sections 10 to 21 (standard and simplified customer due diligence):

sections 22 and 23 to 26 (enhanced due diligence except in circumstances where section 22A applies):

sections 29 and 30 (correspondent banking relationships):

sections 32 to 39 (reliance on third parties and prohibitions):

sections 50 to 55 (identity and verification of records):

sections 68 to 71 (cross-border transportation of cash).

in respect of each client that is a company, a TPI must hold identity information that is publicly available in relation to that company at the time the business relationship between the client and the TPI is entered into and at such time the client instructs the TPI to refund a deposit, or any portion of that deposit:

in respect of all clients, a TPI must hold identity information for at least 1 individual who has authority to act on behalf of the client:

before a client’s deposit is transferred from the TPI’s tax pooling account to the client’s account at the Inland Revenue Department, the TPI must take reasonable steps to ascertain the amount of the client’s tax liability that the transfer is made to satisfy:

a TPI must, when a refund from the TPI’s tax pooling account is requested by a client, ensure that it has completed CDD to the level required under the Act before that refund is made:

in respect of all clients and transactions, a TPI must continue to meet all other requirements of the Act (unless otherwise exempted from above) including account monitoring, suspicious activity reporting, and prescribed transaction reporting:

a TPI must, when a suspicious activity report is required to be submitted pursuant to section 40 of the Act,—

there is a low risk of ML/TF associated with specified tax pooling transactions and the conditions associated with the conditions sufficiently mitigate remaining ML/TF risk:

in the absence of the exemption, the regulatory burden of compliance in respect of specified tax pooling transactions would be disproportionate to the benefits:

the compliance obligations continue to apply in respect of other higher-risk transactions involving a tax pooling account, including any refunds made from the account.

sections 11 (customer due diligence) and 12 (reliance on risk assessment when establishing level of risk):

sections 14 to 21 (standard and simplified customer due diligence):

section 22(1), (2), and (5) (circumstances in which enhanced customer due diligence applies):

sections 22A to 25 (enhanced customer due diligence):

section 26 (politically exposed person):

section 30 (new or developing technologies, or products, that might favour anonymity):

section 31 (ongoing customer due diligence and account monitoring):

sections 37 to 39 (prohibitions):

sections 56 (reporting entity must have AML/CFT programme and AML/CFT compliance officer) and 57 (minimum requirements for AML/CFT programmes):

sections 58 (risk assessment) and 59 (review and audit of risk assessment and AML/CFT programmes):

section 59B (who carries out audit):

section 60 (annual AML/CFT report).

section 11 (customer due diligence), except where sections 22(1) and 22A apply:

section 12 (reliance on risk assessment when establishing level of risk):

sections 14 to 17 (standard customer due diligence):

section 22(2) and (5) (circumstances in which enhanced customer due diligence applies):

section 26 (politically exposed person):

sections 30 (new or developing technologies, or products, that might favour anonymity) and 31 (ongoing customer due diligence and account monitoring):

sections 56 (reporting entity must have AML/CFT programme and AML/CFT compliance officer) and 57 (minimum requirements for AML/CFT programmes):

sections 58 (risk assessment) and 59 (review and audit of risk assessment and AML/CFT programmes):

section 59B (who carries out audit):

section 60 (annual AML/CFT report).

a barrister who receives instructions directly from a client (other than the Crown or a solicitor in respect of a client); or

a barrister who performs the activities listed in the definition of a designated non-financial business or profession in section 5 of the Act (outside of the instructions of a lawyer).

the ML/TF risks associated with barristers are mitigated by—

barristers who are captured by the Act will still be required to file suspicious activity reports, complete simplified customer due diligence when taking instructions from the Crown, conduct enhanced due diligence in specific circumstances, keep the appropriate records, and make the records available to the Department of Internal Affairs when requested:

the instructing solicitor is subject to full AML/CFT obligations with respect to the same work and same client. This means that requiring barristers to comply with the full suite of obligations under Part 2 of the Act is unlikely to increase the overall effectiveness of the AML/CFT regime:

given how barristers operate their business (as sole practitioners with few, if any, dedicated support staff), full AML/CFT obligations would result in a disproportionate compliance burden for barristers.