Advocates should be prohibited from concealing the identity of companies’ true ultimate beneficial owners.
If advocates were prevented to represent company owners who receive public funds for the purpose of dissimulation of the identity of true owners of these companies, it would be possible to prevent the most frequent practice of circumventing of the corporate ownership transparency rule.
Sources:
- Public Money and Corruption Risks – A Comparative Analysis, Frank Bold, 2013, p. 31 – 39, 77 - 78
- Anticorruption Endowment / Public Against Corruption, Initiative End to Corruption – Proposal for abolition of anonymous paper shares, 2011, [online]
- Vondráček, O., Electronic securities – Transparency of Corporate Ownership Structures, Auditorium, 2013, p. 48
- Vondráček, O., Havrda, M., 21 recipes – Anti-corruption cookbook, Recipe 17: Disclosing ultimate beneficial owners of companies receiving public funds, December 2013
More about methodology
Justification and sources