Maya Forstater

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?

(2) beats me...(3) There's cheap and cheap. £10/regn & 500K companies/year = £5Mn budget for systems/enforcement; £100/regn = £50Mn.

The maths doesn't work like that though £10 registration gets you less than £10 worth of verification. If someone wants to use a company as a vehicle for a £1m crime or money laundering they will get around it.

Doesn't that strengthen my point? Say £5 of the £10 goes on systems, oversight etc (not just verification). A reg fee of £100 gets you £95 to spend: 19x increase. What is a plausible ROI (fraud reduction) on that increase? Maybe international comparisons would give some idea.