The debate around UBO registers drags on.

As anticipated, Spain just launched its new UBO register (“UBOR”), adapted to the CJEU’s ruling of November 22, 2022.

As is well known, such ruling declared that allowing access to UBORs to the general public in all cases was contrary to the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data.

In addition, some observers had criticized early on that unrestricted access to UBORs would jeopardize effective asset tracing and recovery.

In the aftermath of the CJEU ruling, EU countries have had to adapt their regulation. Spain has been no different.

Who can access the new Spanish UBOR?

The new Spanish UBOR, according to its regulation enacted last July, which will enter into force next September, will allow access to:

• National authorities and of other EU Member States with competences in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist financing, money laundering and predicate offenses; as well as national and EU authorities that manage, verify, pay or audit European Funds.

• Professionals with reporting obligations under AML regulations (financial institutions, investment firms, Notaries, lawyers, tax advisors, to name but a few), in order to comply with their obligations regarding the identification of the beneficial owner.

• Other persons with a legitimate interest.

What is a “legitimate interest” and who has it?

Interestingly, the regulation does not define the meaning of “legitimate interest”.

However, the regulation does say that legitimate interest shall be presumed in the case of:

• Media outlets and

• Civil society organizations related to the prevention and fight against money laundering and financing of terrorism.

My thoughts

Yes, of course, both media outlets and civil society organizations are important to combat fraud and corruption.

But isn’t this equivalent to allowing unrestricted access to UBORs , which is precisely the most criticized aspect of former UBOR regulations?

What is the difference between allowing access to the general public and allowing it to journalists and to “civil society” entities?

I personally believe there is no difference and that the quality of information available at the UBOR will suffer as a result.

Access to the UBOR should be allowed only to authorities and to professionals with reporting duties, i.e. those who need access to the data on the beneficial owner to perform their legal obligations.

Your thoughts?

This is certainly a controversial topic. Feel free to comment below.