Editorial: press access to the Beneficial Ownership Register is a safeguard, not a threat

This is an editorial by the AGENTE LEX newsroom. It expresses the portal's opinion.

Knowing who is behind a company is a question asked by banks, authorities, firms advising on transactions and, also, journalists. The Central Beneficial Ownership Register, created by Royal Decree 609/2023 of 11 July, gives a different answer to each.

What the rule says

Under Article 5 of the Register's Regulation:

• The authorities competent in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing have free and unrestricted access.
• Obliged entities may access current information to meet their due diligence obligations.
• Anyone who shows a legitimate interest accesses limited data, and that interest is presumed in the media and in civil society organisations devoted to preventing money laundering and terrorist financing.
• When access could expose the beneficial owner to a disproportionate risk, the Register may deny it at the interested party's request. The maximum period to decide is six months, and silence means refusal.

We explain how the Register works in full in the guide to the Beneficial Ownership Register.

Why we defend the presumption

Because investigative journalism is a check. That someone with the capacity to investigate can look up who is behind a company is, in itself, an incentive to declare accurately. Requiring each journalist to prove their legitimate interest case by case would make that check much harder, and the rule has rightly opted to presume it. The same presumption extends to civil society organisations devoted to preventing money laundering, which perform a similar function from another angle.

Because the information is limited. The presumption does not give access to everything: access by legitimate interest covers limited data. It is not a register open to anyone.

Because there is a valve. Article 5.7 allows access to be restricted when there is a disproportionate risk to the beneficial owner. The protection of individuals is not neglected.

Why it also matters to firms

A firm advising on a transaction wants to know who its client is dealing with. A reliable register, with correct and up-to-date information, is a tool for everyone. And the best guarantee that the information is up to date is that it can be checked from outside.

For firms that are obliged entities, consulting the Register is part of their due diligence, as we explain in the guide to money laundering prevention at firms. For their clients, the obligation is to declare accurately and on time: one month from incorporation, ten days for changes and an annual declaration in January.

The limits to respect

Defending press access does not mean defending any use. The presumption of legitimate interest must be exercised for the purpose that justifies it, and restriction for disproportionate risk must be resolved promptly: six months is a long time for someone who fears for their safety. We ask the Register to resolve those requests as soon as possible.

What we ask for

1. Keep the presumption of legitimate interest for media and civil society.
2. Resolve quickly requests for restriction on grounds of risk.
3. Improve data quality, so that transparency is useful.
4. That advisers help their clients declare properly, because a reliable register starts with the declaration.

Transparency about who controls companies does not harm those who meet their obligations. On the contrary: a reliable and well-managed register gives certainty to those who contract, those who invest and those who report, and eases the work of professionals advising companies. More editorials in Opinion.