Beneficial Ownership Transparency: The Viability of Global Implementation of G20 High-Level Principles

Q2 Social Sciences European Business Law Review Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.54648/eulr2021037
M. Bagheri, Jia Zhou
{"title":"Beneficial Ownership Transparency: The Viability of Global Implementation of G20 High-Level Principles","authors":"M. Bagheri, Jia Zhou","doi":"10.54648/eulr2021037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of beneficial ownership originally came from dual ownership regime which allows the division of legal and beneficial ownership, serving good economic functions, i.e. protection of family property and personal privacy. However, as dual ownership structures, e.g. trust, have been abused to such an extent that the transparency now outweighs the economic values of dual ownership, at least for most developed economies of the world. The G20 High-Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency thus came into being, pushing forward an agenda for changing the law globally to make the identities of the beneficial owners transparent, with a broader term of beneficial ownership than its original use in trust law. In this paper, we argue that these Principles, made by and serving the interests of small exclusive group of developed countries, could not be applied universally as the rule-takers, i.e. developing countries, do not share the same concern as the developed world and are unwilling to counter a problem they did not consider as a priority. Under the pressure of robust review mechanisms and name-and-shame strategy deployed by FATF and relevant international financial bodies, the rule-takers are forced to make relevant changes, but the changes will just be artificial and superficial to bypass the Principles prescribed and recommended by the rule makers who are not themselves taking a serious step to implement them. Legal and beneficial ownership, money laundering, transparency, G20, developed and developing economies, divergence of priorities.","PeriodicalId":53431,"journal":{"name":"European Business Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eulr2021037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The concept of beneficial ownership originally came from dual ownership regime which allows the division of legal and beneficial ownership, serving good economic functions, i.e. protection of family property and personal privacy. However, as dual ownership structures, e.g. trust, have been abused to such an extent that the transparency now outweighs the economic values of dual ownership, at least for most developed economies of the world. The G20 High-Level Principles on Beneficial Ownership Transparency thus came into being, pushing forward an agenda for changing the law globally to make the identities of the beneficial owners transparent, with a broader term of beneficial ownership than its original use in trust law. In this paper, we argue that these Principles, made by and serving the interests of small exclusive group of developed countries, could not be applied universally as the rule-takers, i.e. developing countries, do not share the same concern as the developed world and are unwilling to counter a problem they did not consider as a priority. Under the pressure of robust review mechanisms and name-and-shame strategy deployed by FATF and relevant international financial bodies, the rule-takers are forced to make relevant changes, but the changes will just be artificial and superficial to bypass the Principles prescribed and recommended by the rule makers who are not themselves taking a serious step to implement them. Legal and beneficial ownership, money laundering, transparency, G20, developed and developing economies, divergence of priorities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受益所有权透明度:全球实施G20高级别原则的可行性
受益所有权的概念最初来源于双重所有权制度,该制度允许合法所有权和受益所有权的划分,具有良好的经济功能,即保护家庭财产和个人隐私。然而,由于双重所有权结构,例如信托,已经被滥用到这样的程度,至少对世界上大多数发达经济体来说,透明度现在超过了双重所有权的经济价值。二十国集团关于实益所有权透明度的高级别原则由此产生,推动了一项在全球范围内修改法律的议程,以使实益所有人的身份透明,实益所有权的术语比信托法中最初的用法更广泛。在本文中,我们认为,这些原则是由少数排他性发达国家集团制定并为其利益服务的,不可能普遍适用,因为规则制定者,即发展中国家,与发达世界没有同样的担忧,也不愿意解决他们不认为是优先事项的问题。在FATF和相关国际金融机构部署的强大审查机制和点名羞辱策略的压力下,规则制定者被迫做出相关改变,但这些改变只是人为的和肤浅的,以绕过规则制定者制定和建议的原则,而规则制定者自己并没有认真执行这些原则。合法和实益所有权、洗钱、透明度、二十国集团、发达经济体和发展中经济体、优先事项的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Business Law Review
European Business Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The mission of the European Business Law Review is to provide a forum for analysis and discussion of business law, including European Union law and the laws of the Member States and other European countries, as well as legal frameworks and issues in international and comparative contexts. The Review moves freely over the boundaries that divide the law, and covers business law, broadly defined, in public or private law, domestic, European or international law. Our topics of interest include commercial, financial, corporate, private and regulatory laws with a broadly business dimension. The Review offers current, authoritative scholarship on a wide range of issues and developments, featuring contributors providing an international as well as a European perspective. The Review is an invaluable source of current scholarship, information, practical analysis, and expert guidance for all practising lawyers, advisers, and scholars dealing with European business law on a regular basis. The Review has over 25 years established the highest scholarly standards. It distinguishes itself as open-minded, embracing interests that appeal to the scholarly, practitioner and policy-making spheres. It practices strict routines of peer review. The Review imposes no word limit on submissions, subject to the appropriateness of the word length to the subject under discussion.
期刊最新文献
Article: Legislation Comment: Considerations on the Digital Markets Act, the Way to a Fair and Open Digital Environment Article: Open-Price Contracts Under the CISG: The Law in Action Article: EU Law and the Member States’ Competence to Regulate the Operation of Collaborative Economy Platforms – Where Do We Stand after the Digital Services Act Article: The Systemic Importance of Asset Managers: A Case Study for the Future of SIFI Regulation Article: Codes of Conduct in German Employment Relationships – A Measure to Adequately Implementing Compliance and Data Protection?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1