Recital 43

(43) Given the cross-border nature of money laundering, its predicate offence and terrorist financing, it should be recognised that authorities of third countries have a legitimate interest in accessing beneficial ownership information on Union’s legal entities and legal arrangements, where such access is needed by those authorities in the context of specific investigations or analyses to perform their tasks with respect to AML/CFT. Similarly, entities that are subject to AML/CFT requirements in third countries should be able to access the beneficial ownership information in the Union central registers when they are required to take customer due diligence measures in compliance with AML/CFT requirements in those countries in relation to legal entities and legal arrangements established in the Union. Any access to information contained in the central registers should be compliant with Union law on the protection of personal data, and in particular with Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. To that end, central registers should also consider whether requests from persons established outside the Union can fall within the conditions within which a derogation under Article 49 of that Regulation can be availed of. It is settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) that the fight against money laundering, its predicate offences and terrorist financing is an objective of general public interest, and that public security objectives are connected to it. In order to preserve the integrity of investigations and analyses by third-country FIUs and law enforcement and judicial authorities, central registers should refrain from disclosing to the beneficial owners any processing of their personal data by those authorities insofar as such disclosure would adversely affect the investigations and analyses of those authorities. However, in order to preserve the data subject rights, the central registers should only refrain from disclosing that information until such disclosure would no longer jeopardise an investigation or analysis. That deadline should be set to a maximum period of 5 years, and should be extended only upon a justified request by the authority in the third country.

← Recital 42 · All articles · Recital 44 →

Source: EUR-Lex CELLAR · retrieved 2026-09-04 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.