Implementation of COSP Resolution 10/6 on Enhancing the Use of Beneficial Ownership Information to Strengthen Asset Recovery
Verification of beneficial ownership data in Austria, Germany and Slovakia
Overview
The case studies below are in line with paragraph one of CoSP resolution 10/6, which called on States Parties to ensure access to adequate, accurate and up-to-date BO information of legal persons and legal arrangements, and paragraph 5, which similarly encourages States Parties to collect and maintain adequate, accurate and up-to-date BO information so that domestic competent authorities may obtain and access BO data in a timely manner.
While the establishment of registers or alternative mechanisms are foundational steps for BOT, they remain less effective for anti-corruption without a robust system for ensuring that the data they collect and maintain is accurate. As defined by the FATF, “verification is a combination of checks and other processes that a country should adopt at the various stages to ensure that… beneficial ownership data is accurate.” [18]
Verification is an essential process for ensuring that BO information is used as an effective corruption and money-laundering risk management tool. Without adequate checks in place, BO filings may be outdated, inaccurate or deliberately obfuscated. This limits the power of BO data and risks distrust in the accuracy of the information collected, making it less likely that law enforcement authorities, public procurement bodies and others will seek to use BO information as part of their anti-corruption and anti-money-laundering efforts.
Effective verification systems combine a system of checks at the point data is declared to validate that declared information is plausible, verify identity and cross-check information against other domestic and foreign databases. After submission, verification continues through targeted and often risk based reviews of anomalies or red flags in order to further confirm the accuracy of information that has been declared. Applying a risk-based approach to verification of BO information of legal entities is also required under FATF Recommendation 24.
However, despite significant progress, challenges persist, including resource constraints, poor data interoperability and legal and privacy limitations on accessing data for the purposes of verifying BO information, particularly across countries. Authorities maintaining BO registers have a key role to play in ensuring the information they contain is accurate. Registers, or alternative mechanisms implemented, need adequate legal mandates, funding and resources, including well-trained staff, to establish and undertake verification processes.
The case studies set out below – Austria, Germany and Slovakia – illustrate a variety of tools and approaches in use to verify BO information. They demonstrate that verification does not require a singular approach and instead may include a combination of mechanisms, including discrepancy reports, automated report selection based on risk indicators, the use of professional service providers and manual and judicial review.
Austria’s approach to verifying beneficial ownership information
Austria adopted a dedicated BO law in 2017 (last amended in 2024), establishing a central Register for Companies and Other Legal Persons and the Register for Trusts in line with the fourth and fifth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLD4 and AMLD5). The Federal Ministry of Finance published an updated comprehensive decree in September 2025 concerning the identification, verification and reporting of beneficial owners.
Actions and results
The Beneficial Ownership Registry Authority under the Ministry of Finance undertakes verification of declared BO information on a monthly basis.
As of 2025, Austria has approximately 400,000 legal entities and arrangements, all of which must declare and report their BO information to the central register. Between 15,000 and 20,000 reports are entered into the register each month. Due to the limited number of staff in the Registry Authority and the sheer volume of reports that come in, Austria has implemented a two-step verification system: an automated case selection system as a first step combined with manual verification by trained staff.
The automated case selection system creates an initial short list of all incoming reports per month, selecting one-third of reports that come in randomly and the remaining two-thirds on the basis of currently 30 risk indicators. Austria derived its risk indicators from its national risk assessments on legal entities and trusts as well as lessons learned from verification experience. The aim of the automated system is to identify incorrect reports, as well as reports that may be connected to legal entities that are more likely to engage in money-laundering. The system reviews each report, applying risk points, and those that receive the highest number of points are more likely to become part of the short list to be reviewed manually by registry staff.
Registry staff undertake visual inspections of those on the short list, cross-checking identification documents and information across other domestic datasets and information service providers. The Registry Authority is empowered to refer cases to domestic authorities and can request documentation from the legal entity, which is required by law to retain all documents needed to verify its beneficial owners, such as trust deeds or share certificates. Legal entities may be sanctioned up to EUR 200,000 for incorrect reports.
Austria indicated that a key challenge with verification is access to and understanding foreign sources, as each country may permit different types of legal entities and arrangements. By compiling information on registers that are accessible, the types of legal forms permissible and the documentation required to prove ownership, Austria’s Registry Authority has created a quick-sheet to help overcome this challenge. In addition, two of the 30 risk indicators detect if an ownership chain is in part located abroad or whether a high-risk country is involved, making it more likely that trained staff will look more closely at such reports.
Conclusion and next steps
Austria’s risk-based, two-step verification system demonstrates how automation and targeted manual review can be combined to manage high reporting volumes while still ensuring accuracy and compliance. The approach not only strengthens the integrity of the register, but provides a model for balancing efficiency with risk sensitivity. It demonstrates that the size of a team does not determine the success of verification measures.
Germany’s approach to verifying beneficial ownership information
Germany established its central register for BO information in June 2017 as part of broader reforms under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, but early reliance on substitute registers proved insufficient as authorities required more comprehensive and timely information on beneficial owners. Legislative amendments in 2021 transformed the register into a one-stop-shop, mandating direct filings by all relevant entities. Germany’s reform has also been driven by international standards, including EU anti-money-laundering directives, as well as domestic concerns over foreign-controlled shell companies acquiring assets.
Actions and results
Germany’s Transparency Register operates as a centralized “one-stop shop” integrating BO information from multiple legal registers. Legal persons, registered associations and trusts are obliged to disclose the natural persons who ultimately own or control them, with special obligations for foreign entities acquiring real estate. Required data includes pre- and surnames, dates of birth, residence, nationalities and the nature and extent of ownership interests.
Access is granted on a staggered basis: full access for competent authorities, functional access for obliged entities (e.g. banks, insurers, lawyers, notaries) to meet their know-your-customer obligations, and limited access for the public, with the requirement that a member of the public or non-governmental organization demonstrate a legitimate interest in the information as required following a decision by the European Court of Justice in November 2022. [19] Information available to the public includes documents from the commercial register, partnership register, cooperative register, association register and company register. All users, including authorities, must pre-register online and identify themselves before gaining access to the system. Since 2023, automated access via an application programming interface (API) has been introduced for privileged obliged entities (banks, insurance companies, notaries) and all public authorities, enhancing efficiency and integration into compliance systems. A specialized API with broader search possibilities (e.g. reverse search by the beneficial owner) is also available for certain authorities engaged in law enforcement or supervision (e.g. law enforcement, supervision).
Germany undertakes an initial plausibility check on BO that has been filed in the Transparency Register. A discrepancy reporting mechanism was introduced in 2020, requiring authorities and obliged entities to flag inconsistencies between registry data and independently sourced information in three key circumstances: if beneficial owners could be determined but those beneficial owners were different from the BO information within the transparency register; if no beneficial owners could be determined; or if the legal entity could not be found. All obliged entities and certain authorities are required to file discrepancy reports without undue delay. The Transparency Register can then seek clarification from the legal entity or escalate the discrepancy to the Federal Office of Administration.
While essential for efforts to ensure that BO information contained in the register is accurate, discrepancy reports can be challenging, as a high number of incoming reports generates a significant time pressure to respond. This also requires well-trained staff capable of handling complex procedures and resolving reports quickly. The register has responded by streamlining processes, investing in scalable IT solutions and developing robust training programs for staff. The register uses event-driven processing software to identify low complexity reports that can be addressed through automatic processing, combined with manual processing for complex cases, and quality assurance for all reports. These measures have allowed the register to improve responsiveness while maintaining legal certainty for reporting entities. Legislative reforms have also gradually expanded obligations to cover more legal forms, including partnerships under the 2024 MoPeG law, reinforcing the register’s comprehensiveness.
The register also maintains historical records, ensuring that previously submitted information remains accessible.
Case study – Use of beneficial ownership information in real estate transactions
One area where Germany’s BO register has had immediate impact is in the real estate sector. Under § 20, foreign legal persons (additional to domestic legal persons) acquiring property in Germany – whether directly through an asset purchase or indirectly through share deals – are obliged to disclose their beneficial owners in the central register. This requirement was introduced in response to concerns about the misuse of opaque corporate structures to conceal ownership of high-value assets. By mandating BO disclosure as a condition for property acquisition, Germany has created a preventive mechanism that deters the use of shell companies for money-laundering or corruption. Authorities, notaries and financial institutions involved in real estate transactions can verify ownership structures more effectively, ensuring compliance with anti-money-laundering obligations.
Conclusion and next steps
Germany’s experience demonstrates how a mature institutional framework can support progressive improvements in BOT. The Transparency Register combines extensive filing obligations with a tiered access system and discrepancy reporting, enhancing both preventive oversight and investigative capacity.
Looking ahead, Germany will align its system with the EU’s 2024 Anti-Money Laundering Regulation and AMLD6, which requires registers to verify BO information and establishes a unified access regime across Member States. These developments are expected to strengthen the reliability and usability of BO data for both domestic enforcement and international cooperation. Germany’s incremental yet consistent reform trajectory provides a valuable model of adaptive implementation, balancing national integrity goals with evolving European and global standards.
Slovakia’s approach to verifying beneficial ownership information
Corruption in public procurement and in the provision of different types of subsidies has long been recognized as a major governance challenge in Slovakia. Cases of undisclosed connections between political leaders and public officers on one side and winning bidders or awarded companies on the other, often through shell companies incorporated offshore, undermined public trust and highlighted systemic vulnerabilities. [20]
In response, Slovakia became the first EU Member State in 2015 to introduce a BO register for companies participating in public procurement. However, the initial system faced criticism for its limited scope, weak verification mechanisms and ineffective sanctions. Public pressure and the need to align with evolving EU anti-money-laundering standards drove the Government to adopt more comprehensive measures.
The turning point came in 2017 with the effective implementation of the Law on the Register of Public Sector Partner, or the Anti-Shell Companies Act, which created the Register of Public Sector Partners (RPSP). [21] The Act established that only entities that disclose and register their beneficial owners can engage in business with the state or benefit from public funds. Its scope was deliberately broad, covering not only public procurement but also state aid, concessions, subsidies, EU funds and other forms of public-private commercial relations. This functional approach ensured that both Slovak and foreign entities, including offshore companies, must register their beneficial owners before accessing public resources.
A distinctive feature of Slovakia’s model is the reliance on professional service providers or “authorized persons” such as lawyers, notaries, auditors, banks and tax advisors, to verify and register BO information. The legislator designated these gatekeepers, given their status and experience as obliged persons under the anti-money-laundering legal framework, with the goal of guaranteeing a professional standard in the identification of beneficial owners. Authorized persons must act independently when identifying beneficial owners and, crucially, as a result they assume co-liability for the accuracy of the data. Authorized persons must prepare and publish verification documents that transparently outline the ownership and control chain and serve as a snapshot of the situation at a given time, making subsequent manipulation of the ownership or management structure difficult.
Verification is required annually and prior to specified events (e.g. before a private entity receives a payment under a public contract exceeding EUR 1 million within a 30-day period). [22] Compliance is further reinforced through a special court mechanism, which can initiate proceedings when there are reasonable doubts about the correctness, completeness and accuracy of registered data on its own initiative or upon a qualified motion. If such proceedings are initiated, the burden of proof rests on the public sector partner under review to provide sufficient proof that the BO data in the register is correct. The public sector partner is thereby compelled to demonstrate substantial evidence, including foreign official or private documents that would otherwise not be accessible to the Slovak courts, confirming the accuracy of its BO records to preserve its registration.
Access to the RPSP is free, open to everyone online, in real time and in a machine-readable format. It operates in parallel to Slovakia’s Register of Legal Entities that collects information on beneficial owners of all Slovakian companies and other legal persons as required under AMLD5. As of July 2025, public access to BO data contained in the Register of Legal Entities was suspended as a response to the 2022 judgment of the European Court of Justice. Access is currently limited to public authorities, obliged entities and European and national authorities competent in combating money-laundering.
It is worth noting that the respective 2022 judgment of the European Court of Justice implicitly left room for such an interpretation that public access to BO data could be compliant with EU law as long as the purpose of the regulation is public oversight of efficient public spending (as this is the case of the Anti-Shell Companies Act). [23]
Actions and results
Sanctions under the Anti-Shell Companies Act are significant. Companies that fail to disclose accurate BO risk fines up to EUR 1 million, disqualification from being able to register in the RPSP for two years (effectively excluding them from public procurement or, generally, the receipt of public funds) and bans on executives from holding directorial positions. [24]
In addition, executives may be subject to fines of up to EUR 100,000, with payment of the fine guaranteed by the authorized person, unless the authorized person demonstrates that they acted with professional diligence. [25] The enforceability of sanctions is ensured by the requirement that authorized persons have their registered seat in Slovakia. This guarantees that fines imposed on executives are always secured by local entities, which are subject to the jurisdiction and risk not only financial loss but also reputational damage in the market. A separate fine may also be imposed on the authorized person if the prohibition of conflict of interest is breached. [26]
Combined with Slovakia’s effective sanction regime, the RPSP has proven to be a deterrent against the misuse of anonymous ownership structures. By 2020, over 31,000 entities had registered, including many offshore companies previously used as vehicles for opaque transactions. Of all registered entities, 13 companies were based in high-risk jurisdictions. In addition, there were 16,500 ultimate beneficial owners abroad (according to their residence address), including 21 individuals in high-risk jurisdictions. Statistical reviews showed that the measures have dramatically improved ownership transparency among companies participating in public procurement: in 2018 and 2019, only 40 public contracts worth EUR 15.5 million lacked registered beneficial owners, compared with around EUR 29 billion in compliant contracts. [27] The following year, only 25 contracts worth EUR 5.5 million lacked BO disclosure.
Conclusion and next steps
By combining mandatory disclosure, robust verification measures by professional service providers, and judicial oversight with a reversed burden of proof, Slovakia has created a system that actively deters the misuse of anonymously owned companies in public procurement. It shows that embedding strong verification mechanisms and liability structures not only improves compliance but also restores public trust and levels the playing field for fair competition.
Footnotes
[19] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62020CJ0037.
[21] Act no. 315/2016 Coll. on the Register of Public Sector Partners and Amendments to Certain Acts, 315/2016 Z.z. - Zákon o registri partnerov verejného sektora a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.
[22] § 11(2).
[23] Judgment of 22 November 2022, WM and Sovim SA v Luxembourg Business Registers, C-37/20 and C-601/20, EU:C:2022:912, para. 54.
[24] 315/2016 Z.z. - Zákon o registri partnerov verejného sektora a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov § 13 Sanctions; § 13a – Consequence of Deletion.
[25] § 13(5).
[26] § 13(4).
Next page: Tracing beneficial ownership networks across borders