{"id":9974,"date":"2020-06-02T10:30:51","date_gmt":"2020-06-02T08:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/openstate.eu\/nl\/?p=9974"},"modified":"2020-06-16T20:05:05","modified_gmt":"2020-06-16T18:05:05","slug":"netherlands-raises-unnecessary-barriers-to-anti-corruption-and-money-laundering-register-in-the-netherlands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/openstate.eu\/en\/2020\/06\/nederlands-nederland-werpt-onnodige-barrieres-op-tegen-register-dat-vecht-tegen-corruptie-en-witwassen\/","title":{"rendered":"Netherlands raises unnecessary barriers to anti-corruption and money laundering register in the Netherlands"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Dutch proposed implementation of of the registry of Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBO) is needlessly restricted, <\/b>ICTRecht<\/b><\/a> concludes after analysing relevant legislation and a comparative analysis between EU member states.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cNeither demanding registration nor charging a fee to consult the UBO register is compulsory under the GDPR and neither are they compulsory under the fourth Money Laundering Directive. Charging a fee for every request in particular, even if it is not a high fee, will prevent journalists and researchers from being able to conduct a thorough investigation into financial crime. As long as the information from the UBO register cannot be re-used as open data, there is a lot to be said for not raising these barriers in the first place.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The law firm was commissioned by Open State Foundation to analyse the relevant legal framework around the UBO register, such as the GDPR, the Open Data and Public Sector Information Directive and the fourth Money Laundering Directive. We wanted to know where the the possibilities lay in opening it up, as a well organised open UBO register will be very useful in tracking money laundering and corruption within the Netherlands, and the rest of the EU.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Dutch have chosen for a restrictive way of implementing the UBO registry, though the legislation is <\/span>still under consideration at the Eerste Kamer<\/span><\/a> (Senate). It suggests a registration for people wanting to consult the registry, as well as paying a fee citing privacy concerns. Even though the<\/span> Council of State<\/span><\/a> (<\/span>Raad van State) – which is the highest advisory body in the country – has stated<\/span><\/a>:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Directive itself takes the GDPR into account. This means that it is not up to the national legislator to add an independent judgement on how the GDPR should be analysed in context with this Directive. The necessary safeguards that the GDPR demands, have been included into the Directive.\u201d <\/span><\/i>[translation ours]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The study by ICT Recht shows that the following basic information from the UBO register can be offered publicly within the limits of the General Data Protection Regulation:<\/span><\/p>\n