What public databases and registries do investigative reporters use to trace media funding and beneficial owners?
Executive summary
Investigative reporters stitch together corporate registries, regulatory filings, aggregated databases and leaked datasets to map media funding and beneficial owners, leaning heavily on tools like OpenCorporates, OCCRP’s Investigative Dashboard, ICIJ resources and commercial terminals such as Refinitiv Eikon [1] [2] [3]. Limitations remain: some official BOI (beneficial ownership information) systems are non-public to law enforcement, and opaque offshore structures and nominee services frequently force reporters to triangulate across many imperfect sources [1] [2].
1. Company registries and national corporate filings — where ownership begins
The most basic starting points are official company registries and corporate filings — national databases (for example, U.S. state registries like Delaware’s Division of Corporations) and equivalents worldwide — which record incorporations, directors and share structures when available and are often the foundation for ownership chains [4]. Investigative guides emphasize searching local registries for shareholder lists and related companies while recognising that nominees, agents and formation services can hide ultimate beneficial owners [2] [4].
2. Securities regulators and public-market disclosures — EDGAR and securities filings
When media outlets or funders are publicly traded, securities filings provide audited ownership, institutional investors and SAI/prospectus details; U.S. public-company documents are accessible via EDGAR, and journalists use these filings (and tools like FormDs.com for private placements) to trace investors and funding flows [1] [5]. Reporters also use EDGAR-focused toolkits (and Bellingcat guidance) to pull prospectus details and supplementary documents that can reveal funding arrangements [1].
3. Aggregators and investigative platforms — OpenCorporates, Aleph, OCCRP Investigative Dashboard and ICIJ tools
Because ownership is cross‑jurisdictional, reporters rely on aggregators and investigative platforms that consolidate records: OpenCorporates provides global company records and APIs for journalists, Aleph helps search and analyze bulk datasets, OCCRP’s Investigative Dashboard houses millions of items about corporations, and ICIJ’s resources and offshore glossaries help interpret complex structures [1] [6] [7] [2]. These platforms are indispensable for connecting entities across borders and linking to leaked datasets or sanctions lists [6].
4. Commercial data terminals, risk platforms and specialist providers — Refinitiv, YouControl, BusinessScreen
Commercial products supplement public sources: Refinitiv Eikon and similar terminals give corporate linkages, filings and newsfeeds that speed follow-the-money work, while specialist platforms (YouControl/YC World, BusinessScreen) offer beneficial‑ownership tracing, sanctions screening and AML/KYC intelligence useful for cross‑checking funders and “toxic” connections [3] [8] [9]. These services can accelerate investigations but are paid and may require triangulation with primary records [3] [9].
5. Property, court, lobbying and grant registries — follow the assets and the money trail
Land registries, court dockets, lobby registers, grant-maker databases and foundation disclosures can reveal where media funders park assets or how funding was routed; GIJN and other guides highlight land and court records as critical complementary sources to corporate filings [4] [10]. Foundations and grant databases (noted by GIJN) are especially important when tracing philanthropic support for media projects and can expose ties between funders and editorial outlets [10] [11].
6. Leaks, watchdog databases and investigative best practice — ICIJ datasets, FinCEN/Illicit finance reporting and limits of access
Leaks and consolidated investigative datasets (ICIJ leaks, FinCEN/FinCEN Files-type materials) have transformed ownership investigations, but reporters also stress methodological cautions and legal limits: in the U.S., new BOI reporting rules may collect beneficial-owner data but much of that information is set to remain non‑public and available only to law enforcement and regulators, forcing reporters to continue piecing together evidence from public proxies and corroborating documents [1] [2]. GIJN and peers advise experimenting with name variants, social media and offline records and using toolkits like Bellingcat’s Online Investigations Toolkit to bridge gaps while verifying context [6] [2].