Take-Aways (AI)
  • The Fede­ral Coun­cil con­siders the cur­rent legis­la­ti­on and the report­ing obli­ga­ti­ons (regi­ster for bene­fi­ci­al owners from 25% par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on) to be sufficient.
  • It rejects public regi­sters, empha­si­zes data pro­tec­tion and access pri­ma­ri­ly for aut­ho­ri­ties and finan­cial inter­me­dia­ries in accordance with the AMLA.

Postu­la­te Leu­ten­eg­ger-Ober­hol­zer (16.3315): Regi­ster of bene­fi­ci­al owners of legal enti­ties and trusts
Postu­la­te rejected.

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is invi­ted to pre­sent a report on how trans­pa­ren­cy regar­ding bene­fi­ci­al owners can be impro­ved in the case of legal enti­ties, legal cons­truc­tions such as trusts and com­pa­ra­ble legal insti­tu­ti­ons and off­shore cons­truc­tions. In doing so, it must also be ensu­red that this infor­ma­ti­on is publicly accessible.

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

The revi­sed Gafi gui­de­lines requi­re that the bene­fi­ci­al owners of legal enti­ties be recor­ded. With a com­plex revi­si­on of the law, which came into force on Janu­ary 1, 2016, Par­lia­ment has taken Gafi’s request into account to some ext­ent. In con­nec­tion with the Pana­ma Papers, it is once again evi­dent that the solu­ti­on cho­sen in Switz­er­land can­not crea­te real trans­pa­ren­cy. The­re is no publicly acce­s­si­ble regi­ster of the bene­fi­ci­al owners of all legal entities.

The­re is also a com­ple­te lack of trans­pa­ren­cy regar­ding the bene­fi­ci­al owners behind legal cons­truc­tions such as trusts. The­se are not cover­ed by the trans­pa­ren­cy pro­vi­si­ons for legal enti­ties. The sub­or­di­na­ti­on to a finan­cial inter­me­dia­ry and the regi­stra­ti­on obli­ga­ti­on by Fin­ma (cf. the Fede­ral Council’s respon­se to the Moti­on 13.3356) do not yet ensu­re public trans­pa­ren­cy about the respec­ti­ve bene­fi­ci­al owners.

Trans­pa­ren­cy and the asso­cia­ted public scru­ti­ny are the best pro­tec­tion against abu­ses and against legal cons­tructs that ser­ve to con­ce­al ille­gal tran­sac­tions. This con­cern also cor­re­sponds to the demands of many sta­tes as for­mu­la­ted after the publi­ca­ti­on of the Pana­ma Papers.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The Fede­ral Coun­cil sup­ports inter­na­tio­nal efforts to impro­ve the trans­pa­ren­cy of legal enti­ties and legal cons­truc­tions such as trusts, as well as the per­sons con­trol­ling them (bene­fi­ci­al owners). Switz­er­land has the­r­e­fo­re taken mea­su­res to effec­tively imple­ment the requi­re­ments of the Grou­pe d’ac­tion finan­ciè­re (Gafi). For legal enti­ties, Switz­er­land has in par­ti­cu­lar Duty intro­du­ced to noti­fy the com­pa­ny of the bene­fi­ci­al owners of all share­hol­dings of 25 per­cent or more (Art. 697j and 790a CO). The com­pa­ny is obli­ged to main­tain a list – i.e. a regi­ster – of the bene­fi­ci­al owners, which must be acce­s­si­ble at all times in Switz­er­land, in par­ti­cu­lar to the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties. Any chan­ge must also be repor­ted to ensu­re that the list or regi­ster is always up to date. The law also sti­pu­la­tes that asset and mem­ber­ship rights are sus­pen­ded as long as no noti­fi­ca­ti­on has been made. Howe­ver, in con­trast to the Fede­ral Council’s draft law of Decem­ber 13, 2013 on the imple­men­ta­ti­on of the revi­sed Gafi recom­men­da­ti­ons, the law does not pro­vi­de for cri­mi­nal sanctions.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil sup­ports the efforts of the G‑20 to effec­tively imple­ment the inter­na­tio­nal­ly exi­sting Gafi stan­dards, Howe­ver, sees no need for more far-rea­ching mea­su­res, in par­ti­cu­lar not for the crea­ti­on of public regi­sters of bene­fi­ci­al ownersas pro­po­sed by the G‑5. The infor­ma­ti­on on bene­fi­ci­al owners is of a pri­va­te-law natu­re and thus infor­ma­ti­on that is worth pro­tec­ting, name­ly from the point of view of trade and data pro­tec­tion. They do not neces­s­a­ri­ly have to be available for public inspec­tion. What is essen­ti­al is that the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties in Switz­er­land have rapid access to this infor­ma­ti­on. In addi­ti­on, finan­cial inter­me­dia­ries must also know the bene­fi­ci­al owners of the legal enti­ties with which they main­tain busi­ness rela­ti­on­ships. The rele­vant appli­ca­ble pro­vi­si­ons of the Anti-Money Laun­de­ring Act (AMLA) and its imple­men­ting regu­la­ti­ons are sufficient.

With regard to legal cons­tructs such as trusts, the Fede­ral Coun­cil is of the opi­ni­on that infor­ma­ti­on on bene­fi­ci­al owners should pri­ma­ri­ly be recor­ded and made available in the sta­tes under who­se laws the­se legal cons­tructs were estab­lished. Switz­er­land is actively enga­ged at the inter­na­tio­nal level in this regard. As a remin­der, Swiss law does not per­mit the crea­ti­on of trusts. In the case of trusts admi­ni­ste­red in Switz­er­land, the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of the bene­fi­ci­al owners is alre­a­dy pos­si­ble on the basis of the infor­ma­ti­on that must be recor­ded by the finan­cial inter­me­dia­ries in accordance with the MLA. This infor­ma­ti­on is docu­men­ted in wri­ting and is acce­s­si­ble to the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties. Fur­ther­mo­re, the Fede­ral Coun­cil points out that tru­s­tees are con­side­red finan­cial inter­me­dia­ries and are the­r­e­fo­re sub­ject to the obli­ga­ti­ons under the MLA, i.e. inclu­ding the obli­ga­ti­on to iden­ti­fy bene­fi­ci­al owners.

In sum­ma­ry, the Fede­ral Coun­cil is of the opi­ni­on that the cur­rent legis­la­ti­on is suf­fi­ci­ent to ensu­re the trans­pa­ren­cy of bene­fi­ci­al owners of legal enti­ties and legal cons­truc­tions, as it is name­ly gua­ran­teed that the com­pe­tent aut­ho­ri­ties always have time­ly access to this infor­ma­ti­on. The Fede­ral Coun­cil sees no need to allow public access to this type of infor­ma­ti­on for everyone.