How can journalists legally access beneficial ownership registries in different countries?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Access to beneficial ownership registries varies wildly: some countries provide public, searchable registers; others restrict access to authorities or to those who prove a “legitimate interest,” and still others offer mediated access via contracts or APIs for journalists and civil society [1] [2] [3]. Recent court rulings and evolving international standards mean reporters must use a mix of legal routes — public portals, formal requests demonstrating legitimate interest, institutional channels (media or NGO accreditation), data-sharing agreements, and third‑party aggregators — while preparing for delay, redaction, or denial depending on national law [4] [5] [6].
1. Understand the legal architecture in each jurisdiction before requesting data
Journalists must first map whether a country’s register is public by default, restricted to competent authorities, or conditional on legitimate interest: EU law once required public registers but the Court of Justice curtailed general public access, leaving member states to set access rules that range from open portals to suspension or gated systems [4] [2]. Outside the EU, some G7 and other countries maintain public or partially public systems, while many developing countries provide access only to law enforcement or via case-by-case requests [7] [8].
2. Use “legitimate interest” pathways where public access is blocked
In jurisdictions that require evidence of legitimate interest, journalists typically must demonstrate a connection between their investigation and anti‑money‑laundering, corruption, or predicate offences, or otherwise satisfy statutory criteria; the EU court recognized journalists and civil society as potential legitimate‑interest users but left member states to define the test, producing a patchwork of burdensome procedures [4] [2]. Some countries now presuppose legitimate interest for journalists working on AML‑related stories or offer streamlined channels for accredited media and NGOs [3].
3. Register, contract or credential with the register authority when required
Where access is conditional, states may require registration, a contract, or proof of institutional status; Finland and Lithuania, for example, offer general access conditioned on a formal agreement with the registry authority, and forthcoming EU rules envisage a presumption of legitimate interest for certain journalists once procedures are in place [3]. Practical obstacles — paywalls, onerous paperwork, and slow response times — are common even where legal access exists, and some countries suspended access entirely after the EU ruling [9] [2].
4. Leverage intermediaries and aggregated open-data platforms
When national access is limited, journalists often turn to NGOs and aggregators that compile national data or provide API keys for verified public‑benefit users; Open Ownership and GIJN document such pathways and offer structured data formats (BODS) and public‑benefit API access to researchers and accredited journalists [6] [10]. These third‑party sources can speed research but may lag official updates and may not include restricted registries or non‑public fields [6].
5. Use legal and diplomatic channels for cross‑border investigations
For foreign investigations involving assets in another country, law enforcement, tax authorities, or mutual legal assistance are formal routes to obtain detailed, non‑public records, but journalists cannot use those channels directly; the loss of general public access in the EU has especially constrained non‑EU journalists’ ability to trace overseas ownership without cooperating authorities or trusted intermediaries [5] [4]. Some countries permit information sharing with foreign competent authorities, though mechanisms often rely on case‑by‑case requests and can be slow [11].
6. Prepare for operational risks, limits and workarounds
Even with legal access, data quality, verification requirements (such as ID submission for owners), searchability and downloadability differ widely; many registries prioritize law enforcement utility over public usability, and some states redact sensitive fields to comply with privacy laws — all reasons investigative teams should plan for appeals, FOI-style complaints, or collaborative partnerships with NGOs that already have access [7] [9] [12]. Where registries are closed, journalists must combine corporate registries, leaked datasets, on‑the‑record interviews and public records to reconstruct ownership trails while being transparent about gaps in official access [6] [13].