HM Treasury has published its response to the consultation on reforming the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) supervisory regime and decided to pursue a Single Professional Services Supervisor model delivered through the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Under the decision, the FCA will supervise Legal Service Providers, Accountancy Service Providers and Trust and Company Service Providers for compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations, replacing AML/CTF supervision currently carried out by the 22 professional body supervisors and moving HMRC-supervised accountancy service providers and trust and company service providers into FCA supervision. The response summarises 95 consultation submissions and notes that support for options varied by sector, with the legal and accountancy sectors tending to favour enhanced powers for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS), while financial sector, public sector and civil society respondents tended to support a public body supervisor for professional services. HM Treasury’s rationale for selecting the FCA centres on simplifying supervision currently split across 23 professional services supervisors, enabling risk-based supervision across an estimated population of around 60,000 regulated firms, and leveraging the FCA’s existing AML/CTF expertise and OPBAS experience. The response also flags implications for dual-regulated firms, fee changes and the future winding up of OPBAS once professional bodies no longer have an AML/CTF role under the Money Laundering Regulations. Implementation is subject to primary legislation, confirmation of funding arrangements and a detailed transition plan, with the start date dependent on parliamentary time. HM Treasury will publish a separate consultation in early November on the powers the FCA will need for the expanded remit, while the FCA develops a delivery plan and HM Treasury works with current supervisors to phase the transition. The response also notes that supervisors have generally taken a more proactive approach to sanctions oversight since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with mixed views on whether additional supervisory powers are needed, and commits to continued review of the issue.