Back to Publications

Connecting ownership data: Practical pathways to tackle cross-border financial crime

Contents

Background and problem statement

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement

The proceeds of corruption and other financial crimes are often moved across borders using anonymously owned companies. By bringing to light which individuals own, control, and benefit from companies and other legal vehicles (that is, their beneficial owners), BOT provides critical information to trace IFFs. When high-quality, accessible, and usable, BO information can be used effectively by a wide range of stakeholders to tackle transnational challenges.

Over the past decade, countries around the world have made significant progress collecting this information in BO registers. At the time of writing, more than 100 jurisdictions operate one or more registers, with another 30 in the process of implementation.

Yet, a central challenge has emerged: current systems are largely designed around domestic disclosure and compliance objectives, while real-world use cases increasingly demand cross-border visibility of ownership networks. Relatively few live registers provide access to structured, machine-readable data. This, coupled with the fact that many jurisdictions still do not have live BO registers, poses immense challenges for fighting cross-border financial crime and corruption.

Differences in definitions, data format, and access, as well as varying levels of usability in data from BO registers in different countries, make it extremely difficult to connect, compare, and use BO data across borders. As a result, data users – ranging from FIUs and regulators, to journalists and data services providers – cannot easily trace cross-border ownership chains or identify transnational networks behind corruption, tax evasion, and money laundering.

This report synthesises the deliberations of the Taskforce and findings from supporting research undertaken by Open Ownership for this project, with the aim of addressing the following questions:

How can BO registers from different jurisdictions be made interoperable so that users can effectively access, compare, and interpret ownership information across borders? What does it mean for a register to be interoperable, and what is needed to get there?

1.1.1 How the Taskforce operated

The Taskforce was convened to bring together diverse expertise from the public sector, private sector, civil society, and international organisations to explore practical pathways for enabling cross-border interoperability of BO data. Co-convened by Open Ownership, London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG), and the Global Coalition to Fight Financial Crime (GCFFC), the Taskforce’s research built on and complemented ongoing work on BOT by the GCFFC.

The Taskforce operated from May 2025 to March 2026, through a structured and inclusive methodology. Its work combined:

  • Plenary Taskforce meetings, designed to surface shared challenges and test emerging concepts.
  • Targeted interviews with selected members to capture experience-based insights not easily gathered in group settings.
  • Written inputs and surveys, allowing members to contribute detailed feedback on specific issues such as data standards, identifiers, and use cases.
  • Analysis of existing research, undertaken by the Open Ownership team and an expert consultant to produce well-informed background papers for Taskforce discussion.
  • Case study analysis of relevant existing initiatives, notably of the European Union’s (EU) Business Registers Interoperable System (BRIS) and the Western Balkans Regional Platform (the Business and Financial Data Exchange, BIFIDEX), to ground discussions in real-world interoperability experiences. These are included in this report as well as in Annex 1 and 2.
  • Research and preparation of this report.

This multi-channel approach ensured that technical, operational, policy, and user perspectives were systematically reflected in the Taskforce’s analysis.

1.1.2 Structure and purpose of this report

This report presents the findings of the Taskforce, shaped by collective discussions, individual contributions, and comparative analysis of existing interoperability models. Rather than proposing a single technical solution, the report frames interoperability as a multi-dimensional challenge and organises its analysis around semantic, technological, and governance considerations.

The report then explores practical interoperability scenarios in global, regional, and bilateral/trilateral cases, assessing their feasibility and relevance for different contexts. Drawing on these findings, it concludes with a set of actionable recommendations aimed at policymakers, registry authorities, international bodies, and other data users seeking to advance interoperable BO systems.

Together, these elements reflect the Taskforce’s shared ambition: to move the global conversation on beneficial ownership from fragmented access toward meaningful, trusted, and scalable interoperability.

1.2 The current situation: Beneficial ownership data usability

Despite significant global progress in establishing BO registers, the usability and interoperability of BO data across borders remain limited. For many of the users who rely on ownership information to prevent financial crime, conduct due diligence, or support public accountability, the challenge is not the absence of data per se, but rather the difficulty of accessing, interpreting, linking, and trusting BO data from multiple jurisdictions. Current systems are largely designed around domestic disclosure and compliance objectives, while real-world use cases increasingly demand cross-border visibility.

1.2.1 User needs and common use cases

BO data users span a wide spectrum, including FIUs, tax and procurement authorities, law enforcement agencies, journalists, civil society organisations, and private data providers. Research by Open Ownership on the use of BO information confirms that these diverse actors regularly rely on BO data for purposes such as identifying risks, detecting corruption, conducting due diligence, and linking individuals to companies and assets. [3] Across these groups, there is strong convergence around a set of core use cases that often require BO data to be accessible and usable across jurisdictions.

Several recurring use cases emerged from the Taskforce’s research:

  • Tracing cross-border ownership networks: Users frequently need to identify the natural persons who ultimately control companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, often through complex chains involving intermediaries, offshore entities, or trusts. For example, investigative journalists and FIUs use BO data to uncover corruption schemes where assets are hidden behind layered corporate structures spanning several countries.

Use case i): Cross-border intelligence and asset tracing

An FIU is investigating suspected money laundering involving assets held through foreign companies. To respond effectively, the FIU must quickly identify the beneficial owners of several legal vehicles registered abroad and assess links between them. Current mechanisms require a mix of formal information requests, informal contacts, and use of commercial databases. Delays and inconsistencies in access reduce the timeliness and effectiveness of intelligence sharing.

User need: Timely access to trusted BO data across borders, supported by interoperable systems that complement existing cooperation channels.

Use case ii): Tracing cross-border corruption networks

An investigative journalist is examining a public procurement contract awarded to a domestic company. The company’s beneficial owner appears to be a local individual, but further investigation reveals that this person also controls legal vehicles registered in two other jurisdictions through intermediary holding companies. To confirm the full ownership chain, the journalist must access BO data from multiple national registers, each with different formats, access rules, and definitions of ownership. The lack of interoperable BO data significantly increases the time and expertise required to piece together the full network, delaying public scrutiny and accountability.

User need: Linked, cross-border BO data that enables ownership chains to be traced across jurisdictions without extensive manual reconciliation.

  • Identifying all entities linked to a specific individual: Compliance teams and law enforcement agencies often need to determine whether a person of interest, such as a sanctioned individual or politically exposed person (PEP), has ownership or control interests in companies registered in multiple jurisdictions. Open Ownership’s data use research shows cases where this requires combining BO data with company registries, asset registers, and sanctions lists across borders. [4]

Use case iii): Compliance and sanctions screening across jurisdictions

A financial institution conducting enhanced due diligence on a corporate client identifies a beneficial owner who shares a name with a sanctioned individual. To assess the risk accurately, the compliance team needs to determine whether this individual owns or controls other companies in different countries, potentially through indirect holdings. While some national BO registers provide partial information, others require manual searches or restrict access. As a result, the institution relies on aggregated third-party datasets to approximate a consolidated view, increasing compliance costs and residual risk.

User need: Reliable, machine-readable BO data from multiple jurisdictions which can be queried systematically and linked to sanctions and risk datasets.

  • Risk assessment and due diligence for cross-border transactions: Financial institutions need to assess ownership risks associated with counterparties operating internationally. Taskforce members from the private sector highlighted that BO data is increasingly used alongside shareholder and corporate registry data to build risk profiles, but fragmentation and inconsistency across jurisdictions significantly increase costs and uncertainty.

Use case iv): Market analysis and risk pattern detection

A data provider supporting regulators and banks seeks to identify emerging patterns of high-risk ownership structures across regions. This requires analysing BO data in bulk, linking entities and individuals across multiple jurisdictions, and combining BO information with corporate, asset, and geographic data. While some countries publish structured BO data, others do not, forcing the provider to invest heavily in cleaning and standardisation before analysis can begin.

User need: Consistent, standardised BO datasets that support bulk analysis and cross-border pattern detection.

Insights from Taskforce interviews reinforce these findings. Data services providers described how clients routinely request integrated views of ownership that cut across countries, legal forms, and data sources. FIUs and international organisations noted growing demand for near-real-time access to BO information when responding to cross-border intelligence requests or coordinating investigations. Inputs also suggest increasing interest in thematic or bulk analysis (e.g. identifying patterns of ownership linked to specific sectors, regions, or risk indicators).

Taken together, these use cases can be grouped into the following data use categories:

  1. Entity-centric queries: Who owns or controls this company, across borders?
  2. Person-centric queries: What companies or assets are linked to this individual, across borders?
  3. Network and pattern analysis: How are entities and individuals connected across jurisdictions? Are there patterns that indicate increased risk?
  4. Operational and compliance checks: Is the information held on this owner or company accurate?

1.2.2 Existing mechanisms for accessing beneficial ownership data across jurisdictions

At present, access to BO data from multiple jurisdictions is provided through a patchwork of mechanisms. These include:

  • National BO registers, accessed individually through domestic portals or request procedures.
  • Regional platforms (such as EU-level interconnection systems) that offer partial cross-border visibility.
  • Private data services providers, which aggregate, clean, and standardise and enrich BO data from multiple sources.
  • Bilateral or multilateral cooperation channels, such as information exchange between authorities upon request or on a regular (e.g. annual) basis.

Taken together, these mechanisms form an interconnected ecosystem that addresses user needs in complementary ways, but gaps still remain. While national BO registers remain the primary source of authoritative data, their formats, access rules, and data quality vary widely. Regional and international platforms and initiatives improve discoverability and data-sharing, but often provide limited depth or inconsistent access. Private intermediaries fill critical gaps by investing in data cleaning, standardisation, and entity reconciliation to enable cross-border analysis. Examples of regional and international platforms and initiatives include the Global Operational Network of Anti-Corruption Law Enforcement Authorities (GlobE), the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Forum for tax purposes, as well as the international and regional police organisations INTERPOL, AFRIPOL, ASEANPOL, and EUROPOL. [5]

A key insight from the Taskforce’s analysis is that domestic BO registers are always the building blocks of international solutions. No regional or global mechanism can compensate for data that is difficult to access, poorly structured, or unreliable at source. This aligns with Open Ownership’s usable data framework, which defines usable BO data as data that is “easy enough for people to access, interpret, connect, and rely on”. [6] Where registers fall short on these criteria, the usability of the data is constrained.

1.2.3 Key gaps and constraints

The Taskforce identified several persistent gaps that currently limit the usability of BO data. These include:

  • Fragmented access and inconsistent rules, particularly for non-national users, resulting in uncertainty and uneven availability of data across jurisdictions.
  • Limited semantic alignment, with differing definitions of ownership, control, and legal forms, making cross-border comparison and linking difficult.
  • Insufficient machine-readability and technical interfaces, limiting the ability to use APIs or bulk data for large-scale or automated analysis.
  • Variable data quality and verification practices, undermining trust in BO data as a basis for enforcement or risk assessment.

These gaps underscore why the current ecosystem, while improved relative to a decade ago, does not yet support the full range of cross-border BO use cases that users increasingly need.

Across all use case categories described above, users consistently require BO data that is accessible, interpretable, linkable, and reliable, often in combination with other datasets – that is, they need data to be interoperable.

Footnotes

[3] Julie Rialet, Understanding beneficial ownership data use (Open Ownership, 2025), https://www.openownership.org/en/publications/understanding-beneficial-ownership-data-use/.

[4] Julie Rialet, Understanding beneficial ownership data use, 12.

[5] GlobE Network, home page, n.d., https://globenetwork.unodc.org/; Egmont Group, home page, n.d., https://egmontgroup.org/; OECD, Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Peer Reviews (OECD, 2010–2026), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/global-forum-on-transparency-and-exchange-of-information-for-tax-purposes_2219469x.html; INTERPOL, home page, n.d., https://www.interpol.int/; AFRIPOL, home page, n.d., https://afripol.africa-union.org/; ASEANPOL, home page, n.d., https://www.aseanapol.org/home; EUROPOL, home page, n.d., https://www.europol.europa.eu/.

[6] Open Ownership, Usable beneficial ownership data (Open Ownership, 2025), 3, https://www.openownership.org/en/publications/usable-beneficial-ownership-data/.

Next page: Perspectives on interoperability