Thursday

7th Jul 2022

Letter

Ending shell companies does not threaten privacy

  • Smoking gun? The EU's anti money-laundering directive strikes the right balance between the public's desire for transparency and the data subject's desire for privacy (Photo: Pixabay)

In last week's op-ed Fundamental snag with new EU money-laundering rules, Martin Kenney, a lawyer based in the British Virgin Islands criticises one of the cornerstones of the new EU anti-money laundering rules: the granting of public access to a minimum set of information on the person who ultimately owns an EU-based company, commonly known as the beneficial owner.

This is not a new debate and the issue was widely discussed during the negotiations of the 5th Anti Money Laundering (AML) Directive.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Recent scandals, spearheaded by the Panama Papers, have shown us that the current opaque financial system we have in place is vulnerable to systematic wrongdoing (Photo: European Parliament)

At the time, it was concluded that there was absolutely no contradiction with the newly-adopted EU framework on data protection, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Let us reiterate the arguments made at the time.

The stated objective of the directive is "the protection of the financial system by means of prevention, detection and investigation of money laundering and terrorist financing".

Recent scandals, spearheaded by the Panama Papers, have shown us that the current opaque financial system we have in place is vulnerable to systematic wrongdoing.

Without public access to beneficial ownership information, the laws of our societies are constantly undermined.

Kenney seems to equate the concept of legal persons with anonymity, something that has been a part European legal traditions for some time.

Legal persons are needed to operate complex businesses, collect capital and limit risks and the liability of individuals, they were never created as a tool to hide ownership in business or other enterprises.

Individuals who create legal structures are actively choosing to benefit from them and take advantage of things like limited liability. In return for this it is legitimate to expect transparency around beneficiaries.

Individuals could – if they wanted – trade in their own name and therefore avoid the public reporting obligations that come with legal structures.

Although we do not deny the responsibility of public authorities for investigating money laundering and terrorist financing cases, we believe public access is necessary for efficient prevention and detection of criminal acts.

Acting as strong deterrents, public registers will create an additional layer of protection for societies. Not only will they make it much harder for corrupt individuals to hide their criminal activities, but they will also prevent opportunistic behaviours that thrive on financial secrecy as the Panama and Paradise Papers revealed.

In addition, public access to beneficial ownership information can lead to more investigations by public authorities.

This was well-demonstrated by the Panama Papers: since beneficial ownership information about companies created by Mossack Fonseca became public in April 2016, more than $1.2bn [€1.11bn] has been recouped in 22 countries and investigations were sparked in more than 82 countries according to the ICIJ.

Public beneficial ownership registers can also serve other purposes.

For example, businesses themselves find it useful to know the beneficial owners of companies they are dealing with so as to better manage risks and potential liability. Our environment, human rights and social justice also benefit from greater transparency.

Kenney's claim that "only an effective and credible UBO due-diligence process on the beneficial owner [conducted by banks or lawyers like him] will frustrate illicit endeavours". This argument seems unconvincing in light of recent scandals, which have shown that intermediaries and professionals are not always on the right side of history.

More eyes needed

Although we do not question that they are an essential piece of the puzzle, we argue that the more eyes are able to scrutinise the data, the more chance we have of identifying anomalies, wrongdoing or misconduct.

Kenney also makes the point that crooks will lie and disclose incorrect information on the register. There is no doubt that this is a risk.

We have been consistently reiterating that information in beneficial ownership registers should be verified – regardless if the register is public or private. Public registers, however, will add an additional layer and offer opportunities to other users of the register (including the private sector) to spot and report inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

Proportionality

The amount of information required to be published had been deemed at the time proportionate to the objectives pursued. Only part of the information collected by authorities is put in the public domain.

Furthermore, robust safeguards have been built in to redact information from the public domain on a case-by-case basis when public access to beneficial ownership information could put individuals at risk.

This strikes the right balance between the public's desire for transparency and the data subject's desire for privacy.

It should also be noted that there is precedent paving the way, which should reassure data privacy defenders. It has been a long-standing practice that many European countries have publicly available, detailed information on the board members and managing officials.

Denmark has an online register for shareholders, where you can freely access shareholders full names and service addresses as well as full dates of birth for a small fee.

In another arena, the EU Transparency Register includes the names and contact details of individuals who seek to lobby EU policy makers. Data is freely accessible and can be downloaded.

This shows that it is possible to disclose carefully selected information on an individual for a well-defined and legitimate purpose.

What we read between the lines in Kenney's indictment against transparency is not as much a concern about individuals' privacy than the fear of losing a lucrative business that has been thriving on financial secrecy for too long.

Societies are in dire need of transparency and accountability. In the future, there will be more Panama Papers and more Paradise Papers if we do not adapt the way the financial system works.

Instead of pushing back, we invite Kenney and his profession to think about it as an opportunity and find ways to accompany this structural shift.

Author bio

Laure Brillaud is senior policy officer at Transparency International EU.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Ombudsman slams EU bank watchdog for 'revolving doors'

The European Banking Authority allowed its executive director to take a job at one of the world's largest financial lobbying groups. The move has been slammed by the European Ombusdman, who called it maladministration.

Keeping gas as 'green' in taxonomy vote only helps Russia

Two days before Vladimir Putin launched his illegal war on my home country Ukraine, Russian energy minister Nikolai Shulginov gave an interview addressing the European Commission's taxonomy on sustainable activities — saying he was pleased it kept gas as 'green'.

Column

'War on Women' needs forceful response, not glib statements

Some modest headway in recognising the unrelenting tide of discrimination and violence facing women worldwide was made at last week's largely self-congratulatory and mostly irrelevant G7 talk-fest. But no one mentioned abortion, just days after the Roe vs Wade decision.

The Digital Services Act — a case-study in keeping public in dark

Companies and lobby groups like Spotify, Google and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) were able to lobby member states using live knowledge of the trilogue discussions on content-ranking systems, advertising and liability for search engines.

Is China a challenge to Nato? Beijing responds

The Chinese mission to the EU responds to last week's Madrid Nato summit, which stated China posed "systemic challenges" and warned against the "deepening strategic partnership between Russia and China".

The Digital Services Act — a case-study in keeping public in dark

Companies and lobby groups like Spotify, Google and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) were able to lobby member states using live knowledge of the trilogue discussions on content-ranking systems, advertising and liability for search engines.

Council must act on core of EU migration package

By only screening, fingerprinting or relocating (some) refugees, or by outsourcing our border control to Turkey and giving Erdogan our keys, we will not solve the current problems.

News in Brief

  1. Danish ministers no longer allowed to delete text messages
  2. Report: British PM Johnson to resign today
  3. British PM defiant amid spate of resignations
  4. France says EU fiscal discipline rules 'obsolete'
  5. Russia claims untouchable status due to nuclear arsenal
  6. Catalan MEPs lose EU court case over recognition
  7. 39 arrested in migrant-smuggling dragnet
  8. France to nationalise nuclear operator amid energy crisis

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  4. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers for culture: Protect Ukraine’s cultural heritage!
  6. Reuters InstituteDigital News Report 2022

Latest News

  1. Johnson quits, leaving Brexit headaches to successor
  2. Is Orban holding out an olive branch to EPP?
  3. EU should freeze all EU funds to Hungary, says study
  4. Legal action looms after MEPs back 'green' nuclear and gas
  5. EU readies for 'complete Russian gas cut-off', von der Leyen says
  6. Rising prices expose lack of coherent EU response
  7. Keeping gas as 'green' in taxonomy vote only helps Russia
  8. 'War on Women' needs forceful response, not glib statements

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us