Global Perspectives
Beneficial Ownership in a New Era: Reframing Access and Accountability
The push and pull of regulatory expectations, geopolitical shifts, and the evolving sophistication of financial crime have always shaped the world of cross-border finance.
Yet rarely have these forces converged as sharply as they have in recent years around one issue: beneficial ownership transparency. Once discussed mainly in technical policy circles, the scope and nature of access to beneficial ownership information have become a defining element of trust in international finance centres (IFCs) and a clear marker of their regulatory maturity.
The debate took a decisive turn with the Sovim judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in November 2022. In declaring that blanket public access to beneficial ownership registers was inconsistent with fundamental rights to privacy and personal data protection, the Court did more than set aside an ill-defined transparency model. It re-established the principle that transparency must be purposeful, proportionate, and rooted in demonstrable need—not pursued for its own sake.
That judgment has prompted an international re-evaluation of how ownership information is held, verified, and shared. It has also encouraged jurisdictions to consider new access models that better balance transparency with personal rights and are more resilient to legal scrutiny in an era defined by heightened cyber risk and sophisticated financial crime threats.
In this shifting environment, the approaches taken by jurisdictions as diverse as Jersey, Guernsey, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands reveal a great deal about the future of effective transparency—and the qualities that sophisticated clients, policymakers and enforcement agencies now expect.
A Turning Point in the Transparency Debate
The original push toward open registers in Europe stemmed from a desire to strengthen the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. These objectives remain as vital as ever. But as the Sovim court noted, disclosing personal identifying information to the world at large—absent any compelling rationale—does not automatically make a financial system safer.
Broad public access can create new vulnerabilities. Without adequate safeguards, ownership data can be misused by criminals, exploited for harassment or extortion, or deployed for political and commercial targeting. Crucially, once such data escapes into the digital ecosystem, it is almost impossible to reclaim.
The Court's intervention did not weaken transparency; it strengthened its legitimacy. Through asserting the need for a legitimate interest test, the ruling provided a stable, legally defensible route for jurisdictions to improve access without exposing individuals to unnecessary harm. It also shifted the global conversation from a simplistic race toward visibility to a more nuanced dialogue about effective transparency: transparency that serves a regulatory purpose.
Jersey and Guernsey: Building on Mature, Verified Frameworks
Few jurisdictions embody this philosophy as consistently as Jersey. For more than three decades, the Island has operated a central registry of beneficial ownership information grounded in rigour, verification, and a clear chain of accountability. Unlike systems that rely on unverified self-reporting, Jersey's regime requires meaningful checks, timely updates, and active oversight.
Current proposals to extend access to individuals able to demonstrate a legitimate interest continue that tradition. They represent a carefully considered next step—opening access where it genuinely supports anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, and proliferation financing objectives, while maintaining robust safeguards for personal data and privacy.
Guernsey, too, has followed a similar path. The Crown Dependencies collectively reviewed their public-access commitments after the Sovim judgment, concluding that proportionality and compliance with rights required a more balanced approach. Their stance illustrates a key competitive advantage: the ability to adapt to evolving standards while preserving the credibility and coherence of their legal frameworks.
Both islands offer a compelling blend of verified data, trusted access, and demonstrably effective information-sharing with international authorities—attributes that sophisticated investors increasingly prioritise over headline-grabbing but ultimately superficial notions of transparency.
Luxembourg: An EU Centre Repositioning After Sovim
In the heart of Europe, Luxembourg has had to reconcile its position as a major fund centre with the obligations imposed by European law. Following the Sovim ruling, the jurisdiction has moved to introduce a legitimate-interest test for access to beneficial ownership information, replacing the broad public access previously required under the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive.
Luxembourg's experience underscores the importance of designing transparency regimes that can withstand legal challenge and adapt to new jurisprudence. It also highlights that even the most sophisticated EU financial investment hubs are now moving in the same direction: toward carefully managed access, supported by clear procedures and strict data-protection principles.
Hong Kong and Singapore: Precision and Control in Asia's Leading IFCs
In the Asia-Pacific region, Hong Kong and Singapore offer models characterised by precision and operational discipline. Neither operates a fully public register of beneficial owners. Instead, both require companies to maintain accurate, regularly updated ownership registers, and both ensure that this information can be accessed efficiently by authorised regulatory and law-enforcement bodies.
Hong Kong's Significant Controllers Register and Singapore's Register of Registrable Controllers demonstrate an underlying principle: transparency is most effective when those who can act on the information—regulators, competent authorities, and AML/CFT/CPF professionals—have rapid access to accurate data.
Sophisticated clients understand this distinction. The absence of public access is not a sign of weakness; it reflects a system designed to deliver tangible outcomes, supported by rigorous compliance obligations.
Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands: Constructive Evolution and Meaningful Progress
The Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands (BVI) have often been placed at the centre of transparency discussions, not always fairly. What is less acknowledged is the significant progress both jurisdictions have made in shaping modern beneficial-ownership frameworks that reflect evolving global expectations.
The BVI's recent legislative amendments, which introduce a legitimate-interest access model scheduled to take effect in 2026, mark a significant structural step. It demonstrates a recognition that high-quality registers, coupled with a controlled access pathway, can support global financial crime objectives while respecting privacy and due-process rights.
The Cayman Islands, too, continue to refine their approach. Long recognised for its cooperation with international agencies, the jurisdiction has moved toward a strengthened legitimate-interest framework that aligns with broader UK policy while incorporating the safeguards expected of a modern IFC.
In both centres, the trajectory is clear: transparency is being enhanced, access is being expanded where justified, and the integrity of ownership data remains a priority. These are the hallmarks of constructive, forward-looking reform.
What This Means for the Future of IFCs
When viewed collectively, these varied approaches reveal a convergence rather than a divergence. The world's most established and strategically important IFCs are coalescing around a common principle: transparency that works.
This approach ensures transparency is rooted in verified information rather than untested self-declarations. Transparency gives regulators and law enforcement agencies the tools they need without exposing individuals to disproportionate risks. It is transparency designed to support cross-border cooperation, enhance global security, and maintain public confidence in the integrity of the financial system.
Critically, this emerging model does not sacrifice competitiveness. In fact, it strengthens it. Clients increasingly recognise that the jurisdictions that will thrive are not those that chase the widest disclosure, but those that provide certainty, consistency, and regulatory competence.
For Jersey, Guernsey, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cayman and the BVI, this alignment offers a significant strategic opportunity: the chance to demonstrate leadership not through volume of disclosure, but through clarity of purpose and quality of execution.
Conclusion: The Rise of Trusted Transparency
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, beneficial ownership transparency is entering a new, more sophisticated phase. The jurisdictions that succeed will be those that treat transparency as a practical tool rather than a political slogan—those that ensure information is accurate, accessible for legitimate purposes, and protected from misuse.
Jersey's proposed legitimate-interest model is emblematic of this direction. It balances international expectations with the responsibilities owed to individuals. It offers meaningful transparency without compromising safety or privacy. And it builds on a foundation of regulatory integrity that has long been central to the Island's success.
Across the world's IFCs, a similar evolution is underway. The future belongs to those centres that can deliver trusted transparency—reliable data, responsibly shared, under robust, proportionate and internationally credible frameworks.
In an age defined by heightened scrutiny and rapid technological change, that combination is not only the hallmark of a well-regulated jurisdiction; it is the cornerstone of lasting financial leadership.
About our Blog
Global Perspectives provides regular, on-point commentary on relevant topics in a pithy and accessible way. Our observations and points of view are based on listening hard to clients global needs, priorities and concerns. We draw on insights from every area of our business and collaborate to deliver this global thinking; something that clients tell us is distinctive and sets us apart. If you'd like to find out more, please get in touch.
View our previous posts here.
Contact
About Mourant
Mourant is a law firm-led, professional services business with over 60 years' experience in the financial services sector. We advise on the laws of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Jersey and Luxembourg and provide specialist entity management, governance, regulatory and consulting services.
