AML/CFT platform · Slovakia and Czechia

Behind the company

You know the company. Who is behind it?

Behind one company may be another, and behind that a person. Follow the ownership links to understand who owns or controls the business. A representative’s signature does not answer that question.

Arrange an introduction

Relationships made visible

Follow the ownership chain.

Person A owns Company B, which owns Client A. Person B has a separate role as representative. Explore a link and its supporting evidence.

Illustrative example

Illustrative ownership chain · Person A → Company B → Client A

The relationships have evidence in the example.

Both direct relationships have supporting evidence in this illustration. The indirect connection to the client is also visible.

Person A
Individual

The link to Company B is supported in the example.

Known information
Company B
Company in the ownership structure

The link to Client A is supported in the example.

Known information
Client A
Legal entity under review

Indirect chain from Person A through Company B.

Known information
Direct linkDirect linkIndirect ownership link
What this means

The supported chain explains the relationships. Identifying a UBO requires assessment of relevant ownership and control.

One relationship remains unresolved.

Evidence linking Person A to Company B is missing. Drawing the chain does not resolve the question.

Person A
Individual

The link to Company B awaits supporting evidence.

Missing information
Company B
Company in the ownership structure

The link to Client A is supported in the example.

Known information
Client A
Legal entity under review

The indirect chain is not yet established.

Missing information
Direct linkDirect linkIndirect ownership link
What this means

The next step is to obtain appropriate evidence and check whether it is current. Missing information does not mean low risk.

The same relationship, different information.

Two illustrative records describe Person A’s relationship to Company B differently. The inconsistency needs an explanation.

Person A
Individual

Conflicting information about the link to Company B.

Needs clarification
Company B
Company in the ownership structure

The link to Client A is supported in the example.

Known information
Client A
Legal entity under review

The conclusion must account for the unresolved conflict.

Needs clarification
Direct linkDirect linkIndirect ownership link
What this means

Assess the origin, date and content of the records, then document how the inconsistency was resolved.

Select a direct relationship. Evidence supports a specific link, not the entire diagram.

Evidence for the selected relationship

What follows from an open question?

Highlighted fields show what changed from the previous state.

Illustrative people, relationships and evidence states. The diagram does not determine an actual UBO or replace professional assessment.

In depthLook for the people beyond the list of companies.

Three questions beyond the company name

Look for the people beyond the list of companies.

Identifying a beneficial owner means establishing the person’s ownership or control under the applicable rules. Evidence for one link does not establish the whole chain.

Who owns it directly?

Capture the immediate relationship to the client and its supporting evidence. Each connection needs to identify the parties it concerns.

Where do indirect relationships lead?

Follow the chain through other companies while retaining the connection to the original client. An intermediary should not obscure a person or a question that requires review.

Who exercises control?

Relevant circumstances of control also matter when identifying a UBO. A directorship or authority to represent the company is assessed separately from ownership.

Distinguish ownership from authority to act

The basis for a conclusion

Keep a gap visible instead of filling it with an assumption.

If the link between Person A and Company B is not supported, you can still name what is missing: the relevant evidence, its source and an assessment of its use.

Redrawing the diagram does not resolve a conflict. It needs review, while the evidence behind the earlier conclusion remains available in AMLUM’s planned approach.

Beyond a simple list of owners

Is a director automatically the ultimate beneficial owner?

No. Acting for a company and its underlying ownership or control are different questions. We are designing AMLUM to keep these roles distinct within the same case.

Are all registries directly connected?

We confirm live connections only against integrations that have actually been verified. An introduction will clarify available sources and their limits. An unavailable source must not be treated as confirmation of an ownership structure.

Continue exploring

Who can act for the client

Distinguish the person in the meeting, the client and their authority.

What the evidence actually supports

The finding, its source and whether it is still current.

Risk: reasoning and methodology

What mattered, what is missing and what follows from the assessment.

Look beyond the first company in the chain.

Describe the kinds of companies you work with. An illustrative example will show what evidence can establish and what still needs explaining.

Arrange an introduction