6 ms·

I’ll offer a different take here. More than 99% of the people whose information is listed in these registries are not corrupt public officials, Russian oligarc

by prvit 4y ago

I’ll offer a different take here. More than 99% of the people whose information is listed in these registries are not corrupt public officials, Russian oligarchs, or [insert person you dislike here]. Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever.

TacticalCoder 4y ago
I'm 100% with you here. People who need access to the UBO (for example because they are required, by law, to do KYC/AML on their customers) can still access it. It's about restricting public access. > Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever. This.
- from 4y ago
  Very little verification of UBO registers ever actually occurs. Which is why "oligarchs" have nominees and having to lie on another government form doesn't make a difference.
ghusto 4y ago
I'll go further and say they do bugger all to stop corruption. The rich will continue to find their loopholes and dodgy accountants. I know because I've worked for them. Pass all the laws you want, it's not going to effect them. What they _do_ achieve however is getting your name irreversibly splattered around just for helping a charity as a "board member".
trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Why should business owners be anonymous? Honest or not is irrelevant, the public should be able to find out who owns those companies, be it a local restaurant or a giant multinational corporation that owns stores and property through 18 different holding companies.
- prvit 4y ago
  > Why should business owners be anonymous? Why not? Generally EU countries do not like public lists of PII, why should business owners be treated differently? What legitimate use do you have for this information?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Because they're stewarding private resources that would otherwise be public (such as land) and therefore the public has an interest in them.
    - prvit 4y ago
      Most companies probably do not own resources like land. What actual use do you have for this information? Beyond “it’s nice to know”? Is it not sufficient that you have a service address for the legal entity in case you need to sue it?
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        Land was an example, not an exclusive example. A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells. And most legal actions against such abuse generally start grassroots; regulators aren't aware there's a problem until people complain. Hiding information from the public makes it harder to notice abuse. Flip the script: when an individual has incorporated and is enjoying the legal protections of being a corporate entity, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society?
        prvit 4y ago
        When an individual has registered a car and is enjoying the right to operate a 6000 lbs death machine on public roads, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society? The real question you have to answer is “Why is it necessary for company ownership to be public information?” > A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells What’s wrong here? Even with a perfect UBO registry that private owner could just get together with a couple of their buddies and divvy up that 70%. What legal action are you going to take? Owning 70% of a town’s resources is generally not against the law.
oytis 4y ago
Running a company is pretty much a public activity. Why protect the privacy of the rich and powerful (relatively to those who don't run any companies) few while compromising anti-corruption measures.
- seydor 4y ago
  they are not solely for rich and powerful. it s cheap to make a company and for many remote workers its the most sane way to be paid, because tax laws are insanely backwards. The secrecy of UBO is a weird concept though, i agree
  - oytis 4y ago
    Yes, I understand that, but they are also probably not the kind of people who would like their identity hidden. Acting in public while staying anonymous is creating a power disbalance. It can be justified in some cases, like for activists or journalists facing a greater power disbalance, but I can't imagine a good reason for economic activity (other than purely personal consumption) to stay private.
- prvit 4y ago
  Why is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?
  - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
    It is kind of obvious, no?
    - prvit 4y ago
      Not at all. A company could be a one man shop which only does business with one other company, it’s not obvious why that would be more of a public activity than just being directly employed by a company.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
seydor 4y ago
It's like CSAM scanning
MildlySerious 4y ago
I think there are valid concerns, generally speaking, but I for my own selfish reasons prefer to have the option of keeping my information private. I have no interest in being a public person, to any degree whatsoever. Not because I want to do shady things, but because there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away. Creating a successful business is fundamentally connected to publicity, and if I succeed in creating publicity for my product/business/company I inevitably create publicity for myself. As things are those two things are inseparably connected. I personally hate it. This is a far fetched, but the thought that someone innovates or creates something of value, and the payback may be that people want to kill them or kidnap their family because it happens to be a vaccine, or paparazzi hound them for the rest of their life because the media wants to cash in on them just sucks. While I of course don't expect any of that to ever happen to me, I have thought about what if it happens. If someone is not willing to take that risk their only alternative is to be someone else's workhorse until retirement. It seems like a really bad and arbitrary filter (not the only one by any means) for who is and isn't able to take a shot at building something for themselves. It doesn't really make sense to me that your willingness to give up your privacy is this connected to one of the biggest decisions you can make in life to grow and build meaningful stuff.
- jtsuken 4y ago
  How nice you brought up the vaccine example. So would you like to a live in a country where the government can mandate a vaccine and you have no way to find out who owns the VAXXPROD company, whose vaccines are mandated? What if the owner by pure coincidence is the nice of the Vax Minister? On the other hand, how will John Doe's privacy be affected if it was public information that he owns Flush Pty Ltd, as long as Flush Pty Ltd is not doing anything of public interest? Obviously, would get into the realm of public interest if John Doe also owned Flush-A, Flush-B, ... Flush-Z Pty Ltds, and these were purportedly competing for the tenders to install toilets in the City Council Building. Or would you rather keep this information private?
  - MildlySerious 4y ago
    Your questions address a completely different part of this conversation that I acknowledged, but specifically clarified wasn't what I was commenting on. The moral dilemmas that may be hiding in this change are already discussed elsewhere in the thread.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
Financial regulators and police access to such registers should be enough.
EdwardDiego 4y ago
LLCs impose social costs when they go into liquidation, I feel like there's some concessions to be made.
miohtama 4y ago
There is clear evidence public registries are one of the most powerful tools to fight corruption: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-ownership-registers-advance-anti-corruption https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-o...

by prvit 4y ago

TacticalCoder 4y ago

I'm 100% with you here. People who need access to the UBO (for example because they are required, by law, to do KYC/AML on their customers) can still access it. It's about restricting public access. > Public UBO registries do not strike a good balance between protecting the privacy of honest business owners and exposing corruption or whatever. This.

from 4y ago
Very little verification of UBO registers ever actually occurs. Which is why "oligarchs" have nominees and having to lie on another government form doesn't make a difference.

ghusto 4y ago

I'll go further and say they do bugger all to stop corruption. The rich will continue to find their loopholes and dodgy accountants. I know because I've worked for them. Pass all the laws you want, it's not going to effect them. What they _do_ achieve however is getting your name irreversibly splattered around just for helping a charity as a "board member".

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

Why should business owners be anonymous? Honest or not is irrelevant, the public should be able to find out who owns those companies, be it a local restaurant or a giant multinational corporation that owns stores and property through 18 different holding companies.

prvit 4y ago
> Why should business owners be anonymous? Why not? Generally EU countries do not like public lists of PII, why should business owners be treated differently? What legitimate use do you have for this information?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Because they're stewarding private resources that would otherwise be public (such as land) and therefore the public has an interest in them.
  - prvit 4y ago
    Most companies probably do not own resources like land. What actual use do you have for this information? Beyond “it’s nice to know”? Is it not sufficient that you have a service address for the legal entity in case you need to sue it?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Land was an example, not an exclusive example. A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells. And most legal actions against such abuse generally start grassroots; regulators aren't aware there's a problem until people complain. Hiding information from the public makes it harder to notice abuse. Flip the script: when an individual has incorporated and is enjoying the legal protections of being a corporate entity, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society?
      - prvit 4y ago
        When an individual has registered a car and is enjoying the right to operate a 6000 lbs death machine on public roads, why do they need their name hidden? What value in the society of granting them that privilege when they are enjoying legal protections and privileges not enjoyed by all members of society? The real question you have to answer is “Why is it necessary for company ownership to be public information?” > A service address isn't sufficient to, for example, easily piece together that one private owner has quietly purchased 70% of some town's resources, especially if they've done so via a collection of shells What’s wrong here? Even with a perfect UBO registry that private owner could just get together with a couple of their buddies and divvy up that 70%. What legal action are you going to take? Owning 70% of a town’s resources is generally not against the law.

oytis 4y ago

Running a company is pretty much a public activity. Why protect the privacy of the rich and powerful (relatively to those who don't run any companies) few while compromising anti-corruption measures.

seydor 4y ago
they are not solely for rich and powerful. it s cheap to make a company and for many remote workers its the most sane way to be paid, because tax laws are insanely backwards. The secrecy of UBO is a weird concept though, i agree
- oytis 4y ago
  Yes, I understand that, but they are also probably not the kind of people who would like their identity hidden. Acting in public while staying anonymous is creating a power disbalance. It can be justified in some cases, like for activists or journalists facing a greater power disbalance, but I can't imagine a good reason for economic activity (other than purely personal consumption) to stay private.
prvit 4y ago
Why is it any more of a public activity than working for a company?
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  It is kind of obvious, no?
  - prvit 4y ago
    Not at all. A company could be a one man shop which only does business with one other company, it’s not obvious why that would be more of a public activity than just being directly employed by a company.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

seydor 4y ago

It's like CSAM scanning

MildlySerious 4y ago

I think there are valid concerns, generally speaking, but I for my own selfish reasons prefer to have the option of keeping my information private. I have no interest in being a public person, to any degree whatsoever. Not because I want to do shady things, but because there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away. Creating a successful business is fundamentally connected to publicity, and if I succeed in creating publicity for my product/business/company I inevitably create publicity for myself. As things are those two things are inseparably connected. I personally hate it. This is a far fetched, but the thought that someone innovates or creates something of value, and the payback may be that people want to kill them or kidnap their family because it happens to be a vaccine, or paparazzi hound them for the rest of their life because the media wants to cash in on them just sucks. While I of course don't expect any of that to ever happen to me, I have thought about what if it happens. If someone is not willing to take that risk their only alternative is to be someone else's workhorse until retirement. It seems like a really bad and arbitrary filter (not the only one by any means) for who is and isn't able to take a shot at building something for themselves. It doesn't really make sense to me that your willingness to give up your privacy is this connected to one of the biggest decisions you can make in life to grow and build meaningful stuff.

jtsuken 4y ago
How nice you brought up the vaccine example. So would you like to a live in a country where the government can mandate a vaccine and you have no way to find out who owns the VAXXPROD company, whose vaccines are mandated? What if the owner by pure coincidence is the nice of the Vax Minister? On the other hand, how will John Doe's privacy be affected if it was public information that he owns Flush Pty Ltd, as long as Flush Pty Ltd is not doing anything of public interest? Obviously, would get into the realm of public interest if John Doe also owned Flush-A, Flush-B, ... Flush-Z Pty Ltds, and these were purportedly competing for the tenders to install toilets in the City Council Building. Or would you rather keep this information private?
- MildlySerious 4y ago
  Your questions address a completely different part of this conversation that I acknowledged, but specifically clarified wasn't what I was commenting on. The moral dilemmas that may be hiding in this change are already discussed elsewhere in the thread.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

Financial regulators and police access to such registers should be enough.

EdwardDiego 4y ago

LLCs impose social costs when they go into liquidation, I feel like there's some concessions to be made.

miohtama 4y ago

There is clear evidence public registries are one of the most powerful tools to fight corruption: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-ownership-registers-advance-anti-corruption https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-public-beneficial-o...