AML duties apply when you assist with financial or real-estate transactions — without breaching professional privilege.

Why it matters

You must run due diligence on certain mandates while protecting legal privilege and avoiding tipping-off.

Where the scope gets real

For lawyers, the central challenge is scoping. Some matters are fully in scope for AML obligations, others are not, and the office needs a defensible way to distinguish advisory privilege from transactional compliance work.

Where teams lose time

That usually creates uncertainty at intake: is this mandate in scope, which documents should be requested, where should the AML record sit, and how can the team avoid contaminating the legal file with material that should be handled separately?

Typical files and mandate types

• M&A and share-sale support where client, counterparty and ownership structure all matter
• Real-estate transaction support with funds, nominees or holding companies involved
• Corporate restructuring mandates where scope, privilege and reporting posture need to be documented carefully

What Sceau does

• A privilege-aware workflow that separates AML records from case files
• Clear triggers: which mandates fall in scope, which do not
• Reporting path that respects the Bar's filtering role under Belgian law

What usually goes wrong

• Mandates drifting from pure advice into transaction assistance without the AML file being updated
• Privilege-sensitive material being mixed with operational AML evidence
• Unclear internal ownership of the decision whether a matter is in scope or reportable

How Sceau works in practice

• Classify the mandate at intake with a structured scope check tied to the engagement type
• Collect only the AML evidence needed for in-scope work and keep it in a separate, controlled compliance layer
• Prepare an internal report pack that respects the Bar-mediated Belgian reporting route where that applies

What changes operationally

• Partners and AMLCOs can explain why a matter was treated as in scope or out of scope
• Fee earners get a repeatable intake path instead of relying on ad hoc judgment every time
• The compliance record remains reviewable without exposing more privileged material than necessary

What stays under your control

Sceau keeps the AML trail distinct from the legal work product. The firm can document why a matter was in or out of scope, what identification and screening was done, and which human took the reporting or non-reporting decision.