Since 2017, the OCCRP‑led Azerbaijani Laundromat revelations exposed a €2.9 billion money‑laundering network tied to Azerbaijan’s elite, using shell firms in the UK and Europe to funnel corrupt funds into real estate, bribes, lobbying campaigns and more.
VinciWorks previously flagged the scheme’s UK dimension, including how British LLPs were abused as laundromat vehicles and named two German MPs (Axel Fischer and Eduard Lintner) implicated in PACE corruption through “caviar diplomacy” all underscoring the UK’s role as a hub for illicit Azerbaijani money flows.
Now, UK legal authorities have taken action and disciplined a British lawyer involved in the scheme. But this case isn’t an isolated incident. It has exposed how money laundering tied to Azerbaijan’s ruling elite has wound through UK shell companies, real‑estate deals, and respectable law firms. While the original Laundromat shook institutions worldwide, the reverberations—including professional sanctions years later—underscore how complicity, even indirect and unintentional, can cost both money and trust.
The warning for all professional service firms, and in particular law firms, is if a relatively small country like Azerbaijan can exert such a long arm of influence over UK firms, what kind of influence could other and wealthier countries have? With the UK still seen as a hub for illicit money flows, UK regulated entities must maintain their alertness against foreign influence and avoid being a conduit of corruption.
The Rory Fordyce SDT ruling
In July 2025, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal published their ruling fining British lawyer Rory Fordyce £32,500 and barred him from senior compliance roles for five years. He must also pay £50,000 in legal costs. The misconduct: failing to properly vet funds used by Anar Mahmudov’s offshore vehicle, Continental Properties Ltd, in the purchase of a high‑value southern England property.
Between 2013 and April 2015, approximately £1.9 million was transferred from Mahmudov family members into a Taylor Fordyce client account, later used to buy a Newbury commercial property housing tenants such as Pizza Hut, Greggs, a tutoring centre and Salvation Army donation shop. Fordyce’s anti‑money‑laundering checks were dismissed as “rudimentary, piecemeal and naive” by the SDT. Though Mahmudov claimed trust structures excluded him as beneficiary, the tribunal noted these claims were contradicted by other evidence and he prioritized the deal over compliance obligations.
Where echoes of the Laundromat resound
Continuity of abuse of UK real estate
The Fordyce case fits a familiar pattern: shell structures tied to Azerbaijani elites purchasing UK property through offshore vehicles, mirroring hundreds of MPL schemes flagged in the original Laundromat investigations.
Professional enablers under scrutiny
Just as previous lawyers and advisers were fined or disciplined such as a notary fined €70,000 in Luxembourg for ignoring Azerbaijan‑linked laundering risks, Fordyce’s reprimand highlights how advisory professionals can face long‑term consequences for weak AML practice
Costs beyond fines: reputational and compliance fallout
Being linked—even indirectly—to such scandals risks lasting damage. Taylor Fordyce, the firm, is now associated with compliance failures involving corrupt money. Clients and regulators may demand tougher AML protocols, deepened due diligence, and more aggressive risk‑based approaches.
Small firms aren’t immune
Spotlight on Corruption warns that smaller outfits may go easy on tough questions to retain big-paying clients , an echo from Fordyce’s situation where a major client seemed to trump compliance, and gets you in front of tribunals.
Trusts & confidentiality won’t shield you
Using offshore trusts or opaque ownership structures won’t satisfy regulators. Fordyce’s reliance on contradictory explanations was deemed insufficient for the tribunal.
Take‑aways for client‑facing compliance professionals
- Rigorous source‑of‑wealth vetting is non‑negotiable, even for repeat or prestigious clients.
- Document conflicts and red flags: disputes about beneficial ownership or trust arrangements must be escalated and formally recorded.
- Dry run crisis planning: ask what your firm would do if a tribunal ruling tied your name to misuse of client funds. As with Fordyce, the remote risk becomes front page news.
- Update risk appetite thresholds: if you’ve handled client in banking, real estate, trusts, or corporate structuring — especially with links to higher‑risk jurisdictions like Azerbaijan — re‑evaluate periodically.
