Search
Contact
26.10.2017 | KPMG Law Insights

Money Laundering – Transparency Register: Clarifications by the Federal Administrative Office and Initial Practical Experience

Transparency Register: Clarifications by the Federal Office of Administration and Initial Practical Experience

I. Amendment of the Money Laundering Act (AMLA)

As is well known, the new Money Laundering Act (“AMLA”), which came into force in June, provides for a large number of new regulations to better combat money laundering.

The new AMLA contains a number of aspects that, according to initial practical experience, have considerable relevance for numerous companies that appear to be only marginally affected by the issue of money laundering. This relates in particular to the newly introduced Transparency Register, an electronic register for recording and making accessible information on natural persons who stand behind and control companies and foundations (so-called beneficial owners)(www.transparenzregister.de).

II. The Transparency Register

Since the new AMLA came into force, all domestic corporations, registered partnerships and foundations in particular have been required to provide information on the “beneficial owner”(first and last name, date of birth, place of residence , and type and scope of the beneficial interest) for entry in the transparency register. The notification obligations are continuous , i.e. they also apply to any change in the information subject to notification.

In principle, the beneficial owner is any natural person who directly or indirectly (i) holds more than 25 percent of the capital shares or (ii) controls more than 25 percent of the voting rights; or (iii) exercises control in a comparable manner.

Shareholders who are beneficial owners or who are directly controlled by the beneficial owner have a mirror obligation to notify the Company without delay of the information required to fulfill the notification obligations and of any changes to this information.

Violations can be punished with a fine of up to EUR 100,000 in simple cases and up to EUR 1 million or EUR 5 million (credit and financial institutions) in serious, repeated or systematic violations.

Notification obligation also applies to control mediating agreements

The new notification obligation is particularly explosive because, for example, agreements that mediate control, as is often the case with family businesses in particular, must also be reported to the transparency register. This may include, in particular, voting trust, syndicate, usufruct or pool agreements. This creates a level of transparency, particularly in the case of family businesses and fund holdings, that was not wanted in the past for economic or personal reasons. The same applies in the case of trust agreements. This may be a reason to rethink the structure under company law.

Practical challenges

The notification obligation regulated by the legislator poses a challenge in particular for companies with complex corporate structures or with foreign shareholders. In this context, information on shareholders must be obtained, recorded and updated in a timely manner.

If necessary, it must be carefully checked whether there is a beneficial owner at all who must be reported to the transparency register. Although the explanatory memorandum to the law expressly denies a duty on the part of the companies to investigate, information available in the future will have to be carefully managed.

It must also be ensured on an ongoing basis that changes in the shareholder structure are reviewed and communicated as necessary.

Lastly, care must be taken to ensure that data circulating in different sources (banks, customers, other public registers) is consistent in order to avoid suspicious money laundering reports due to conflicting data sets. This also applies, for example, to subsidiaries and second-tier subsidiaries in other EU countries, as the managing directors there have their own notification obligations. It is obvious that without coordination within the Group, this can lead to contradictory information.

Exemption from the notification requirement

The obligation to notify the transparency register is deemed to have been fulfilled if the information on the beneficial owner is already available from existing registers that can be accessed electronically – for example, the commercial register (so-called notification fiction). However, the fiction of notification does not apply if the nature and extent of the beneficial interest of a beneficiary deviates from the information in the relevant register, which is particularly the case with facts that cannot be registered, such as, for example, a company’s assets. This is the case, for example, with usufructuary rights, voting trust agreements or trust agreements.

Transparency register possibly open to public inspection

The new AMLA does stipulate that the transparency register is not open to public inspection, but that there must be a “legitimate interest in inspection” for information to be provided. In principle, however, anyone who can credibly demonstrate such a justified interest is entitled to inspection rights. The transparency register is intended precisely to help the business community identify the beneficial owner of a potential contractual partner.

In addition, the committees of the EU Parliament have already launched another directive initiative in February 2017, which seeks to lower the minimum thresholds to 10%, public insight into the registers and the abolition of the restriction to a legitimate interest. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the transparency register will also be open to public inspection without restrictions in the future.

III. need for action

Against the background of the new transparency register, we urgently recommend (also to avoid fines and personal liability of the management) to check whether there is a need for action within the existing corporate structures with regard to the fulfillment of (formal) obligations under money laundering law. In corporate groups, it must be noted in particular that the obligations apply separately to each individual group company and that the identification of the beneficial owner is often complex.

We will of course support you in this and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Explore #more

30.10.2026 | Unkategorisiert

New Podcast in the Packaging Journal: PWR in Practice—Who Is Liable, Who Pays, and What Are the Current Rules?

The core obligations of the PPWR have been in effect since August 12, 2026. In the Packaging People podcast, Dr. Simon Meyer of KPMG Law…

29.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG and KPMG Law Article in *Betriebs-Berater*: Pitfalls in Customs Law

In light of geopolitical changes, new trade barriers, and more rigorous audits, customs and foreign trade law are increasingly becoming a focus for companies. The…

27.10.2026 | In the media

Op-Ed in Versicherungsmonitor: The Environment Is Finally Becoming a Compliance Risk

With the implementation of the new EU Environmental Criminal Law Directive, the environment is becoming a core area of managerial liability. Managers face reputational damage,…

27.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Federal Court of Justice on the Summary Report: Tax-Exempt but Still a Criminal Offense

Can someone be punished for sales tax evasion even if the sales were subsequently deemed tax-exempt? Yes, says the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in…

23.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

PHP2Shell may trigger legal obligations for companies

Two critical vulnerabilities in the PHP programming language are threatening web applications and digital products worldwide. The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has warned…

20.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest Column in it daily: The Business Judgment Rule and the Use of AI

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents corporate leadership with diverse and far-reaching decisions. These decisions concern not only the selection and deployment of appropriate…

19.10.2026 | In the media

New articles have been published in PERSONALFÜHRUNG

The current issue of PERSONALFÜHRUNG (10–11/2026) features two articles by female experts from KPMG and KPMG Law. In the article “Will AI Save the Day?…

15.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Faster Building Permits – Legal Options for Businesses

Planning and permitting procedures do not always have to delay construction projects. The law provides several options for expediting the process. To take advantage of…

09.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Claims Management for Cyber Incidents: How Insurers Actively Manage Claims

Cyber incidents are among the most complex claims scenarios for insurers. Ransomware attacks, in particular, can paralyze entire IT infrastructures—with enormous financial consequences. Insurers for …

08.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest Column in AUTOHAUS: Consumer Credit Directive: Sales Under New Circumstances

Car dealerships should use the time remaining before the new Consumer Credit Directive takes effect to systematically review their financing and sales processes for regulatory…

Contact

Dr. Konstantin von Busekist

Partner
Global Head of Legal Services

Tersteegenstraße 19-23
40474 Düsseldorf

Tel.: +49 211 4155597123
kvonbusekist@kpmg-law.com

Lars-Alexander Meixner

Partner

Glücksteinallee 63
68163 Mannheim

Tel.: +49 711 781923444
lmeixner@kpmg-law.com

Mark Uwe Pawlytta

Partner
Head of Succession and Foundation Law

THE SQUAIRE Am Flughafen
60549 Frankfurt am Main

Tel.: +49 69 951195012
mpawlytta@kpmg-law.com

Arndt Rodatz

Partner
Head of criminal tax law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 360994 5081
arodatz@kpmg-law.com

© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll