Skip to main content
European Banking Authority logo
  • Extranet
  • Log in
  • About us
    Back

    About us

    The EBA is an independent EU Authority.  We play a key role in safeguarding the integrity and robustness of the EU banking sector to support financial stability in the EU.

    Learn more
      • Mission, values and tasks
      • Organisation and governance
        • Governance structure and decision making
        • EBA within the EU institutional framework
        • Internal organisation
        • Accountability
      • Legal and policy framework
        • EBA regulation and institutional framework
        • Compliance with EBA regulatory products
      • Sustainable EBA
      • Diversity and inclusion
      • Careers
        • Vacancies
        • Meet our team
      • Budget
      • Procurement
    Close menu panel
  • Activities
    Back

    Activities

    To contribute to the stability and effectiveness of the European financial system, the EBA develops harmonised rules for financial institutions, promotes convergence of supervisory practices, monitors, and advises on the impact of financial innovation and the transition to sustainable finance.

    Start here
      • Single Rulebook
      • Implementing Basel III in Europe
      • Supervisory convergence
        • Supervisory convergence
        • Supervisory disclosure
        • Peer Reviews
        • Mediation
        • Breach of Union Law
        • Colleges
        • Training
      • Direct supervision and oversight
        • Markets in Crypto-assets
        • Digital operational resilience Act
      • Information for consumers
        • National competent authorities for consumer protection
        • How to complain
        • Personal finance at the EU level
        • Warnings
        • Financial education
        • National registers and national authorities responsible for handling complaints related to credit servicers
        • Frauds and scams
      • Research Workshops
      • Ad hoc activities
        • Our response to Covid-19
        • Brexit
    Close menu panel
  • Risk and data analysis
    Back

    Risk and data analysis

    To ensure the orderly functioning and stability of the financial system in the European Union, we monitor and analyse risks and vulnerabilities relevant for the regulation of banks and investment firms. We also facilitate information sharing among authorities and institutions through supervisory reporting and data disclosure.

    Learn more
      • Risk analysis
        • 2024 EU wide transparency exercise
        • EU-wide stress testing
        • Risk monitoring
        • Thematic analysis
      • Remuneration and diversity analysis
      • Pillar 3 data hub
      • Reporting frameworks
        • Reporting Time Traveller
        • DPM data dictionary
      • Data
        • Registers and other list of institutions
        • Guides on data
        • Aggregate statistical data
        • Secondary reporting: data from Competent Authorities to the EBA
        • Data analytics tools
    Close menu panel
  • Publications and media
    Back

    Publications and media

    Communicating to all our audiences in the most effective way and using the most appropriate channels is crucial for us. Through our publications, announcements, and participation in external events, we are committed to reaching out to all our stakeholders to report about our policies, activities, and initiatives.

    Learn more
      • Publications
        • Guidelines
        • Regulatory Technical Standards
        • Implementing Technical Standards
        • Reports
        • Consultation papers
        • Opinions
        • Decisions
        • Staff papers
        • Annual reports
      • Press releases
      • Speeches
      • Interviews
      • Events
      • Media centre
        • Media gallery
        • Media resources
    Close menu panel

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Single Rulebook Q&A
  3. 2022_6622 Approach to determining indirect ownership control powers under the legal definition of a beneficial owner.
Question ID
2022_6622
Legal act
Directive (EU) 2015/849 (AMLD)
Topic
Other topics
Article
3
Paragraph
6
Subparagraph
a(i)
COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
Not applicable
Article/Paragraph
Not applicable
Type of submitter
Law firm
Subject matter
Approach to determining indirect ownership control powers under the legal definition of a beneficial owner.
Question

What approach to determining the indirect ownership control power under the legal definition of a beneficial owner (“UBO”) as set out in Article 3(6)(a)(i) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing should be applied:

(a) Determining the ‘share’ of indirect control of a UBO by multiplying the shares at each level of control and checking whether the result of this multiplication is more than 25% (multiplication test);

(b) Examining the chain of control whenever a particular link in the ownership chain exceeds the 25% threshold which may, ultimately, lead to a natural person holding more than 25% of the shares or votes in a given indirect parent entity (rolling test); or

(c) Verifying whether there is an entity or person who “controls” the entity having more than 25% of the shares or votes in an entity being evaluated, i.e. holds more than 50% of shares or votes in such entity (dominancy test)?

Background on the question

There are at least three approaches to determining the indirect ownership control powers of a UBO applied in the market:

(a) Determining the ‘share’ of indirect control of a UBO by multiplying the shares at each level of control and checking whether the result of this multiplication is more than 25% (multiplication test);

(b) Examining the chain of control whenever a particular link in the ownership chain exceeds the 25% threshold which may, ultimately, lead to a natural person holding more than 25% of the shares or votes in a given indirect parent entity (rolling test); or

(c) Verifying whether there is an entity or person who “controls” the entity having more than 25% of the shares or votes in an entity being evaluated, i.e. holds more than 50% of shares or votes in such entity (dominancy test).

 

The first approach, the multiplication test, took shape under the previous AML/CFT regulations (in particular, under AMLD3). Some entities still use this approach to determine the UBO. However, this approach allows the very easy circumvention of the obligation to disclose the UBO even in three- or four-link ownership structures, e.g. a situation where there are 100%-100%-50%-50% stakes between companies in a vertical stream would not result in a UBO determination although, here, real control is obvious. Indirect control would come out at 25%. Moreover, it would not always be possible to apply this methodology, e.g. there would be some difficulties in the case of partnerships.

 

AML/CFT regulations now indicate precisely that the triggering threshold is 25%+. There are two separate provisions which refer to direct control (shareholding) and indirect control. Indirect control is described as an interest in relation to a particular parent company:

 

A shareholding of 25% plus one share or an ownership interest of more than 25% in the customer held by a natural person shall be an indication of direct ownership.

This refers to direct control over a company; and

 

A shareholding of 25% plus one share or an ownership interest of more than 25% in the customer held by a corporate entity, which is under the control of a natural person(s), or by multiple corporate entities, which are under the control of the same natural person(s), shall be an indication of indirect ownership.

This refers to indirect control and shows that the legislator is concerned with 25% in relation to a specific parent entity (e.g. X has more than 25% in Y, which has more than 25% in Z).

 

This regulation may be understood in yet another way and assumes that indirect ownership control of the UBO is when there is another company over the company at the bottom that has more than 25% but, to further establish the UBO, there is another company or person over this parent company that has not only more than 25%, but more than 50%, i.e. meets the general control threshold under the corporate law principle (i.e. entity X being evaluated -> entity Y has more than 25% -> a natural person has more than 50% in entity Y).

 

Therefore, the issue is debatable but it seems that approach (a) involves significantly more risk than approaches (b) and (c). In addition, it is important to ensure that the market has a uniform approach to determining the UBO.

Submission date
27/10/2022
Status
Question under review
Answer prepared by
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.

Footer

EUROPEAN BANKING AUTHORITY

Our mission is to contribute to the stability and effectiveness of the European financial system through simple, consistent, transparent, fair regulation and supervision that benefits all EU citizens.


UE logoAn agency of the EU

EU Agencies Network logoEU Agencies Network

EMAS logoSustainable EBA

Contact us

  • Contacts
  • Ask a general question
  • Send a press query
  • Ask a regulatory question
  • File a complaint
  • Whistleblower reports

Stay up to date with our work

  • Subscribe to our email alerts
  • News & press RSS feed

Follow us on Social media

  • Bluesky
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • YouTube

Find out about us

  • The EBA at a glance
  • Vacancies
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice
  • Cookies policy
  • Frauds and scams

Explore related sites

  • EIOPA
  • ESMA
  • ESRB
  • CEBS archive