ECSH73000 - Regulation 69 Entry and inspection of premises without a warrant
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-22)


Introduction

Use of ‘should’ and must’ in this guidance. Where the guidance says ‘must’ this is set out in The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (MLR 2017) or other statute. Where the guidance says ‘should’ this is agreed policy.

Most Economic Crime-Supervision (EC-S) interventions are carried out with the cooperation of the business and will not require any use of statutory powers of entry.

In some cases, we may exercise the statutory powers under MLR 2017 to enter the premises to carry out an intervention, either without a warrant and without the power to force an entry (regulation 69 MLR 2017) or with a warrant providing the power to force entry (regulation 70 MLR 2017).

These powers may be exercised where the legal requirements are met. There are also strict internal governance processes that must be followed.

What is a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice?

The regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice gives the duly authorised officer the power to:
- Enter and inspect the premises.
- Observe the carrying on of business / professional activity.
- Inspect documents and information found on the premises. More information on the distinction between documents and information can be found in ECSH71500 (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/economic-crime-supervision-handbook/ecsh71500).
- Require any person on the premises to explain any documents or state where documents or information might be found.
- Inspect (but not seize/remove) any cash found.
- Take copies of, or make extracts from, any documents found on the premises as a result of the exercise of the power under regulation 69 MLR 2017 (but this regulation does not give an officer any power to seize or remove any documents from the business premises).
Cash is defined in the MLR 2017 as notes, coins or travellers' cheques, in any currency. Cash may be inspected where it is clearly visible in the premises or with the consent of the supervised business. However, MLR 2017 does not make provision for officers to search for cash, or for any cash to be seized or removed.

Copying documents. The relevant person is not under an obligation to allow officers to use their copying facilities. If they have no objection to you using their copying facilities, it is often the simplest approach to ask them to copy the document for you. Wherever possible, copying arrangements should be planned in advance, such as taking a smart phone provided by HMRC. Regulation 69 MLR 2017 does not make provision for an officer to remove documents.

Enter. The term enter is not defined in MLR 2017 but is taken at its literal meaning of entering a place. Entry to the premises under regulation 69 requires consent from the relevant business. Officers must not make a forced or clandestine entry and to do so would be unlawful.

Documents. A ‘document’ is defined in regulation 3 MLR 2017 as ‘anything in which information of any description is recorded’. The broad definition includes electronic documents such as records held on a computer or similar electronic device.

Information. This means knowledge or facts, see ECSH71500 (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/economic-crime-supervision-handbook/ecsh71500) for further guidance on what information is.

Inspect. The power to inspect does not allow an officer to search for cash, information, documents or anything else. Inspect means that you may look at or examine what you can see, but you may not look for something that you cannot see. However, the regulation does confer the power to require any person on the premises to explain where a document can be found.

Taking extracts (of documents).

Taking an extract means copying only part of a document or recording the information in the document onto other media.

Who can exercise this power

The power under regulation 69 MLR 2017 Notice can be exercised by a ‘duly authorised officer’ provided that they have the reasonable grounds to believe the matters detailed above.

A ‘duly authorised officer’ is an officer of HMRC who is authorised in writing to exercise the power by another officer of at least the grade of Senior Officer. If you are a Senior Officer exercising the power under regulation 69, the authorisation must come from an officer of one grade higher.

(This content has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)

When can this power be used?

Regulation 69 MLR 2017 sets out two criteria that a ‘duly authorised officer’ must have ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe in order for the power to be lawfully exercised.

The power can be exercised where a duly authorised officer has reasonable grounds to believe that:
- Any premises are being used by the business in connection with its business or it’s professional activities; and
- The business may have contravened the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2015/847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on information accompanying transfers of funds and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 (herein referred to as the “FTR”), or MLR 2017.
What is meant by ‘reasonable grounds to believe’?

MLR 2017 does not define the term ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ and there is no direct judicial interpretation on the term in the context of regulation 69 MLR 2017. Caselaw offers some interpretation of the term outside of MLR 2017.

It should firstly be noted that belief carries a higher threshold than suspicion. To prove suspicion, a person must think that there is a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant facts exist. In the case of Keegan v Chief Constable of Merseyside, the Judge held that belief “imports a greater degree of certainty” than suspicion.

A requirement for the officer’s belief to be “reasonable” adds an objective element. This means that the belief must have a reasonable basis for it. Therefore, it will not be sufficient for the officer to simply evidence that he had actual belief, rather there must be reasonable grounds for that belief, which will depend upon the particular facts of the case.

The officer’s reasonable grounds for belief should be based upon facts and evidence, and whilst there is no requirement within MLR 2017 to specify the regulation that it is reasonably believed the relevant business may have contravened, the grounds are more likely to be considered ‘reasonable’ if they are detailed. An officer may still have reasonable grounds to believe even if it transpires that no such breach has occurred.

You should note that if any grounds to believe are based on intelligence received, we cannot disclose the intelligence to ensure the source of the intelligence is protected.

A reasonable belief that there is a breach of MLR 2017 might be:
- Evidence that the business is conducting regulated activity, without being registered.
- Companies House shows that there is an additional beneficial owner, officer or manager (BOOM), that is not contained on the registration information and therefore has not passed the approvals/fit and proper test, as required.
- Other information, including intelligence, suggests that the business is failing to meet its MLR obligations.
The following would not be a reasonable belief:
- An officer believes that the supervised business has contravened the requirements of MLR 2017 because of the very expensive suit that the Director wears. A Court is highly likely to find that these are not reasonable grounds to believe that the supervised business has contravened MLR 2017.
The officer also needs to have reasonable grounds to believe that the premises are being used by the business in connection with that business or professional activities, this could be from departmental records or open-source searches, such as Companies House or the business website.

The ‘reasonable grounds for belief’ which are relied upon for the lawful exercise of regulation 69 MLR 2017 must be kept under review:
- If the ‘reasonable grounds for belief’ cease to exist before the notice is produced, the inspection should no longer go ahead as the exercise of the power would be unlawful.
- If the ‘reasonable grounds for belief’ cease to exist after the notice has been produced and officer(s) are already on the premises, the officer(s) on the premises should immediately leave as they would be acting unlawfully, unless the supervised business consents to the officer(s) remaining and to the inspection continuing.
What is the definition of ‘premises’?

Premises as defined in regulation 65(1) MLR 2017 means ‘any building or other structure, including a moveable structure, other than premises used only as a dwelling’. This includes any land and any means of transport that a caseworker has reasonable grounds to believe is being used by the supervised business in connection with the business or professional activities. Neither the building, the structure nor means of transport need to be standing on land owned by the same person, they may be anywhere.

Non-compliance with a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice

If a business denies you entry to its premises following the production of a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice, you must leave the premises. EC-S treats such a refusal seriously. In determining the next steps to take, you should consider the specific facts of the case, including:
- The seriousness of the breaches we have reasonable grounds to believe are taking place.
- The reasons given by the person refusing entry to the premises.
- Whether you have tried using regulation 66 to no avail.
- Whether the business is cooperative generally.
You should consider whether to apply for a warrant to enter the premises under regulation 70 MLR 2017 (see page ECSH73500 (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/economic-crime-supervision-handbook/ecsh73500)).

The requirement to comply with a regulation 69 notice is a relevant requirement for the purposes of regulation 75 and Schedule 6 MLR 2017. As such, if a business fails to comply a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice, then regulation 76 MLR 2017 provides HMRC with the power to impose civil penalties. Failing to comply with a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice is also a criminal offence for the purposes of regulation 86 MLR 2017. If there is a criminal aspect, you can consider referring the matter to FIS Criminal colleagues.

We cannot impose a penalty where the business has taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to comply. The reasons for refusing entry under a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis before any penalty can be imposed. It may be appropriate to consider other sanctions instead of, or as well as, a penalty. This may include cancellation or suspension (https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/economic-crime-supervision-handbook/ecsh48000) of the registration. However, any sanction taken must be a proportionate and reasonable response to the refusal to enter.

Authorisation process

The ‘Inspection notice: regulation 69 authorisation form within this linked folder must be fully completed and submitted to an authorising officer detailing all relevant information, including:
- Evidence and justification of why the use of regulation 69 MLR 2017 is necessary and proportionate to the issue you are trying to resolve.
- Clear factual and legal basis in accordance with the criteria set out in regulation 69(1) MLR 2017, including: your reasonable grounds to believe that the premises are being used by the business for relevant activity and the reasonable grounds to believe that the business is in breach of MLR 2017.
- Whether you have followed any procedure, for example whether you have considered alternative ways of obtaining any documents or information in the first instance, in line with EC-S policy. For example, the reasons why options such as a visit agreed with the business for a certain date and time, or the use of a regulation 66 MLR 2017 information notice, are not appropriate.
You must still be able to evidence reasonable grounds to believe that the business may have breached MLR 2017, even if you cannot cite a specific regulation.

Separate authorisation must be requested each time you seek to exercise the power under regulation 69 MLR 2017.

The role of the ‘authorising officer’

To ensure a lawful exercise of the power, the authorising officer must be confident that they are in possession of all the facts, and must include their observations and rationale for granting the authority to demonstrate that in doing so, they have fully considered the application and whether the use of a regulation 69 notice is necessary, reasonable and proportionate.

As soon as the authorising officer authorises the requesting officer to exercise the powers under regulation 69, in writing, the requesting officer is then ‘a duly authorised officer’. If authorisation is refused, it is EC-S policy that the reasons for the refusal must be given to the requesting officer.

Producing the inspection notice

To ensure that a regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice is ‘lawfully’ produced, you, as a duly authorised officer, must produce the authorised written notice at the time the inspection is to begin.

It is EC-S policy that you must be satisfied that the notice is handed to an appropriately senior person such as a beneficial owner, officer or manager (BOOM) as defined at regulation 3 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/692/regulation/3) MLR 2017.

It is also EC-S policy that if a BOOM of a supervised business is not present at the start of the inspection, then the regulation 69 MLR 2017 notice should be given to any other person who appears to be in charge of the premises, for example a person who holds keys to the premises.

Should the situation arise that there is no BOOM present at the premises who appears to be in charge at the time of the inspection, you should produce the notice to an employee who is present.

Once the notice is produced you may enter and inspect the premises however this must be conducted at a ‘reasonable time’. MLR 2017 does not make provision for what ‘reasonable time’ actually means, however inspections would usually be conducted during normal business hours.

As mentioned earlier, there is no provision under regulation 69 MLR 2017 to force entry into premises, in addition if any of the facts that the notice was issued under no longer exist then the notice is no longer valid. Therefore, if you were to discover that business premises are vacant, you would no longer have reasonable grounds to believe they are being used in relation to supervised activities.