Thank you very much for the question.
So you are asking me about the details on the amendments I would make to the current regulations.
I'll answer that question in English.
As somebody who works in the area of anti-corruption, I'm sensitive to some of the issues that come up in that context. Where lawyers are conducting financial transactions on behalf of clients, and they're using negotiable instruments at risk of money laundering, I would impose greater know-your-customer and due diligence obligations as appropriate to verify if clients are politically exposed persons, including family or close associates, and if they're on sanctions lists or are otherwise high risk. I would also require lawyers to make inquiries about the source of funds in these types of cases.
I'll give you a couple of examples. If you are a lawyer and you have someone in your office who has negotiable instruments and would like to purchase a house, it would be really good to know if, for example, they are on a sanctions list, because people on sanctions lists need lawyers for certain purposes. If they're supposed to be subject to an asset freeze and they give you the stocks and bonds and bearer shares, it would be really useful to have that information. Similarly, it would be good to know if they were representing the Mugabe family or someone at high risk of receiving the proceeds of corruption.
These types of obligations are currently on the financial system, but because of the no-cash rule, it would really be when you have a serious risk of money laundering because, obviously, everyone needs a lawyer from time to time for whatever reason. Here I'm talking about high-risk transactions and high-risk situations.