The legal owner of shares and the person for whose benefit a company operates are often two different people. Holding companies, trusts, foundations and nominee holders can stand between them. Legislation over the past decade has focused on tracing that chain to a specific natural person and regulating those who appear as owner or director on someone else's instructions.
For a licensed institution, the relevant methods cover calculating an indirect holding, identifying control without shares, determining when to record a senior managing official and obtaining information from a nominee shareholder. For the client, these methods determine predictability: the same structure is assessed differently by a UK register, under an EU regulation and by a bank, and discrepancies recur during onboarding.
Registered Holder and Beneficial Owner
In the FATF glossary the beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or controls a customer, or the person on whose behalf a transaction is conducted. Legal title is secondary: the registered shareholder may be a holding company, a trustee or a nominee, while the beneficial owner is always a human being. A legal person cannot be a beneficial owner.
The beneficial owner is identified in three steps, using a broadly similar approach in the FATF standard and national law. The first is ownership: a direct or indirect interest in capital or votes. The second is control through other means: the right to appoint a majority of directors, a veto, a shareholders' agreement, financing, family ties. These two steps are tested in parallel, and a company may have several beneficial owners at once — one through ownership, another through control. The third step is the fallback: where no one is found, a senior managing official from top executive management is recorded, as the FATF guidance on R.24 of 10 March 2023 describes.
A nominee is a person who holds shares or a directorship on the instructions of another person, the nominator. The key principle, set by the FATF in 2022, is that a nominee can by definition never be the beneficial owner. A nominee arrangement changes only whose name appears in the documents. To the question of who the beneficial owner is, it adds a second one — who the nominator is.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| International standard | FATF R.24 (legal persons, revised 4 March 2022), R.25 (trusts, revised February 2023) |
| Ownership threshold | EU and UAE — 25% or more; UK, Hong Kong, Singapore — more than 25%; BVI filing from 10% |
| Indirect ownership in the EU | holdings multiplied along the chain, results of different chains added together (Art. 52 AMLR) |
| Indirect ownership in the UK | through a chain of entities, each holding a majority stake in the next |
| Nominee | never the beneficial owner; discloses status and nominator (Art. 66 AMLR from 10 July 2027) |
| Fallback | senior managing official |
Why it came about
Recognition of the state's entitlement to know the ultimate owner developed over thirty years. The FATF was set up in 1989 and initially focused on banks; its standards reached legal persons and trusts, in Recommendations 24 and 25, only in the 2000s. The turning point came from leaks: the Panama Papers in 2016 and the Pandora Papers in 2021 showed how offshore companies and nominees shield politicians and capital, and made the issue politically contentious. Automatic exchange developed in parallel — US FATCA from 2010 and the OECD's CRS from 2014 made banks establish a client's tax residence and its controlling persons. The EU introduced beneficial ownership registers through the fourth and fifth AML directives, and the UK launched its public PSC register in 2016.
Nominee holders and bearer shares were the main tools of offshore anonymity under earlier arrangements. Bearer shares made the owner whoever physically held the certificate, and the chain was almost impossible to trace. A nominee shareholder under a declaration of trust kept the owner's name off the register of members. The 2022 revision of R.24 therefore addressed both practices: the FATF prohibited the issue of new bearer shares and bearer share warrants, required existing ones to be converted or immobilised, and introduced "more robust transparency requirements for nominee arrangements". In February 2023 R.25 on trusts was brought into line with R.24, and in March 2024 the guidance on legal arrangements followed.
How ownership is calculated
Direct and indirect holdings
An example of direct ownership is a person holding 30% of a company's shares in their own name. Indirect ownership requires analysis of the ownership chains. Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 (AMLR) sets the method in Article 52: indirect ownership is calculated by multiplying the holdings of the intermediate entities in the chain and adding together the results from the various chains.
An example. Individual A owns 60% of holding company H1, which holds 40% of operating company OpCo. A's indirect interest through this branch is 0.6 × 0.4 = 24%, below the threshold. A also owns 10% of holding company H2, which holds 30% of OpCo: a further 0.1 × 0.3 = 3%. The total is 27%, so under the AMLR A becomes a beneficial owner of OpCo through ownership, although neither branch crosses the threshold on its own.
UK law calculates the same structure differently. Under paragraphs 18 and 19 of Schedule 1A to the Companies Act 2006, a person holds shares indirectly if they have a majority stake in the entity that holds them, or at the top of a chain in which each link has a majority stake in the next. There is no multiplication: control of H1 (60%) means A is treated as holding all of H1's 40% in OpCo, and A is a PSC on that branch alone. The 10% stake in H2 is not a majority stake and does not count.
| Question | EU (AMLR) | UK (PSC) |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold | 25% or more | more than 25% |
| Chain method | multiply and add branches | through links with a majority stake, no multiplication |
| A in the example, via H1 | 24%, below threshold | 40%, PSC |
| A in the example, both branches | 27%, beneficial owner | 40% via H1; H2 disregarded |
A licensed institution cannot rely on a single calculation of a client's indirect ownership. An EU bank and the UK registrar may reach different answers on the same structure, and the file must explain both. A finding that there is no UBO under one method does not guarantee the same result under another.
The threshold and its limits
The FATF Recommendations themselves do not fix 25%. The 2023 guidance states that an ownership threshold should not exceed 25%, and that higher risk may call for a lower threshold — including different ones for sectors of the economy or types of legal person. By 10 July 2029 the AMLR requires the Commission to assess the higher-risk categories of companies reported by Member States and, where it concludes that a lower threshold is appropriate, to set one for them by delegated act — at most 15%, or a higher threshold that still stays below 25% where the risk assessment justifies it (Article 52(2) AMLR). The BVI collects beneficial ownership information from 10%, and passes data from 25% to competent authorities on request (BVI FSC).
The distinction between "25% or more" and "more than 25%" affects the result when two partners hold exactly 25% each. In the EU and the UAE both are beneficial owners through ownership; in the UK, Hong Kong and Singapore neither is, and their status is determined through control.
Control through other means
Article 53 AMLR lists mandatory indicators of control: a majority of voting rights, the right to appoint or remove a majority of the board, relevant veto or decision rights attached to shares, and decisions on the distribution of profit or shifts of assets. An open list follows: formal and informal agreements with shareholders, articles of association and voting arrangements, relationships between family members, and nominee arrangements in which the nominator instructs the nominee. The same article defines indirect control — control of intermediate entities at each level of the chain.
The FATF guidance provides examples rarely found in questionnaires: share classes with enhanced voting rights, control through debt instruments and financing, and informal influence through close personal connections. The UK counterpart is the fourth PSC condition, significant influence or control (paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A), together with a rule on joint arrangements: where two people act under a joint arrangement, each is treated as holding their combined interest (paragraph 12 of Schedule 1A).
Typical cases where control outweighs ownership: a founder with 10% whose shareholders' agreement gives the right to appoint a majority of the board; an investor with 15% but a veto over the budget, dividends and asset sales; three relatives with 20% each who vote as the head of the family directs. In each case the beneficial owner is the person who takes the decision, even with a holding below the threshold.
Senior managing official
Where neither ownership nor control identifies a person, the rules require the members of top executive management to be recorded. Under Article 63(4) AMLR the company then reports the details of all senior managing officials; under paragraphs 2 and 6 of the same article, changes go to the register within 28 calendar days, the information is verified at least annually and kept for five years after dissolution. The FATF treats this step as a last resort. For a bank, an SMO recorded instead of a beneficial owner is a signal to check whether there is genuinely no beneficial owner or whether the structure has been inadequately disclosed; for a widely held fund it is normal, for a family holding company it raises further questions.
Trusts and foundations
For trusts, the approach differs: all key roles count as beneficial owners, regardless of control. Under R.25 the trustee must hold information on the settlor, the trustee, the protector, the beneficiaries or class of beneficiaries, and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control. Article 58 AMLR reproduces that list for express trusts. For foundations and similar legal entities, Article 57 names the founders, the members of the management and supervisory bodies, the beneficiaries and anyone exercising direct or indirect control.
A trust provides no privacy from the bank and the register: four or five roles are disclosed instead of one beneficial owner. How a trust jurisdiction is chosen and who acts as trustee there is covered in the trust jurisdictions map and in the article on the private trust company.
What a nominee is
A nominee shareholder holds shares in their own name but in the nominator's interest; a nominee director sits on the board and acts on the nominator's instructions. Under the FATF glossary a nominee director is an individual or legal entity that routinely exercises the functions of director on behalf of, and subject to the direct or indirect instructions of, the nominator, and is never the beneficial owner; a nominee shareholder votes on the nominator's instructions and/or receives dividends on the nominator's behalf, and is not the beneficial owner by virtue of the shares held as nominee. The 2023 FATF guidance separately identifies informal nominees — relatives and close associates used as nominees without any contract. DBS Private Bank’s trust services involve appointing a trustee under a trust deed, with DBS Trustee Limited available as an in-house provider. The MAS directory lists it as a separate licensed trust company. Compare the basis of title and scope of authority: holding shares on a nominator’s instructions and administering trust assets require different appointments. For cross-border holdings, British Atlantic Bank coordinates nominee and trust services with banking and asset records. The appointments identify the registered holder, beneficial owner and, for a trust, the trustee and beneficiaries. Instructions cover voting, distributions, disposal and replacement of the holder, while mandatory beneficial-ownership disclosures remain part of the structure. This connects the ownership documents to the people authorised to operate each account or asset.
The formal relationship is documented in two instruments. A declaration of trust records that the nominee shareholder holds the shares on trust for the nominator: the economic interest, dividends and power of disposal belong to the nominator, and the nominee votes and transfers the shares only on the nominator's instructions. A nominee agreement (for a director, a nominee director agreement) sets out how instructions are given, the fee and termination. The documents are private, but after the reforms their substance — the nominee status and the nominator's identity — is disclosed to the company, the register and the bank. Under English law a nominee shareholder may hold shares on a bare trust, in which the beneficiary has an absolute entitlement to capital and income, as HMRC explains. A discretionary trustee's powers and fiduciary duties depend on the trust deed and governing law; their limits and trustee replacement are covered in Trustee and Protector. Resident-director selection, appointment documents and 16 illustrative selection profiles are covered in Trustees and nominee services in Singapore.
Example of a nominee structure:
- A family forms a BVI company; a professional nominee shareholder holds the shares in its own name under a declaration of trust.
- The company files its register of members with the Registrar, showing the nominee as a nominee and identifying the nominator; beneficial ownership information from the 10% threshold goes into the Registrar's system.
- To open an account, the bank asks the company for information on the nominee and the nominator, the declaration of trust and documents on the beneficial owners, and then checks the source of funds.
- If the company is a Passive NFE under the CRS, the bank reports its controlling persons to the tax authority of their country of residence.
- Public sources show the nominee's name and, in some jurisdictions, a note of nominee status; the nominator's identity stays with the register, the authorities and the bank.
Each step rests on a specific legal rule. The nominee structure remains lawful, but it no longer conceals the owner from the state.
Where nominee and fiduciary figures appear lawfully
Nominee and fiduciary figures are not confined to concealment schemes. A professional director or a foundation council is a normal part of governance when a family does not want to sit on company bodies personally. In a private trust company the managing role is performed by appointed persons acting under the constitutional documents. In private foundations — Stiftung, foundation — the council runs affairs in the beneficiaries' interest and remains accountable. Holding structures use corporate directors for continuity and uniform management of dozens of subsidiaries. Custody accounts at brokers and banks are also a form of nominee holding: securities are registered to the custodian for the client's benefit. In all these cases the intermediary is disclosed to the regulator, the bank and the register, and privacy is preserved only from outside observers.
The local director requirement is a separate case. A Singapore company must have at least one director who is ordinarily resident in Singapore, and foreign founders often meet this with an appointed director. ACRA states plainly that there is no such thing as an "inactive", nominee or sleeping director: all directors are responsible under the legislation, whether active or not. An agreement with the nominator does not displace a director's duties to the company. In licensed financial sectors regulators go further and test whether local management genuinely takes part in decisions — how such presence is evidenced is covered in Economic substance.
The FATF standard: R.24 and the 2023 guidance
On 4 March 2022 the FATF adopted a new version of Recommendation 24 and its Interpretive Note. Countries must ensure that competent authorities have timely access to adequate, accurate (verification-based) and up-to-date beneficial ownership information, and must apply a multi-pronged approach: the information is held by the company itself, by a public authority in the form of a register or an alternative mechanism, and, where needed, by additional sources. Risk must be assessed for domestic legal persons and for foreign-created ones with a sufficient link to the country; public procurement authorities received a separate right of access.
On nominees, the Interpretive Note requires countries to apply at least one of three mechanisms (FATF Recommendations, INR.24):
- Nominee shareholders and directors disclose their status and their nominator to the company and to any relevant registry; nominee status itself must be public information.
- Nominees are licensed, disclose their status and nominator to the authority collecting beneficial ownership information, and keep information on the nominator and on the natural person on whose behalf they are ultimately acting.
- Nominee shareholders and directors are prohibited.
The glossary received its first definitions of nominee director, nominee shareholder and nominator. The glossary also expressly states the principle that the 2023 guidance repeats: a nominee is never the beneficial owner of a legal person. Identifying the beneficial owner behind a nominee means establishing the natural person on whose behalf the nominee is ultimately, directly or indirectly, acting. Public disclosure of status under the first option works as an investigative lead: the open register shows that the recorded director acts for someone else.
Implementation by jurisdiction
Jurisdictions choose different combinations of the three FATF mechanisms, which is the main reason the treatment of an identical nominee structure differs between countries.
| Jurisdiction | Nominee disclosure | Who sees the nominator | Licensing |
|---|---|---|---|
| EU | status, nominator and nominator's beneficial owners — to the company, which reports to the register (Art. 66 AMLR, from 10.07.2027) | register, authorities, obliged entities; others on legitimate interest | — |
| UK | nominee's shares treated as the nominator's for the PSC register | public PSC register | — |
| Singapore | status and nominator to ACRA's central registers; status public | public agencies only | nominee director by way of business only through a registered CSP |
| Hong Kong | nominator entered in the SCR instead of the nominee | law enforcement on demand | TCSP licence for nominee shareholder and director services |
| BVI | nominee and nominator in the register of members filed with the Registrar | Registrar and authorities; beneficial owners on legitimate interest | — |
| UAE | nominee board member notifies the company within 15 days | competent authorities | — |
European Union
Until 10 July 2027 national laws under AMLD4 and AMLD5 apply; from that date the AMLR applies. Article 66 AMLR requires nominee shareholders and nominee directors to maintain adequate, accurate and up-to-date information on their nominator and the nominator's beneficial owners, and to disclose it, together with their status, to the legal entity. The entity reports this information to the central register and to obliged entities applying customer due diligence. Nominee arrangements are also named in Article 53 among the means of control, so a nominator may qualify as a beneficial owner on two grounds at once: through the shares the nominee holds for them and through the right to give instructions.
Under AMLD6 registers must verify submitted information within a reasonable time and regularly thereafter, deal with discrepancy reports and keep a mention of any discrepancy visible until it is resolved; sanctions apply to inaccurate information (Article 10). Registers and access rules are covered in detail in the article on UBO registers, and the reform package as a whole in EU AML package.
United Kingdom
The PSC register attributes shares held by a nominee to the nominator: under paragraph 19 of Schedule 1A, a share held by a person as nominee for another is treated as held by the other. The nominator goes on the register if their interest exceeds 25% or they control the company in another way.
Corporate directors remain permitted: the restrictions provided for in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 have not yet been introduced. According to the Companies House transition plan (updated 5 August 2026), once they are in place a corporate director will need an all-natural-person board with verified identities, only UK corporate entities will be able to act as directors, and overseas companies will no longer be able to act as directors of UK companies; no date has been announced. A separate requirement already applies: since 18 November 2025 identity verification has been compulsory for new directors and PSCs, with existing ones verifying during a transition year.
Since 4 March 2024 section 1112A of the Companies Act has created an aggravated offence of knowingly delivering a misleading, false or deceptive document or statement to the registrar, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment. Recording a nominee in place of the real PSC falls squarely within it.
Singapore
Singapore combines the first and second FATF mechanisms. Companies have long kept a register of registrable controllers (threshold more than 25%) and registers of nominee directors and nominee shareholders. The 2024 amending Act, in force since 16 June 2025, moved this data into ACRA's central registers: the nominee status of directors and shareholders is now public and appears in the company's business profile, while nominator particulars are accessible only to public agencies for the administration or enforcement of the law. Existing companies had until 31 December 2025 to file, new ones file on the date of incorporation (ACRA); maximum fines for register offences rose from S$5,000 to S$25,000.
The second element is the Corporate Service Providers Act 2024, in force since 9 June 2025. A person who acts as a nominee director by way of business may do so only if the appointment is arranged by a registered CSP, and the CSP must be satisfied that the candidate is fit and proper. The fine is up to S$10,000 for the nominee and up to S$100,000 for a CSP that arranges an unsuitable candidate.
Hong Kong
Since 1 March 2018 Hong Kong companies have kept a Significant Controllers Register. According to the Companies Registry FAQ, a significant controller is a person with more than 25% of shares or votes, the right to appoint a majority of directors, significant influence or control, or control over a trust or firm meeting those conditions. A share held by a nominee is regarded as held by the nominator, and it is the nominator who is entered. The register is kept by the company and produced to law enforcement on demand; the company designates a representative — a Hong Kong-resident member, director or employee, or a Hong Kong accounting professional, legal professional or licensed TCSP.
From the same date the AMLO has required a licence for trust or company services, which include acting, or arranging for another person to act, as a director, secretary, trustee or nominee shareholder. This is Hong Kong's version of the second FATF mechanism: a nominee holder acting by way of business is a supervised person with customer due diligence and record-keeping duties.
BVI and the Cayman Islands
On 2 January 2025 the 2024 amendments to the BVI Business Companies Act and the Beneficial Ownership Regulations came into force in the BVI. Companies file their register of members with the Registrar, which under the amendments contains the names and addresses of nominee shareholders and their nominators and the dates on which a nominee relationship ends; new sections 89A and 89B formalise the relationship between nominee and nominator (BVI FSC explanatory memorandum). Nominee shareholders file beneficial ownership information for the natural person on whose behalf they act. Existing companies had to complete filing by 30 June 2025; a company that remains non-compliant for more than six months faces being struck off. How the company itself works is covered in the article on the BVI company.
In the Cayman Islands nominee directors are addressed through licensing: the Directors Registration and Licensing Act 2014 requires directors of covered entities, chiefly investment funds, to register with CIMA, and professional and corporate directors to obtain a licence. An unregistered director may not act.
UAE
Cabinet Decision No. 109 of 2023 defines the beneficial owner as a person who owns 25% or more of the shares or votes, directly or indirectly through any number of legal persons, or who can appoint or dismiss a majority of the directors; failing that, a person in senior management is treated as the beneficial owner. A nominee board member must notify the company of that status and provide the data within 15 days, the company records in its register of partners or shareholders the data of the persons each nominee board member represents, and changes are likewise reported within 15 days.
United States
The United States has reduced reporting requirements. By an interim final rule of 26 March 2025 FinCEN exempted US companies and US persons from reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act, and a final rule of 11 August 2026 made this permanent: only foreign companies registered to do business in the United States report, and only on their foreign beneficial owners. Bank-level beneficial ownership checks are unaffected.
Review by banks and registrars
A bank reviewing a nominee structure requires additional information. Under Article 66 AMLR the legal entity must provide an obliged entity carrying out customer due diligence with information on nominees and nominators, and Article 22 includes among a legal entity's identification data the names of nominee shareholders and directors with reference to their status. In practice the bank asks for the declaration of trust or nominee agreement, documents on the nominator and the beneficial owners, an explanation of why a nominee is used, and then the source of funds. The corporate review process is covered in Corporate KYC, and requirements for private clients in AML/KYC for private clients.
Nominee arrangements do not avoid tax information exchange. Under the CRS the bank identifies a Passive NFE's controlling persons and reports them to the tax authority of their country of residence; FATCA does the same for US persons. From 1 January 2026 the EU, through DAC8, extends the same logic to cryptoassets: providers collect data on users and controlling persons, with first reports covering 2026.
The registrar checks filed information against other sources and receives discrepancy reports from banks. If a bank's file names the nominator as beneficial owner while the register shows only the nominee, a discrepancy arises that the bank must report — the mechanics are covered in the article on UBO registers.
Tax transparency adds DAC6. Hallmark D.2 of Directive 2018/822 covers a non-transparent ownership chain where, at the same time, there is no substantive economic activity, the structure sits in a jurisdiction other than that of the beneficial owners' residence, and the beneficial owners are made unidentifiable. A chain of nominees with no disclosure of the nominator is a typical candidate for reporting; details are in the article on DAC6 hallmarks.
Sanctions regimes calculate ownership by their own rules, separately from the 25% beneficial-ownership threshold. Asset freezes in the EU, the UK and the US reach entities owned or controlled by designated persons through a test set around 50%, and the three regimes treat the aggregation of stakes held by several designated persons differently, so a structure can clear the beneficial-ownership analysis and still be caught by sanctions. How the test is applied in practice is covered in sanctions screening.
Consequences of false disclosure
Sanctions for false disclosure vary, but everywhere they reach two targets — the company and the individual who signed the information. In the UK a knowingly false statement to the registrar is a criminal offence under section 1112A carrying up to two years. In Singapore offences relating to the registers of controllers and nominees carry fines of up to S$25,000, and acting as a nominee director by way of business without a registered CSP up to S$10,000. In the BVI a company that fails to file risks being struck off. In the EU registers must, under AMLD6, apply sanctions for inaccurate information, including repeated failures.
The nominee director carries a separate risk. A nominee agreement does not relieve them of duties under company law, and in Singapore ACRA answers the sleeping director question directly: there is no such status. A director who signs documents on instruction without engaging with the business remains accountable for the company's acts alongside other directors.
Lawful privacy
After the reforms, lawful privacy rests on three elements: correct disclosure, limits on who receives it, and protective exemptions.
The first element is correct disclosure of the structure. A trust or foundation with properly recorded roles, a private trust company with a professional board, a holding company with a corporate director — all are lawful and standard, provided the nominator and beneficial owners are known to the register and the bank. Privacy in this sense means being shielded from competitors, counterparties and casual observers; the whole structure is disclosed to the state.
The second is restricted access. On 22 November 2022 the Court of Justice, in joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, declared invalid the AMLD5 provision giving any member of the general public access to the registers, as a disproportionate interference with the rights to private life and data protection (Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter). AMLD6 entrenched the legitimate-interest model: competent authorities have full access, obliged entities access data when checking a client, and others only after demonstrating an interest and in limited scope. Singapore makes public only the fact of nominee status, reserving access to the nominator's particulars for public agencies. The BVI has accepted legitimate-interest requests since 1 April 2026 (BVI FSC).
The third is protective exemptions. Article 15 AMLD6 allows information to be withheld from obliged entities and legitimate-interest applicants where disclosure would expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk of fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, harassment, violence or intimidation, or where the beneficial owner is a minor or legally incapable. Decisions are taken case by case, with administrative review and judicial remedy; an exemption does not close the data to competent authorities.
Where transparency is heading
Transparency reforms are moving towards verified data and automatic access. From 10 July 2027 the bulk of the AMLR applies: a single definition of beneficial owner with a 25% threshold, mandatory disclosure of nominees, the possibility of lowering the threshold for higher-risk categories, as a rule to 15%, registers under a duty to verify, and access for the new supervisory authority AMLA in Frankfurt. The UK is completing identity verification of directors and PSCs, Singapore has already made nominee status public, and the BVI has opened legitimate-interest access.
There is no full uniformity. The United States has abandoned the register for its own companies, EU and UK methods for calculating indirect ownership differ, and corporate directors remain lawful in the UK. A nominee structure keeps its value as a governance tool and a means of privacy from outsiders, provided the ultimate owner is disclosed to the register and the bank. Relying on anonymity from the state creates legal risk.
Q/A
Does a 20% holding exclude beneficial-owner status?
Not necessarily. The 25% ownership threshold is only one way of identifying beneficial owners. In the EU indirect holdings are multiplied along the chain and the results of different branches are added: 24% through one and 3% through another make 27%. Control also comes from the right to appoint directors, a veto, a shareholders' agreement or family arrangements. Regulation (EU) 2024/1624 allows the Commission to set a lower threshold for higher-risk categories where it finds one appropriate — as a rule no more than 15%.
Two partners hold exactly 25% each. Which of them is the beneficial owner?
It depends on the jurisdiction. In the EU and the UAE the threshold is "25% or more", so both partners are beneficial owners through ownership. In the UK, Hong Kong and Singapore it is "more than 25%", so neither qualifies through ownership, and the question is decided through control: who appoints the directors, who holds a veto, who actually takes decisions.
Does a nominee shareholding in the BVI keep the nominator's name out of the register?
It will appear with the Registrar. Since 2 January 2025 the register of members that the company files with the Registrar identifies nominee shareholders and their nominators, and the nominee files beneficial ownership information for the person on whose behalf it acts. The register has not become public: the Registrar and the authorities see the data, and since 2026 so do applicants with a legitimate interest.
Does naming a nominee director on a company account satisfy the bank's ownership checks?
No. Under the AMLR the company must give the bank information on nominees and nominators, and the bank will establish the beneficial owner and ask for the declaration of trust or nominee agreement and the source of funds. Under the CRS the bank identifies the controlling persons of a Passive NFE and reports them to their countries of residence; the report therefore identifies the ultimate owner.
What information about a nominee director is public in Singapore?
Nominee status is public. Since 16 June 2025 the nominee status of directors and shareholders appears in the company's business profile, while nominator particulars are held in ACRA's central registers and are accessible only to public agencies. Since 9 June 2025 a person can act as a nominee director by way of business only through a registered CSP.
Can a foreign company be appointed as a director of a UK company?
For now, yes. The restrictions under the ECCTA 2023 have not been introduced and no date has been announced. Once they are, only a UK corporate entity whose directors are all natural persons with verified identities will be able to act as a corporate director. Identity verification of new directors and PSCs has been compulsory since 18 November 2025.
What privacy remains after the EU court ruling on public access to registers?
Data remains private from outsiders, but not from the state. On 22 November 2022 the Court of Justice, in joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20, struck down access for any member of the general public, relying on Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Access remains for competent authorities, for obliged entities checking a client, and for anyone showing a legitimate interest, journalists included.
Does FinCEN's reporting exemption for US companies reflect a broader reduction in transparency requirements?
Requirements have been relaxed in the United States, but not elsewhere. FinCEN's interim rule of 26 March 2025 was made permanent by a final rule of 11 August 2026: under the Corporate Transparency Act only foreign companies registered to do business in the United States still report. The EU is expanding requirements — the AMLR and AMLD6 require nominees to be disclosed and filed information to be verified.