• news-banner

    Expert Insights

When Protection Of Personal Data Supersedes Anti-Money-Laundering Regulations

In May 2018, the EU Legislator adopted its 5th anti-money-laundering directive[1] to make information on beneficial owners of companies available to any member of the general public.

As a Member State of the EU, Luxembourg implemented this directive and adopted in 2019 a law[2] establishing a Register of Beneficial Ownership freely accessible on the internet.

Following this adoption, a Luxembourgish company and its beneficial owner both challenged the validity of this disclosure before the Luxembourg District Court on the grounds that it violates the right to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data, rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (“the Charter”).

In that context, the Luxembourgish Court made a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court of Justice”) for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the EU anti-money-laundering directive and their validity with respect to the Charter.

In its judgement C-37/20 / C-601/20 of 22 November 2022, the Court of Justice states that any interference with a fundamental right must be based on a legal provision, must not undermine the essential content of the fundamental right, must have an objective of general interest and must be proportionate to the aim pursued.

According to the Court of Justice, granting access to the general public to information on beneficial ownership constitutes a serious infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. As a matter of a fact, disclosing this kind of information to an unlimited number of people could expose the subjects of the data to potential abuse. Indeed, once that data has been made available, it is impossible for the subjects of the data to protect themselves, the said data being not only freely consultable, but also retainable or massively spreadable.  

After noting that such an interference is based on a legal provision (the EU anti-money-laundering directive) and that it does not affect the essential nature of fundamental rights, the Court of Justice focuses on the objective of general interest which is also provided since the EU Legislator seeks to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing by increasing transparency and thus creating an environment less likely to be used for such activities.

However, in the interests of proportionality, the Court of Justice holds that while granting public access to the data is able to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, it is neither limited to what is strictly necessary nor proportionate to the objective pursued.

Indeed, the previous regime provided limited access to beneficial owner information to the competent authorities, certain entities and to any person or organization having a legitimate interest. But it was dropped by the EU Legislator because the requirement of a “legitimate interest” implied practical difficulties. The Court of Justice states that the difficulty to provide a detailed definition of the circumstances and conditions under which such legitimate interest exists cannot justify public access to this information. The Court of Justice concludes that the fight against money laundering is the responsibility of public authorities and financial institutions. Making information on beneficial owners available to the public is thus not justified by a proper balance between the objective of the general interest pursued and of the fundamental rights infringed.

On these grounds, the Court of Justice rules that the provision of the new EU anti-money-laundering directive which provides that information on the beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities incorporated within the territory of a Member State has to be accessible in all cases to any member of the general public is invalid.

One can wonder if this European issue will ever be discussed under Swiss law. These questions should however not arise since a project of law aiming to increase transparency and facilitate the identification of beneficial owners of companies is in progress. In particular, it should provide for the introduction of a central identification register of beneficial owners, but only accessible to the competent authorities[3].


[1]             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, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73), as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 (OJ 2018 L 156, p. 43)
[2]               Loi du 13 janvier 2019 instituant un Registre des bénéficaires effectifs (mémorial A 15) (Law of 13         January 2019 establishing a Register of Beneficial Ownership)  
[3]           Communiqué du Conseil fédéral du 12.10.2022, Le Conseil fédéral entend renforcer la transparence des personnes morales (Press releases by the Federal Council of 12.10.2022, Federal Council wishes to increase transparency of legal entities)

Our thinking

  • Jamie Cartwright writes for Independent Schools Magazine on how VAT on private school fees is shaping the future of the independent education sector

    Jamie Cartwright

    In the Press

  • Licence to Till: what happens when a ‘Grazing Licence’ is really a tenancy? Accidental tenancies, shams and documents that just don’t do what they say on the tin…

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • DMCCA: What the UK’s new consumer rules now mean for consumer facing businesses

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Transactions at an undervalue: trusts of land

    Roger Elford

    Insights

  • Ministry of Sound Limited v. The British Foreign Wharf Company Limited (and ors): Balancing terms of a renewal lease with redevelopment potential

    Grace O'Leary

    Quick Reads

  • Advocacy: Lessons from The Mandela Brief for International Arbitration Today

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

  • Promises and probate: when is “detriment” worth the family farm and what happens when a promise is only relied on for a defined period?

    Matthew Clark

    Insights

  • Bitter taxation pills to swallow, arguably all the more indigestible for those separating or divorcing

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Farming on a handshake? What happens when things go wrong?

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • LIIARC Tax Investigations Uncovered: Legal Tactics, Courtroom Trends & Strategic Remedies

    Caroline Greenwell

    Events

  • Disputes Over Donuts: AI in Arbitration - Innovation, Risk, and the Road Ahead

    Thomas R. Snider

    Podcasts

  • Law 360 quotes Caroline Greenwell on the BHP dam case and legal risks for UK businesses

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Claudine Morgan writes for The Law Society Gazette on Trump V BBC – what a UK defamation fight would really look like…

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

  • India-UAE BIT 2024: What to Expect When You’re Investing

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Harnessing the Law: Equine Impoundment and Fly-Grazing Challenges

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Appointing a Director

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • Trump v BBC? What a UK Defamation Fight Would Really Look Like

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

  • Energy Arbitration: Navigating Disputes in a Transforming Global Sector

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

Back to top