-money laundering compliance, governance and risk management. We can assist with AML policy reviews, business-wide and matter risk assessments, beneficial-ownership procedures, staff training, remediation programmes and responses to supervisory enquiries.
If your organisation needs to assess the effect of the 2026 AML changes or strengthen the evidence supporting its compliance framework, contact our team for practical advice.
When did the new AML rules for Irish solicitors take effect?
SI 367/2026 took effect on 23 July 2026. Irish solicitors and law firms should therefore treat the new anti-money laundering (AML) requirements as an immediate compliance issue rather than a future planning exercise. Firms should review their AML policies, customer due diligence procedures, risk assessments and beneficial ownership checks to ensure they reflect the current requirements.
Is the Register of Beneficial Ownership public again in Ireland?
No. SI 406/2026 creates a controlled application and certification process for persons who can demonstrate a qualifying legitimate interest. It does not restore unrestricted public access to the Irish Register of Beneficial Ownership (RBO).
For solicitors carrying out AML and beneficial ownership checks, access to registered information should be considered alongside the firm’s wider customer due diligence and risk assessment obligations.
Does a beneficial ownership register check replace customer due diligence?
No. Checking the Register of Beneficial Ownership in Ireland is only one element of effective customer due diligence (CDD).
A solicitor must still understand the client’s ownership and control structure, identify and verify relevant beneficial owners, assess the client’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk, and investigate inconsistencies or unusual features.
For higher-risk clients or transactions, firms may also need to consider whether enhanced due diligence (EDD) is required.
Must every former PEP remain subject to enhanced due diligence indefinitely?
No. Politically exposed person (PEP) checks form an important part of AML compliance, but enhanced measures do not necessarily apply indefinitely after a person ceases to hold the relevant public function.
Enhanced measures should continue for as long as the individual presents a PEP-specific money laundering risk. The key requirement is a reasoned and documented AML risk assessment rather than reliance on an automatic cut-off date.
If you would like an immediate call back to discuss any queries, just fill in your details below. All correspondence is treated as confidential.
