You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
OK --so I've got some questions/ thoughts arising from this story (legal, AML, transparency tweeps...) As @OliverBullough says it shows that public registers are of little use if the information on them is not verified (and yet this has been viewed as the gold standard by many)..https://twitter.com/OliverBullough/status/985574754420654080 …
Here is Jason Sharman on this issue https://www.jerseyfinance.je/media/PDF-Marketing/Jason%20Sharman%20Report%20-%20Solving%20the%20Beneficial%20Ownership%20Conundrum.pdf … "The unambiguous conclusion of Puppet Masters was that a beneficial ownership regime based on licenced CSPs was a better solution than one based on a company registries of beneficial ownership"
UK register has (as I understand) always worked like this. It does not verify, just compiles information filed. This was true when it was done w paper forms in the post. The only difference now is that it is online so quicker/easier. So the issue Kevin Brewer raises is not new..
... and not really a 'loophole' just the way the system works. But it doesn't meet FATF recommendation that countries should ensure that there is adequate, *accurate* and timely information is available. So it is an issue.
My questions are (1) Are there other countries with direct register based systems (i.e. without requiring you go through a regulated CSP) that do serious verification? ...
(2) If not why has there been such a strong faith in centralised (public) registers and so much less focus on changing to CSP regulation systems? or (3) Is there another way to do this that bridges between cheap/easy registration (#doingbusiness) and verification of BO?
(as I argue here the issue is squaring the circle between affordability, robustness & fairness in a publicly administered direct system vs ability to use risk based approach, heavier penalties for mistakes etc where cost passed to regulated private sectorhttps://www.cmi.no/publications/6201-beneficial-openness …
There is an answer in the new @anticorruption report reviewing progress on the G20 Beneficial Ownership principles https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/g20_leaders_or_laggards … - i.e. None of the company registers verifypic.twitter.com/POwMmCZtXR
And of course what happens under AML5 when obligated persons start reporting discrepancies; what if the DD was faulty and the register used to be right - will CoHo check, or just update for the "new information"?
I can recall raising this with open data people and pointing out some of the practical problems in things like automatic verification, esp cross border. And probably made more complex by GDPR. Things like simple error, fuzzy matching, appeals against rejections, ID theft, etc.
Excellent questions that strike at the heart of the problem - there is no consensus about who is responsible for the data. Many different laws internationally - https://www.dnb.co.uk/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/supply-management/UBO-guide-170515_UK.pdf … provides good oversight - and @CompaniesHouse is a repository not a guarantor. It should be!pic.twitter.com/EYdBNgKlNB
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
