Drafting Forward-Looking Defense Equipment Supply Contracts in an Era of Global Tariff Shock

Introduction: Defense Contracts in a Disrupted World

Defence procurement has always required foresight, but never has it demanded forward-thinking more than today. In 2025, as Donald Trump enters his second term, U.S. tariff policy has mutated into a tool wielded indiscriminately - even against long-standing allies. The European Union, Canada, India, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all find themselves subjected to steep new tariffs, often framed as reciprocal or punitive. The result is a profound disruption to global defence supply chains, calling into question the viability of traditional contract models.

Against this unstable backdrop, defence procurement contracts must evolve beyond static templates. They must embed adaptability, fairness, and strategic resilience to ensure long-term national security is not imperiled by shifting trade winds. This article explores how contracts can - and must - be retooled to weather this new era of geopolitical unpredictability.

The New Reality: Allies Under Tariff Fire

Trump’s aggressive tariff policies have swiftly ensnared traditional allies. As of mid-2025, Canada, once the bedrock of North American integration, faces widespread tariffs - 35% on select goods - with retaliatory levies on U.S. exports already imposed . The EU recently agreed to a lopsided 15% blanket tariff on many products under duress, while European officials lament the erosion of their economic sovereignty .

India has been hit particularly hard: a 25% “reciprocal” tariff followed by an additional 25% penalty related to its Russian oil imports has pushed total duties to 50%, triggering a diplomatic crisis and stoking concerns about the future of U.S.-India strategic cooperation .

Down in the Pacific, South Korea negotiated a trade deal allowing a 15% tariff in exchange for massive U.S.-based investment-an uneasy compromise under duress . Japan and South Korea responded in lockstep to “Liberation Day” tariff announcements of over 20%, while South Korean leadership scrambled to shield its export-reliant economy .

Australia, too, finds its role as a trusted security partner overshadowed by economic frictions, prompting public rebuke from its Prime Minister and a broader questioning of the U.S.’ reliability .

These developments bluntly illustrate the fracture lines now spreading through even the most dependable alliances - a cautionary tale for contract drafters worldwide.

Tariff Volatility: Contractual Fragility Exposed

In this climate, the weaknesses of traditional defense procurement contracts become glaringly apparent. Fixed-price agreements assumed cost stability; force majeure provisions presumed shocks would be natural disasters, not policy swings. Neither holds up when steel, electronics, or critical components suddenly become subject to massive levies.

Moreover, these tariffs intersect with broader economic pain. According to reports, the new measures are being passed on to consumers - households face thousands in added costs, and businesses from coffee shops to manufacturers are reeling . International supply chains are buckling; imports may soon decline significantly.

Court challenges are already traversing the U.S. legal system. The Court of International Trade has ruled that “Liberation Day” tariffs exceed executive authority under the IEEPA, issuing a permanent injunction . Legislative pushback is underway too: the Trade Review Act of 2025 would impose Congressional oversight on any new tariffs beyond 60 days.

These developments emphasize that tariff shock is not a temporary aberration; it is baked into the system. Contracts must be built to endure - structurally and strategically.

Rethinking Change in Law - and Force Majeure

The old reliance on broad force majeure clauses is no longer tenable. Courts have repeatedly rejected tariff changes as unforeseeable, particularly when tied to government policy - not nature or accident. Change in Law clauses must now explicitly account for tariff and trade shifts, with built-in mechanisms for equitable adjustment.

Highlighted Provision: Change in Law - Tariffs and Trade Restrictions

“If, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, any tariff, duty, trade restriction, or export control law enacted, modified, or repealed materially impacts the Supplier’s cost or performance ability, the Parties will negotiate in good faith within 30 days to revise Price, Delivery, or other terms. If unresolved, the dispute may be referred to expedited arbitration under Article X.”

Embedding such a clause ensures that policy shocks trigger contractual adaptation - not breakdown. 

Embracing Hybrid Pricing Models for Stability and Flexibility

Fixed pricing became unworkable the moment even a portion of a supply chain crossed into tariff exposure. A smarter model combines stable base pricing with adjustment mechanisms tied to indices - like tariff rates on key inputs, commodity pricing, or predefined cost multipliers.

Highlighted Provision: Tariff Adjustment Formula

“The Contract Price shall adjust based on tariffs imposed or removed on Critical Inputs (as defined in Schedule X), with impact proportionally passed through, subject to independent cost verification and applied quarterly.”

This structure anchors budget expectations but maintains fairness and cost transparency across sudden shocks.

Integrating Currency Volatility Mechanisms

Tariff storms often ripple into currency markets - a dual blow for cross-border procurement. Contracts must now include currency adjustment or obligatory hedging measures to protect both parties.

A clause might mandate hedges for FX exposure above a designated threshold or allow price adjustments tied to agreed benchmarks such as the local currency vs. USD exchange rate.

Diversified Sourcing: A Strategic Imperative

Allies recognize that overreliance on any one supplier or jurisdiction - particularly those vulnerable to U.S. pressure - is unsustainable. European countries are ramping up indigenous procurement; Asia-Pacific partners are scrutinizing projects like AUKUS for open-ended U.S. dependencies .

Highlighted Provision: Supply Chain Diversification

“The Supplier shall not source more than X% of Critical Inputs from any single High-Risk Jurisdiction (defined in Schedule Y). Annual certification of diversification compliance and material sourcing shifts must be submitted.”

This forces transparency, reduces choke point risk, and aligns industrial strategy with supply chain resilience.

Expedited Dispute Resolution in a Geopolitical Flashpoint

Protracted arbitration drags timelines and hurts national readiness. Defense contracts must lean toward rapid dispute resolution, with arbitration panels knowledgeable in trade and defense law, and strict deadlines for award issuance.

Highlighted Provision: Expedited Arbitration for Trade Disputes

“Disputes regarding tariffs or Change in Law provisions will be settled via expedited arbitration under [Institution] Rules, with a panel including experts in international trade and defense procurement. Decisions rendered within 60 days of panel constitution.”

Such a structure safeguards continuity amid strategic shocks.

Comparative Case Studies: Contracts Under Siege

• India: The 50% tariff sparked diplomatic crises and stalled defense dialogues - underscoring how tariff policy can upend procurement politics.

• Canada & Mexico: Broad 25 - 35% tariffs and retaliations disrupted North American supply chains, rolling through defense and automotive sectors.

• EU: Despite a “defensive” tariff deal, European procurement is shifting inward, supported by a €150 billion rearmament fund.

• South Korea: A deal to reduce tariffs in exchange for large U.S. investment illustrates the transactional leverage imposed by tariff policy.

• Court Safeguards: The invalidation of “Liberation Day” tariffs via the IEEPA challenge shows the legal limits of executive overreach.

Contracts as Strategic Instruments of Resilience

No longer can defense contracts be static risk-transfer documents. They must act as dynamic frameworks - encoding geopolitical risk management, adaptive pricing, sourcing strategies, rapid dispute handling, and transparency layers.

Key structural imperatives include:

• Geopolitical Due Diligence: Supplier awareness of tariff exposure and jurisdictional risk must be contractual.

• Digital Twins & Supply Chain Mapping: Requiring real-time mapping of second- and third-tier suppliers enables early disruption detection.

• Scenario-Driven Triggers: Contracts should anticipate tariff shock scenarios - embedding triggers for renegotiation or price recalibration.

• Balanced Risk-Sharing: Neither side should bear the brunt alone. Fair cost distribution maintains trust and industrial continuity.

Conclusion: Contracts as National Security Strategy

In a world where allies face punitive tariffs, court challenges blur, and strategic alignment fractures, defense contracts have become part of national strategy - not just commercial documentation. The uncertainty of U.S. trade policy, especially under a second Trump administration, transforms procurement into geopolitics.

Contracting parties must adapt accordingly. Without proactive redesign, defense procurement will remain vulnerable to policy shocks. With thoughtful contractual innovation - reflecting tariff risk, economic volatility, and alliance fragility - defense supply agreements can become bulwarks of resilience.

In 2025, crafting such contracts is not one option among many - it is imperative. It is not only prudent; it is strategic. National security depends on it.

#GlobalSecurity #DefenseContracts #StrategicSupply #MilitaryProcurement #DefenseIndustry #TradeWars #TariffPolicy #EconomicUncertainty #Geopolitics #GlobalTrade #ContractLaw #DefensePolicy #NationalSecurity #PolicyShift #LegalFramework #USAllies #EUSecurity #IndoPacific #TransatlanticRelations #GlobalPartnerships #FutureProofContracts #ResilientSupplyChains #RiskManagement #DefenseInnovation #StrategicForesight

_________________________________________

At Lex Partners Advocates LLP, we help policymakers, businesses, and institutions navigate the shifting terrain of U.S. tariffs, defense markets, and global trade realignments.

Our strength lies in turning complexity into clarity - and uncertainty into resilience.

🤝 Lex Partners Advocates LLP 

📌 Nairobi, Kenya

📩 Email: lexpartnersllp@gmail.com

📞 Phone: +254 715 310 677

Trump’s Tariffs, America’s Strategic Overreach, and the Slow Unraveling of the US Military-Industrial Complex

I. Introduction: Tariffs as the New Trenches

When Donald J. Trump returned to the White House for his second term in January 2025, he wasted no time reaffirming the central economic principle that defined his first presidency: tariffs as the primary weapon of American industrial revival. His campaign promise of an “America First” economic policy has now been welded into the architecture of U.S. governance, with sweeping tariffs on imports from China, India, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and even Canada.

To Trump’s domestic political base, this is evidence of consistency - proof that he is unafraid to take on “unfair” trading partners. To much of the world, it is confirmation that the United States, under Trump, views all economic relationships through a transactional, often adversarial lens.

Yet tariffs are not simply a domestic economic lever; in the interconnected world of 21st-century geopolitics, they are a strategic disruptor. Nowhere is this more visible than in the United States’ crown jewel of influence: its Military-Industrial Complex, the sprawling ecosystem of defense contractors, subcontractors, and global supply chains that sustains U.S. military dominance and binds allies into long-term security relationships.

Recent trends - canceled orders, restructured alliances, and accelerating diversification of arms procurement, suggest that Trump’s tariff policy is exerting quiet but profound pressure on this complex. And while the President insists that tariffs will strengthen America’s manufacturing backbone, their long-term effect may be to weaken one of America’s most powerful tools of global influence.

II. The Tariff Doctrine: Political Theatre Meets Economic Reality

Trump’s tariffs are rooted in a belief that the United States can force trade partners to concede better terms by raising the cost of entry into the American market. Steel and aluminum were among the earliest targets, with tariffs applied indiscriminately - even to allies like Canada, Japan, and members of the European Union.

The logic was straightforward: make imports more expensive, incentivize domestic production, and compel foreign producers to negotiate. But the real-world consequences have been more complex. Retaliatory tariffs by the EU, Canada, and others have targeted U.S. exports - including, crucially, aerospace and defense products.

For the defense industry, which depends on globally integrated supply chains, these tariffs act as a self-imposed tax. Specialized alloys from Canada, titanium from Japan, optics from Germany, and composite materials from Italy are not easily substituted domestically without either raising costs or sacrificing quality. The higher input costs ripple through to the final price tag of American fighter jets, missile systems, and naval vessels - making them less competitive in the global arms market.

III. Case Study One: The F-35 Lightning II and the Cost of Alienation

The F-35 Lightning II program is emblematic of both the promise and fragility of U.S.-led defense projects. With lifetime costs projected at over $1.7 trillion, it is the most expensive weapons program in history. It was designed from the start as an international endeavor, drawing in partners from the UK, Italy, Australia, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands - not only as buyers but as co-producers.

However, when tariffs on European metals and aerospace components increased production costs, some partners began questioning the value of the deal. The diplomatic tone set by Trump’s trade policy - blunt, transactional, and occasionally hostile - compounded these doubts.

Turkey’s dramatic expulsion from the F-35 program in 2019, after purchasing Russia’s S-400 missile system, was rooted in security concerns, but its aftermath is telling. Ankara accelerated its own TF-X fighter program, both to meet domestic needs and to position itself as an emerging exporter - potentially competing for markets that might once have been U.S. strongholds.

IV. Case Study Two: Indo-Pacific Recalibrations

In the Indo-Pacific, U.S. defense partnerships remain strong in principle, but tariffs have sown seeds of strategic hedging. Japan, while still a major buyer of U.S. hardware, is pushing forward with its F-X sixth-generation fighter in partnership with the UK’s BAE Systems. South Korea’s KF-21 Boramae project reflects a similar ambition: to develop an indigenous alternative that can be sold to regional partners without dependence on U.S. approval.

Australia, another key ally, has quietly expanded defense cooperation with European suppliers, particularly in naval shipbuilding. In all cases, tariffs didn’t cause the diversification, but they accelerated a pre-existing desire for greater autonomy - a desire rooted in uncertainty about the long-term reliability of U.S. supply lines and political commitments.

V. The US Military-Industrial Complex Under Strain

The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex rests on three pillars:

• Pentagon procurement, which guarantees a domestic buyer.
• Foreign Military Sales (FMS), formal government-to-government deals.
• Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) from private defense companies to foreign governments.

Foreign sales are not a luxury - they are a necessity. They help subsidize R&D costs, maintain economies of scale, and ensure production lines stay active between Pentagon orders. When tariffs alienate buyers, the immediate loss is economic; the longer-term loss is strategic.

The Pentagon may still buy American, but without a strong export market, per-unit costs rise, making even domestic procurement more expensive and politically contentious. This dynamic risks creating a feedback loop where shrinking exports lead to higher costs, which lead to smaller defense budgets, which in turn reduce U.S. military readiness.

VI. Historical Parallels: Economic Nationalism and Strategic Risk

The United States has been here before. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at protecting U.S. farmers and manufacturers, provoked retaliation from trading partners, deepened the Great Depression, and undermined America’s global economic influence.

In 1971, Nixon’s unilateral suspension of the Bretton Woods gold standard rattled economic allies, signaling that the U.S. could upend long-standing arrangements with little warning. In both cases, strategic relationships suffered alongside economic ones - a reminder that in international affairs, trust is a currency just as valuable as gold or trade surpluses.

Trump’s tariff regime fits this pattern. It is not merely an economic measure but a statement of philosophy: alliances are conditional, and economic advantage trumps diplomatic continuity.

VII. The China and Russia Factor

As U.S. allies reconsider procurement from Washington, China and Russia are moving aggressively to fill the gaps. Beijing’s AVIC and NORINCO offer competitive fighter jets, drones, and missile systems - often bundled with infrastructure investments under the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia’s Rosoboronexport markets the S-400 and Su-57 to nations willing to endure U.S. sanctions, with India as a prominent example.

The more Washington uses trade and sanctions as blunt instruments, the more foreign buyers seek alternative suppliers - not only to save money, but to insulate themselves from American political leverage.

VIII. Domestic Economic Boomerang Effects 

Tariffs designed to protect American jobs have also created domestic economic stress. Retaliatory measures have battered U.S. agricultural exports, forcing multi-billion-dollar federal aid packages to farmers. Manufacturing sectors dependent on imported inputs - automotive, aerospace, electronics - face higher costs, making them less competitive globally.

For the defense industry, diminished export markets mean the Pentagon pays more for the same equipment, straining the defense budget at a time when the national debt is swelling past historic highs.

IX. The Trust Deficit: A Strategic Liability

In the defense trade, trust is the foundation. Allies invest in American systems not only for their technical superiority but for the assurance that the U.S. will remain a reliable partner over decades-long maintenance cycles. Tariffs disrupt that perception. They introduce uncertainty about future costs and signal that even allies can be subject to punitive measures for economic reasons unrelated to security cooperation.

Rebuilding that trust, once lost, will require more than a change in tariff schedules - it will require a fundamental shift in how the U.S. conceives of its alliances.

X. The Next Decade Outlook: A Multipolar Defense Industry by 2035

If Trump’s tariff doctrine continues through his second term and sets the tone for U.S. trade policy beyond 2029, the global arms market could enter a fundamentally different phase by 2035. What has been for decades a U.S.-centric ecosystem may fragment into a truly multipolar defense industry.

Three long-term trends appear likely:

1. Fragmented Supply Networks:

Foreign buyers - once locked into U.S. systems - will diversify procurement to reduce vulnerability to American tariffs or political conditions. Joint ventures between Russia and Gulf states, or China and African partners, could accelerate the spread of advanced defense technology into regions historically tied to NATO suppliers.

2. Technological Decentralization:

Export restrictions and tariff-induced cost inflation will push buyers toward suppliers who offer generous technology transfer. India, Turkey, South Korea, and Brazil could emerge as mid-tier exporters capable of undercutting U.S. prices while offering sovereign control over production.

3. Strategic Realignment of Arms Clients:

By 2035, defense procurement could align more closely with political blocs outside the U.S. orbit. States targeted by U.S. trade policies might form reciprocal purchasing arrangements, binding their defense supply chains into alternative geopolitical spheres.

In this environment, the U.S. would remain a major player - but no longer the undisputed hub of global defense. Its influence would be contested in every major arms market, and its ability to use defense sales as a tool of diplomacy would be constrained by the presence of credible, politically aligned alternatives.

XI. Conclusion: Tariffs as Strategic Self-Sabotage

Trump’s tariffs are meant to revive American industry, but their deeper legacy may be the erosion of one of America’s greatest geopolitical assets. By straining alliances, raising costs, and pushing buyers toward competitors, these policies risk reshaping the defense industry into a multipolar contest where U.S. primacy is no longer assured.

In the arms trade, as in diplomacy, the most valuable commodity is not protectionism - it is trust. And trust, once lost, is a weapon no tariff can rebuild.

___________________________________________

Let’s Shape the Future of Strategic Trade, Defense Cooperation, and Global Stability Together

If you are a policymaker, defense strategist, academic, or part of an international organization assessing the long-term impact of U.S. trade policy and military-industrial trends, we invite you to collaborate with us. Institute for Policy & Diplomacy offers confidential briefings, scenario planning, and strategic dialogue on how shifting economic doctrines, such as the current U.S. tariff regime, are reshaping alliances, defense markets, and geopolitical stability.

Our work is grounded in rigorous analysis, historical context, and forward-looking policy frameworks designed to help stakeholders navigate an increasingly multipolar world. Together, we can anticipate risks, identify opportunities, and craft responses that preserve security and trust in an era of rapid change.

🤝 Institute for Policy & Diplomacy

📌 Nairobi, Kenya

📩 Email: instituteforpolicyanddiplomacy@gmail.com

📞 Phone: +254 715 310 677

Checklist to Guide Advocates in Kenya to Ensure End-to-End Legal Compliance With Article 48 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA) and Related AML Regulations, When Engaging in Specified Activities

OVERVIEW

Subject to existing policy directions of the Law Society of Kenya, this document offers guidance as a checklist which Advocates in Kenya are encouraged to follow, to ensure end-to-end legal compliance with Article 48 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (POCAMLA) and related AML regulations, when engaging in specified activities.

The Checklist includes statutory references, practical compliance measures, and notable legal lacunae that may be cautiously navigated to protect clients and the advocate.

Disclaimer: 

It should be noted that this document ought to serve merely as a guide and/or reference tool, and not the exhaustive formal authority on AML Compliance Requirements. As such, legal practitioners have absolute discretion on whether or not to be guided by it.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE FOR ALL CATEGORIES (Cross-cutting Obligations)

1.     Client Due Diligence (CDD) - Reg. 13, POCAMLA Regulations

 

ü  Obtain and verify client identity (ID/passport, PIN, KRA certificate, etc.)

ü  Ascertain source of funds/wealth

ü  For legal persons: collect incorporation documents, ownership structure, beneficial owners

 

2.     Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) - Reg. 15, POCAMLA Regulations

 

ü  Required where client is a PEP, foreign national, or high-risk entity

ü  Perform risk assessment and document findings

ü  Ongoing monitoring of transactions

 

3.     Record-Keeping - Section 45, POCAMLA

 

ü  Maintain records for at least 7 years after transaction or relationship termination

ü  Includes CDD documents, transactional records, communications

 

4.     Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) - Section 44, POCAMLA

ü  File STRs with Financial Reporting Centre (FRC) promptly and confidentially

ü  No tipping off (Section 50, POCAMLA - criminal offence)

 

5.     Internal Policies & Training - Advocates (where operating as firms)

       ü  AML policy manual

           ü  Staff AML/CFT training

       ü  Appoint compliance officer (for law firms)

 

A.     Buying and Selling of Real Estate

Risk: Property is a common vehicle for money laundering due to large cash-based transactions.

Checklist

ü  Confirm property ownership and title details at Lands Registry

ü  Verify source of purchase funds (especially in cash transactions)

ü  Ensure funds are routed through regulated financial institutions

ü  Obtain valuation reports to confirm fair market value

ü  Insist on bank-to-bank transfers only

 Key Law

ü  Real Estate Reporting: Legal Notice No. 107 of 2019 – Declares Advocates as reporting institutions when handling real estate

ü  Land Control Act compliance (consent in controlled areas)

 Legal Lacuna

     ü  No cap on cash transactions (unlike other jurisdictions), but cash deals raise red flags

ü  Advocates may exclude themselves from being the transaction agent if acting solely as conveyancing counsel to reduce exposure

 

B.    Managing Client Money, Securities, or Other Assets

Risk: Client accounts can be used to layer illicit funds.

Checklist

ü  Operate separate client accounts (as per Advocates Act, s.34 & LSK Account Rules)

ü  Require instructions in writing

ü  Avoid accepting large unexplained deposits

ü  Maintain full ledger and audit trail for all disbursements and receipts

Key Law

ü  Section 48(a), POCAMLA

ü  Rule 6 of Advocates (Accounts) Rules

ü  Central Bank of Kenya Guidelines for Reporting Institutions

Legal Lacuna

     ü  Advocate-client privilege limits third-party access unless court-ordered

ü  If acting as trustee, advocate may rely on trust deed terms to justify holdings or transfers

C.    Management of Bank, Savings, or Securities Accounts

Risk: These accounts may be used to obscure fund origins or funnel illicit proceeds.

Checklist

     ü  Avoid operating bank accounts directly for clients unless specifically permitted by court or power of attorney

ü  If acting as signatory, obtain full mandate in writing

ü  Advise client to open accounts in their own name

ü  Insist on documentation for all deposits or withdrawals

Key Law

ü  Section 48(b), POCAMLA

ü  CBK Prudential Guidelines and CMA (Capital Markets Authority) Regulations

Legal Lacuna

    ü  Advocates may distance themselves by referring clients to licensed trustees or corporate service providers

ü Where acting under power of attorney, include specific indemnities and AML disclaimers

D.    Organization of Contributions for the Creation, Operation or Management of               Companies

Risk: Shell companies are classic ML tools; contributions may mask illicit investments.

Checklist

ü  Know your client (KYC) and all beneficial owners

ü  Verify legality of source of startup capital

ü  Insist on documentation of shareholder contributions

ü  Avoid nominee directorships unless mandated and declared

ü  Register company with Business Registration Service (BRS) and provide UBO declarations

Key Law

ü  Section 93A, Companies Act (Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership)

ü  Section 48(c), POCAMLA

ü  Registrar of Companies Practice Note on AML Compliance

Legal Lacuna

ü  No centralized public UBO register yet accessible - compliance still largely self-reported

ü  Clients may use layered holding companies, but advocate must inquire into beneficial control

 

E.     Creation, Operation or Management of Buying and Selling of Business Entities

Risk: Business acquisitions may be used to launder money through overvaluations or fictitious valuations.

Checklist

ü  Conduct legal due diligence (contracts, tax status, ownership)

ü  Assess fair market value through independent valuation

ü  Require audited financials

ü  Request source of acquisition funds

ü  Ensure transaction documents reflect true purchase consideration

Key Law

ü  Section 48(d), POCAMLA

ü  Income Tax Act (Capital Gains on sale of business)

ü  Competition Act (if involving significant mergers)

Legal Lacuna

ü  No mandatory notification to the FRC or CBK of private business sales unless flagged

ü Advocates may frame the sale as a share transfer to limit disclosure but must not conceal beneficial ownership

Protective Clauses Advocates Should Include in Engagements

·       AML Disclaimer Clauses

 

“The Advocate shall not be liable for any delay or refusal to proceed with any transaction where such action is necessary to comply with Anti-Money Laundering obligations under POCAMLA or other applicable law.”

 

·       Indemnity Clauses:

 

“The Client agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Advocate from any liability arising from reliance on incomplete or false information provided by the Client.”

 

·       Transaction Justification Clauses:

 

“This transaction is being conducted pursuant to lawful authority and in accordance with the applicable laws of Kenya, including but not limited to the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act.”

Lacunae AND Strategic Justifications in Law

Area	Lacuna/Gray Area	How to Strategically Navigate
Beneficial Ownership Disclosure	Enforcement weak; relies on self-reporting	Document client declaration and attach to file - shift liability
Cash Transactions in Real Estate	No absolute cash ban	Encourage bank transfers; if cash, insist on source documentation
Client Privilege vs. STR	No explicit override	Report suspicious activity without revealing STR to client
Shell Companies	Legal to incorporate holding entities	Request multi-level UBO declaration; document all entities involved
Power of Attorney Transactions	Not clearly regulated under POCAMLA	Include AML compliance caveat in the instrument of appointment

CONCLUSION

Legal practitioners must balance AML obligations with client confidentiality. The safest legal posture is to document all inquiries, instructions, and disclosures. Where in doubt, make a defensive STR and retain documentation to protect against complicity claims.

______________________________________________

At International Consulting House LLP, we specialize in comprehensive Anti-Money Laundering (AML) legal compliance and advisory. Our expert team is well-versed in managing risk and ensuring your business meets all the regulatory requirements related to money laundering prevention, client due diligence, and suspicious transaction reporting.

Whether you're navigating complex transactions or seeking to establish robust internal compliance protocols, we provide strategic guidance to help you stay ahead of legal risks.

Let us ensure your business is not only compliant but is also protected from any adverse legal outcomes.

💼 International Consulting House LLP

📩 hello@internationalconsultinghouse.com

📞 +254 715 310 677

🌍 www.internationalconsultinghouse.com