Which countries block cross-border UBO requests?

Just as the global fight against money laundering and tax evasion continues to evolve, the necessity of trans­parency in corporate ownership is more relevant than ever. The collection of Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) data, an vital component in identi­fying the actual owners behind corporate entities, has become a focal point for govern­ments and regulatory bodies worldwide. However, certain countries impose restric­tions on cross-border UBO requests, raising questions about the effec­tiveness of global cooper­ation in combating financial crime.

Countries that block cross-border UBO requests often do so under the premise of protecting privacy rights, sover­eignty, and national security. Notably, many juris­dic­tions with stringent privacy laws are resistant to sharing UBO infor­mation with foreign author­ities. This can create challenges for inter­na­tional inves­ti­ga­tions, especially in a world where financial crimes can easily transcend borders.

The United States, although a signif­icant player in inter­na­tional financial regula­tions, does not have a centralized UBO registry. Conse­quently, law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies in the U.S. may limit access to UBO infor­mation to foreign juris­dic­tions, making it challenging to obtain such data. This situation is further compli­cated by state-level varia­tions in disclosure laws, leading to an incon­sistent avail­ability of UBO infor­mation across the country.

United Kingdom has taken steps to increase trans­parency through the estab­lishment of the Register of People with Signif­icant Control (PSC). However, access to this infor­mation is not entirely unfet­tered. There are measures in place that restrict data access to foreign entities, often making it difficult for inter­na­tional inves­ti­gators to gather necessary UBO infor­mation without local juris­diction support.

Countries like Switzerland and Luxem­bourg have long been regarded as financial havens due to their strict privacy protection laws. These nations have imple­mented regula­tions that can block UBO infor­mation requests from foreign author­ities, citing the protection of personal data as a priority. As a result, obtaining UBO data from these juris­dic­tions can prove challenging for inter­na­tional law enforcement cooper­ating on cross-border cases.

Singapore, known for its robust financial sector, also maintains strict guide­lines regarding the sharing of UBO infor­mation. While businesses must register UBOs locally, sharing this infor­mation with foreign entities is often restricted, making it difficult for inter­na­tional author­ities to access such data during inves­ti­ga­tions.

Others in the European Union, including certain Eastern European nations, may not have compre­hensive frame­works for UBO infor­mation sharing. The reluc­tance to share can stem from a combi­nation of privacy concerns, bureau­cratic hurdles, and a lack of robust legal frame­works supporting cross-border infor­mation exchange.

It is important to note that while certain juris­dic­tions impose barriers to cross-border UBO requests, many countries are working towards improving inter­na­tional cooper­ation in tackling financial crime. Agencies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) continue to advocate for trans­parency and the sharing of UBO infor­mation across borders, shaping a collective response to the challenges posed by financial crime globally.

As regula­tions continue to evolve, it may lead to improve­ments in cross-border collab­o­ration. Engaging in constructive dialogues among countries can form vital partner­ships and enhance the global fight against money laundering and tax evasion.