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)(

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

08.12.2023 | PR Publications

Payout can be risky

In the current issue of Personalwirtschaft from 30.11.2023, there is a guest article by Stefan Middendorf and Gracjan Modrzyk. Some companies are once again…

07.12.2023 | PR Publications

Institutional Money – It’s all in the mix

Institutional Money 04/2023 discusses the opportunities offered by the Neighborhood Fund. The fund is ideal for real estate investors, as it is not limited to

01.12.2023 | PR Publications

WiWo: Best of Legal Awards – Philipp Glock Leader of the Year

On Thursday evening, WirtschaftsWoche honored outstanding projects and minds from consulting firms and law firms in Düsseldorf and celebrated the second Best of Professional Night…

29.11.2023 | KPMG Law Insights

Energy transition also opens up business opportunities

The energy industry’s complex, capital-intensive transformation process offers investors and banks a great deal of potential By Lars Christian Mahler and Marc Goldberg for Börsen-Zeitung,…

29.11.2023 | KPMG Law Insights

Guest article in ZURe – AI and the legal department of tomorrow

The current issue of ZURe (p. 48 ff.) contains a guest article by KPMG Partner Sina Steidel-Küster (Regional Director Southwest, Head of Stuttgart office) and…

29.11.2023 | KPMG Law Insights, KPMG Law Insights

Key Facts about the new draft of the “Data Act

On February 23, 2022, the EU Commission presented the new draft of the so-called Data Act, the “Regulation on harmonized rules for fair access to…

21.11.2023 |

Guest article in ZURe on the implementation of CSRD reporting in SMEs

The current issue of ZURe (p. 34 ff.) contains a guest article by Lena Plato (Director Legal & Compliance, FLABEG Automotive Group GmbH), KPMG Law…

20.11.2023 | Press releases

Statement by KPMG Law experts in Handelsblatt on the topic of sustainability cooperation in antitrust law

In the Handelsblatt, KPMG Law expert Jonas Brueckner is quoted in detail on the subject of cooperation in terms of sustainability. Until this summer, there…

15.11.2023 |

Legal 500 – Country Comparative Guide Germany

Gerrit Rixen and Jonas Brueckner provide an overview of the relevant legal regulations in the area of Competition & Litigation in a practical guide on…

14.11.2023 | Press releases

Tax and Law at a glance – New issue of the digital magazine “Talk

“Talk” stands for Tax and Law Compass, because that’s what the digital magazine wants to be: a navigation aid to the legal and tax aspects…


Dr. Konstantin von Busekist

Managing Partner
Head of Global Compliance Practice
KPMG Law EMA Leader

Tersteegenstraße 19-23
40474 Düsseldorf

tel: +49 211 4155597123

Lars-Alexander Meixner

Mannheim Site Manager

Glücksteinallee 63
68163 Mannheim


Mark Uwe Pawlytta

Head of Succession and Foundation Law

THE SQUAIRE Am Flughafen
60549 Frankfurt am Main

tel: +49 69 951195012

Arndt Rodatz

Head of Criminal Tax Law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

tel: +49 40 360994 5081

© 2023 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

 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.