The Dutch authorities are preparing to grant public access to the register of beneficial owners of companies, but access will no longer be unrestricted. This was reported by Dentons.
Why beneficial ownership oversight is important
The practice of concealing the true owners of businesses has existed for centuries. Shell companies, “agent” founders, and fictitious identities were used for this purpose. Such schemes served various objectives: fraud, simulating “parallel” negotiations or competition during tenders, hiding business activity by corrupt officials, laundering “dirty” money, or tax “optimization,” for example, when investments were routed through offshore jurisdictions.
The ultimate owner of a company may be hidden behind a chain of shell companies or hired “agents.” Unraveling such schemes is critically important for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, tax authorities, tender committee members, lawyers, notaries, counterparties, the media, and anti-corruption NGOs.
In the 20th century, the practice of reducing tax burdens through registering shell companies abroad reached its peak. As Schmidt&Schmidt noted earlier, following the collapse of colonial empires, former European holdings that became independent states or autonomous overseas territories began offering “offshore” services.
Entrepreneurs from economically developed countries with high taxes or resource-rich states registered companies in jurisdictions with minimal fiscal burdens. These firms then acted as “investors” in the countries where business was conducted. At one stage, Cyprus became the largest “investor” in post-Soviet republics. Experts estimate that due to such schemes, the world currently loses over $400 billion in tax revenue annually.
Another reason for keeping ultimate owners hidden is money laundering or terrorism financing. Individuals who gain illicit income from drug trafficking, human trafficking, fraud, and extortion channel it into offshore jurisdictions, where they register “legal” companies - often via proxies - that allow them to simulate legitimate commercial activity in other countries and justify the possession of significant assets.
During the 1990s–2000s, the authorities of several states and leaders of international organizations raised the issue of global business transparency. Companies were required to disclose their ultimate owners (“beneficiaries”). Sanctions were imposed on jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with other countries on anti-money-laundering measures and double taxation avoidance.
The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) were particularly active in this area. States appearing on their “grey” or “black” lists lost investment opportunities and faced difficulties with international payments.
FATF issued Recommendation 24, which requires business “transparency” and control over beneficial ownership. In its current version, this recommendation includes maintaining registers of beneficial owners. Some countries and international organizations impose even stricter requirements, including the public disclosure of ultimate company owners.
In the late 2010s, the European Union became a leader in the disclosure of beneficial ownership. Brussels issued a series of directives requiring EU countries to collect information on ultimate business owners and make it publicly accessible. However, in 2022, the European Court of Justice ruled, following a claim by a Luxembourg entrepreneur, that the public disclosure of beneficial ownership registers violated human rights concerning personal privacy.
Afterwards, European governments gradually restricted access to these registers. The United Kingdom was an exception, having left the EU before the ECJ ruling, and not only retained public disclosure requirements for beneficial ownership in its legislation but also mandates similar measures in its overseas and dependent territories.
The “pendulum swing” in Europe after 2022 regarding the disclosure of beneficial ownership negatively affected transparency and the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts. Consequently, EU members began seeking a balance between protecting privacy and safeguarding the public interest in combating money laundering and corruption. Registers began reopening, but with restrictions.
How access to the Beneficial Ownership Register will work in the Netherlands
According to the Fourth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD4), adopted in 2025, access to registers of beneficial owners of companies must be limited to individuals and organizations able to demonstrate a legitimate interest. This recommendation formed the basis for decisions by European authorities, which began reopening beneficial ownership registers to the public.
In 2025, the Netherlands passed the Act on Amending Access Restrictions to Beneficial Ownership Registers. It harmonized the national access rules for information on ultimate business owners with the broader European regulatory framework.
Today, there are three main “non-public” levels of access to the beneficial ownership register:
- Lowest level. Granted to accountants, lawyers, trusts, pension funds, insurance companies, the Department of Finance and Economic Affairs, and companies listed in the register—limited to their own data.
- Medium level. Provided to banks, investment institutions, electronic money operators, currency exchange providers, life insurers, payment service agents, investment firms in securities, and notaries.
- Highest level. Held by financial intelligence units, De Nederlandsche Bank, the Authority for the Financial Markets, the Gambling Authority, the Bar Association leadership, the Tax Administration, the Minister of Finance, financial intelligence and investigation services, justice authorities, the National Agency for Justice Verification in Public Administration, the national police (including internal investigation units), the public prosecutor's office, the General Intelligence and Security Service, the Military Intelligence and Security Service, the Intelligence and Investigation Service, the Environmental Protection Inspectorate, statistical authorities, and certain other government agencies.
All authorized individuals and organizations access the information through a dedicated digital service.
In Q2 2026, another category of individuals—those able to demonstrate a legitimate interest—will gain access to the register.
According to experts, a “legitimate interest” in the Netherlands includes:
- Journalistic investigations into money laundering and terrorist financing;
- Anti-corruption investigations conducted by civil society organizations;
- Due diligence checks on counterparties for potential involvement in money laundering or terrorist financing.
The scope of accessible information in the register varies depending on the category of the requesting party. For example, journalists or representatives of civil society will only be able to view a limited set of data: surname, first name, month and year of birth, country of residence, and nationality. Competent authorities, however, have access to the full dataset, including identification numbers and current residential addresses. If authorized bodies detect discrepancies in the register, they are required to report them to its administrators.
Failure to submit information to the register in a timely manner may result in administrative fines imposed on the organization or the responsible individual. The relevant rules entered into force on 1 January 2026. The fine for a single violation amounts to €2,750, while repeated violations may lead to penalties of up to €22,000.
What is a commercial register?
In our video, we explain what a commercial register is and how you can check your business partner.
If you need to verify your foreign business partner, contact Schmidt & Schmidt.
We provide extracts from commercial registers in more than 100 countries worldwide.
