ACSPs can fail suitability checks despite retaining AML supervision

Continued anti-money laundering (AML) supervision does not automatically satisfy Companies House that an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP) is fit and properGOV. Its criteria for applicants and existing ACSPs explain that the registrar makes a separate suitability assessment, even where an AML supervisor has not removed supervision after misconduct or another concernGOV.

The registrar must refuse an application if it appears that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to carry out ACSP functionsLegislation. The guidance makes clear that assessment continues after registration. An adverse issue does not necessarily mean refusal, suspension or cessation: the registrar considers the circumstances, including its seriousness, when it happened and whether it has been resolved. The criteria are not exhaustive.

Eligibility and competence include continuing appropriate AML supervision and the ability to perform ACSP functions. Companies House may consider a connected entity’s dissolution, proposed strike-off, including first or second Gazette notices, or insolvency proceedings. A previous suspension or cessation of ACSP status and the provider’s conduct can also inform the assessment.

Criminal, regulatory and financial history can include bankruptcy, director disqualification, convictions and regulatory or disciplinary findings. Serious or repeated failures to meet statutory obligations to Companies House also matter. The honesty and integrity assessment covers previous dealings with Companies House, false or misleading filings, unanswered queries and conduct that raises concerns about reliability, transparency or compliance.

The registrar can examine verification, reverification and filing activity, alongside the statutory filing compliance of the ACSP and associated entities. Repeated concerns, unresolved problems, failure to respond to authorities and risks to register integrity may aggravate a case. Mitigation can include good conduct, prompt resolution, cooperation and steps to prevent recurrence. Where AML-related concerns arise, the registrar may consider the supervisor’s response together with the seriousness, relevance and timing of the issue and remedial steps.

Applicants must provide accurate and complete information. Companies House may check it against information it holds and information from public registers, regulators, supervisors, law enforcement and other public authorities. Applicants and registered providers should notify Companies House of changed circumstances relevant to suitability. Inaccurate information, non-disclosure and failure to respond can themselves count against a provider.

For existing providers, the statutory cessation power applies where the registrar has reasonable cause to believe the person is not fit and properLegislation. Regulation 18(7) expressly prevents the registrar from giving a cessation notice under regulation 18(4) until a suspension notice has been given under regulation 17 and the prescribed period has expiredLegislation. The provider can submit a written objection within 28 days beginning on the day the suspension notice is given, or within an extended period specified by the registrarLegislation. The registrar must consider a compliant objection and cannot issue the cessation notice before that period expires. Cessation means the provider can no longer act as an ACSP.

The legal basis is the Companies Act 2006, section 1098B(5), and the Registrar (Identity Verification and Authorised Corporate Service Providers) Regulations 2025, regulations 17 and 18.