For years, Europe stood at the forefront of global efforts to expose hidden wealth and combat financial crime. A central pillar of that effort was transparency-specifically, making it possible to identify the real individuals behind companies, known as ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs). By opening access to corporate ownership data, European countries enabled journalists, investigators, and civil society groups to uncover corruption that had long thrived in secrecy.

Today, that progress is being reversed.

Across the European Union, access to beneficial ownership registries is shrinking. What was once a relatively open system has become fragmented, bureaucratic, and often inaccessible. The consequences are serious: corruption is harder to detect, financial crime is easier to conceal, and public accountability is weakened.

This shift largely stems from a 2022 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which concluded that unrestricted public access to beneficial ownership data could violate privacy rights. In response, many EU member states shut down or limited access to their registries. While the intention may have been to protect personal data, the outcome has been a significant blow to transparency.

The impact of this rollback is not theoretical. It directly affects the ability to investigate and expose wrongdoing.

A powerful example is the case of Riad Salame. Once widely respected, Salame faced growing criticism during Lebanon’s financial collapse. Investigative journalists later uncovered that he had amassed substantial wealth abroad through offshore companies. Crucially, part of this investigation relied on access to Luxembourg’s beneficial ownership registry, which at the time was publicly available. Although Salame’s name did not appear in official company roles, the registry revealed him as the ultimate owner behind several entities.

This discovery helped trigger international sanctions and criminal investigations. Without access to that registry, such accountability might never have occurred.

Yet Luxembourg has since restricted access to its data, introducing strict requirements for those seeking information. Journalists must now submit identification documents, proof of their professional status, and detailed explanations for their requests. For reporters outside Europe, these barriers can be even more difficult to overcome.

The problem extends far beyond one country. Across the EU, the concept of “legitimate interest” has replaced open access as the standard for obtaining ownership information. In principle, this allows journalists and civil society to continue their work. In practice, it has created a confusing and inconsistent system.

Each member state applies its own interpretation of “legitimate interest.” Some require evidence of criminal investigations before granting access. Others demand extensive documentation explaining why the information is needed. In certain cases, journalists must reveal details of their investigations in advance-undermining their work before it even begins.

Technical and administrative obstacles add to the difficulty. Some registries require national identification numbers, effectively excluding foreign users. Others rely on outdated or malfunctioning digital platforms. In many countries, responses to requests can take weeks or even months.

This fragmented system is especially problematic given the global nature of modern financial crime. Illicit money moves easily across borders, often through complex networks of shell companies. Effective investigation requires equally seamless access to information across jurisdictions. When access varies from one country to another, it creates weak points that bad actors can exploit.

Europe’s retreat from transparency is particularly striking when compared to developments elsewhere. The United Kingdom, for example, has continued to expand public access to corporate ownership data, even after leaving the EU. Its registries have enabled journalists to uncover large-scale financial misconduct and trace hidden assets.

By contrast, both the EU and the United States are limiting public access to beneficial ownership information. This risks slowing global progress in the fight against corruption and weakening international cooperation.

Supporters of tighter restrictions argue that privacy must be protected. This is a valid concern. However, the current approach goes too far in shielding individuals who use corporate structures-often precisely to avoid scrutiny.

Beneficial ownership transparency is not about exposing ordinary citizens. It applies to individuals who benefit from legal entities that operate within public systems. In such cases, transparency is a reasonable expectation, not an intrusion.

The broader issue is the erosion of a fundamental principle: that transparency serves the public interest.

Investigative journalism depends on access to reliable information. While major leaks like the Panama Papers have revealed the scale of hidden wealth, they are rare and unpredictable. Sustainable accountability requires systems that make information consistently available-not occasional disclosures driven by chance.

Recognizing the current challenges, the European Commission has proposed reforms to standardize access under the “legitimate interest” framework. However, progress has been slow. Clear guidelines have yet to be fully implemented, and member states continue to apply their own rules. Without decisive action, the system risks remaining ineffective.

The consequences of inaction are significant. When journalists cannot access ownership data, corrupt officials can hide their assets more easily. When civil society faces barriers, oversight weakens. When financial secrecy persists, public trust declines.

Europe’s global reputation is also at stake. The EU has long promoted transparency as a cornerstone of good governance. Scaling back these commitments sends a contradictory signal and may encourage other regions to follow suit.

Reversing this trend will require political will. Member states must ensure that access systems are practical and consistent, not merely symbolic. The European Commission must provide clear and enforceable standards. Most importantly, policymakers must strike a better balance between privacy and transparency-one that does not undermine efforts to combat corruption.

The tools to achieve this already exist. Beneficial ownership registries are in place. The legal frameworks can be improved. What is needed now is a renewed commitment to openness.

At its core, this issue is about accountability. Transparency allows societies to see who holds power and how that power is used. Without it, corruption flourishes in the shadows.

By restricting access to corporate ownership data, Europe is not simply adjusting policy-it is weakening one of its most effective defenses against financial crime.

If this trend continues, the continent risks turning a major anti-corruption success into a missed opportunity-one that benefits those who have the most to hide.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel