Lawyers, notaries and other independent legal professionals in Sri Lanka submitted two Suspicious Transaction Reports in six years, Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe told the legal profession’s own anti-money laundering symposium on Tuesday.
“Only two reports were submitted during the last six years. This is alarmingly low and reflects a very poor level of compliance,” he said, according to NewsFirst. The figure covers 2020 to 2026.
Weerasinghe was speaking at the inaugural National Anti-Money Laundering Symposium, organised by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Weeks from an evaluation
The Governor said Sri Lanka’s next evaluation by the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering is expected “in the coming weeks” — a tighter timetable than the on-site visit “scheduled for this year” that officials described when the President reviewed preparations on August 4. It is the country’s third Mutual Evaluation, and Weerasinghe noted Sri Lanka had suffered setbacks in previous rounds and needed to avoid a repeat.
He pointed to three laws enacted this year: the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 2026, the Financial Transactions Reporting (Amendment) Act No. 17 of 2026 and the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 2026. All three were certified by the Speaker in August after passing Parliament on July 9.
Passing them is not the test, he said.
“Legislation is one thing, but demonstrating effectiveness is much more important in the current assessment process. It is not enough to say that we have a framework and the necessary laws. We must demonstrate that those laws are being effectively applied and that they are producing results.”
Assessors, he warned, increasingly weigh implementation over statute — which is what makes a two-report compliance record a liability going into the review.
The judge’s answer to “why lawyers?”
Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Buwaneka Aluwihare, PC, addressed the same symposium and took up the question directly, NewsFirst reported.
Lawyers occupy a unique position in commercial and financial transactions, he said — handling property transfers, and the creation and management of companies and trusts, through which ownership and control of assets can be created, transferred or concealed. These are legitimate activities, but the same machinery can be turned to other purposes.
“The very mechanisms that facilitate legitimate commerce can also be misused to disguise the ownership, origin, movement or destination of criminal proceeds,” he said.
Professionals must know who their clients are, identify beneficial owners where necessary, understand the purpose of transactions and stay alert to warning signs, he said, adding: “A lawyer cannot knowingly permit his or her professional service to become an instrument through which the proceeds of crime are concealed, moved, converted or legitimised.”
Privilege is a safeguard, not a shield
Aluwihare addressed legal professional privilege, which he acknowledged has generated considerable debate within the profession. He reaffirmed it as a fundamental safeguard — then set its limit.
“The privilege belongs to the administration of justice. It cannot properly be converted into a mechanism for facilitating crime or concealing criminal property.”
Privilege and anti-money laundering obligations are complementary rather than competing, he said.
The obligation now reaches beyond banks
Both speakers stressed that the framework extends well past the financial sector, covering accountants, auditors, securities market participants, dealers in high-value assets, trust and company service providers and the legal profession.
Weerasinghe said Suspicious Transaction Reports are the backbone of modern anti-money laundering systems and central to detecting drug trafficking, tax evasion, fraud, corruption and terrorist financing. He urged reporting entities to strengthen internal controls and customer due diligence, and argued compliance should not be read as a burden: “It is a contribution to the integrity and stability of the financial system as well as the integrity of your own profession.”
The Central Bank’s Financial Intelligence Unit has been willing to act against non-compliance elsewhere, having fined 11 institutions Rs. 14.6 million in July. The legislative push follows Cabinet’s approval of a national AML/CFT policy for 2026 to 2030.
The setting
The venue is notable. The Bar Association has spent much of this year in open confrontation with the government over judicial independence and the 22nd Amendment, including a petition against the amendment on referendum grounds. Tuesday’s symposium was the BASL’s own initiative, and it heard a state regulator describe its members’ compliance as alarmingly low.
Not reported
NewsFirst does not say where or when the symposium was held, who else spoke, or how many attended. It gives no comment from the Bar Association or its president in response to the two-report figure, and does not say whether the BASL accepts the characterisation or disputes the count. It does not report how many Suspicious Transaction Reports other designated non-financial professions filed over the same period for comparison, nor the total across all reporting entities — without which the two-report figure cannot be sized. No date is given for the APG on-site visit beyond “the coming weeks”.
NewsFirst filed the two addresses as separate reports and is the only verified newsroom LankaNewz tracks to have covered the symposium at the time of filing.
