Tipping Off Offence (POCA s.333A) — the UK guide
The criminal offence that catches careless emails as easily as deliberate disclosure. Elements, defences, and the operating rules for the SAR window.
By Mehmood Rajoka · Last updated 2026-06-08
TL;DR — Quick Summary
- •Tipping off under POCA s.333A is the criminal offence of disclosing — to a client or any other person — that a SAR has been or is being made, where the disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. Also covers disclosing the existence of a money laundering investigation.
- •Up to 5 years' imprisonment. The offence applies specifically to persons in the regulated sector — and the test is whether the disclosure was likely to prejudice an investigation, not whether it actually did.
- •The narrow statutory defences in POCA ss.333B-333D cover specific in-group disclosures — within the same business, within a regulated group, to a supervisory authority — but each defence is conditional and should not be relied on without clear understanding of its limits.
- •Tipping off doesn't only apply at the moment a SAR is being submitted. The offence captures earlier conversations that might tip a client off that suspicion exists — including unusual delays, unexplained requests for documentation, or behaviour change after suspicion arises.
- •The practical risk for most firms: routine client communications during the SAR window. The 'I just need to check a few more things' email that doesn't sound suspicious to the firm can sound very different to a client whose conscience already worries them.
Answer-first summary
What is the tipping off offence?
Tipping off under POCA s.333A is the criminal offence of disclosing — to a client or any other person — that a SAR has been or is being made, where the disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. It also covers disclosing the existence or contemplation of a money laundering investigation. The offence applies specifically to persons in the regulated sector. The prosecution must show the disclosure was likely to prejudice an investigation — it does NOT need to show the investigation was actually prejudiced. Maximum penalty: 5 years' imprisonment on indictment.
- Regulated-sector specific (s.333A)
- Test: disclosure 'likely to prejudice' — not 'actually prejudiced'
- 5-year maximum penalty
- Four narrow statutory defences in ss.333B-D
The four elements of the offence
For a successful prosecution under s.333A, each element must be satisfied:
The discloser — regulated sector only
Only persons in the regulated sector commit the s.333A offence. The wider non-regulated-sector prejudicing-investigation offence is s.342, with different elements and penalties.
The disclosure
Any communication — written, oral, electronic — that reveals (a) a SAR has been or is being made, or (b) a money laundering investigation is being contemplated or carried out. Includes implication and inference, not just explicit statement.
The recipient
Disclosure to any person can constitute the offence — the client themselves, the client's accountant, an associate, an unconnected third party. The recipient does not need to be the subject of the SAR or investigation.
The likelihood test
The prosecution must show the disclosure was likely to prejudice an investigation. It does NOT need to prove the investigation was actually prejudiced. The 'likely' test is what makes this offence hard to defend — a careless email can satisfy it.
The narrow statutory defences (ss.333B-333D)
Four defence routes. Each is conditional. None should be relied on without legal scrutiny:
s.333B — Disclosures within an undertaking or group
A disclosure made to another employee, officer, or partner of the same business (s.333B(1)) or within the same group of companies (s.333B(2)) where the recipient is also in the regulated sector — for example, sharing within the firm's compliance team or with a parent company's central MLRO. Conditional on the disclosure being for the purpose of carrying out the regulated business.
s.333C — Disclosures between regulated institutions
A disclosure made by a regulated institution to another regulated institution where (a) they are both in the same financial group, OR (b) the disclosure relates to the same client and the same transaction. Used in correspondent-banking and similar scenarios. Narrow — most professional services do not qualify.
s.333D — Disclosures to the supervisor
A disclosure made to a supervisor (the firm's AML regulator — HMRC, SRA, FCA, professional body) in the discharge of supervisory functions. Allows a firm to discuss SAR-related matters with its supervisor without itself committing tipping off.
Privilege circumstances (s.333D + general)
A disclosure made by a legal adviser to a client where the disclosure is in privileged circumstances — broadly, the giving of legal advice or in connection with legal proceedings. The crime/fraud exception applies: privilege does not protect disclosures made to further a crime.
Practical scenarios where tipping off bites
The risk is rarely deliberate disclosure. It's the routine client communication during the SAR window:
Mid-engagement delays
The firm has filed a SAR and is waiting for NCA consent under the DAML process. The client asks why the transaction is taking longer than expected. Explaining 'we're doing additional checks' might be tipping off — depending on tone and context. Refusing to provide a substantive answer can also tip off if it changes the firm's normal behaviour pattern.
Unexpected documentation requests
The firm requests source-of-funds documentation it would not normally request from a similar client. The client may infer suspicion exists. Some inference is unavoidable — the trick is to frame requests in normal-compliance language ('we're updating our records', 'we're carrying out a periodic review') consistent with how the firm would request from any client.
Sudden disengagement
The firm receives the SAR consent (DAML approved) and the engagement is allowed to proceed. The firm then terminates the relationship. The combination of completion-and-immediate-disengagement can imply to the client that something happened — tipping off by behaviour pattern even without explicit communication.
External adviser referrals
The firm refers the client to its solicitor, accountant, or independent compliance adviser. If the firm's referral explanation reveals the SAR or investigation, the offence may apply even where the recipient is a regulated professional. s.333B-333D defences are narrow and don't necessarily cover external-adviser referrals.
FAQ
Answer-first summary
What is tipping off under POCA?
Tipping off under POCA s.333A is the criminal offence of disclosing — to a client or any other person — that a SAR has been or is being made, where the disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. The offence also covers disclosing the existence or contemplation of a money laundering investigation. The offence applies specifically to persons in the regulated sector. Maximum penalty: 5 years' imprisonment on indictment.
Answer-first summary
Who can commit the tipping off offence?
The s.333A offence applies specifically to persons in the regulated sector — accountants, solicitors, banks, estate agents, TCSPs, etc. The wider prejudicing-investigation offence under POCA s.342 applies more broadly but has different elements and a different penalty. Both can apply to the same set of facts in some circumstances. The s.333A offence is the one most relevant to regulated-sector firms in everyday practice.
Answer-first summary
What are the defences to tipping off?
Four narrow statutory defences. s.333B — disclosures within an undertaking or group for the purposes of the regulated business. s.333C — disclosures between regulated institutions in the same financial group or relating to the same client and transaction. s.333D — disclosures to a supervisor in the discharge of supervisory functions. Privilege circumstances — disclosures by a legal adviser to a client in privileged contexts (subject to the crime/fraud exception). Each defence is conditional. None should be relied on without close legal scrutiny.
Answer-first summary
Can I tell a client we're delayed because of CDD?
Yes, broadly — but framing matters. Using normal-compliance language ('we're carrying out a periodic review', 'we're updating our records', 'we need to verify some additional details before we complete this transaction') consistent with how the firm would communicate about any client is generally safe. Where the language clearly implies suspicion exists — 'we have concerns about this transaction' — the risk becomes meaningful. Maintaining normal pattern of communication during a SAR window is the operational hedge.
Answer-first summary
What's the difference between tipping off and disclosure offence?
Tipping off (s.333A) is a specific offence that applies to the regulated sector — disclosing that a SAR has been made or that an investigation exists, where the disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. Prejudicing an investigation (s.342) is a broader offence applying to anyone who, knowing or suspecting an investigation is being conducted, makes a disclosure likely to prejudice it. The two overlap but have different scope and different penalty bands. For day-to-day regulated-sector practice, s.333A is the more relevant of the two.
Answer-first summary
Does tipping off only apply during the SAR window?
No. The offence applies whenever a disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation. That captures earlier-than-SAR conversations — for example, when the firm first develops suspicion, even before any internal disclosure to the MLRO. It also captures conversations long after a SAR has been submitted, while the investigation continues. The practical operating rule: once suspicion arises about a client, every client communication should be designed not to flag the suspicion's existence, whether or not a SAR has yet been filed.