By Marker AI — 2026 AML Insights Series
Beneficial Ownership in 2026: Why Transparency Is Becoming the Real Test of AML Competence
For years, beneficial ownership has been treated as a technical step in the onboarding process — a necessary but often perfunctory exercise in identifying who ultimately owns or controls a client. In 2026, that mindset is no longer sustainable. Beneficial ownership has moved from the margins of AML to its centre, becoming one of the clearest indicators of whether a firm truly understands its clients, its risks, and its regulatory obligations.
The UK’s transparency reforms, combined with sharper supervisory expectations, have created a landscape where firms are expected not just to record ownership, but to interpret it. The question is no longer “Who is the PSC?” but “Does this structure make sense? Does it reflect economic reality? And if it doesn’t, what are we doing about it?”
This shift is subtle but profound. It requires firms to think differently — to treat beneficial ownership as a lens through which risk is understood, rather than a box to be ticked.
Why beneficial ownership is now a defining issue
The UK’s regulatory environment has been moving steadily toward greater transparency for several years, but 2026 marks a turning point. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) is reshaping Companies House into a more assertive, data driven registrar with powers to query, reject, and remove filings. Identity verification for directors and PSCs will improve data quality, but it also raises expectations: if the register is more reliable, firms have fewer excuses for missing inconsistencies.
Supervisors have been equally clear. The SRA, ICAEW, and other bodies have repeatedly emphasised that reliance on Companies House alone is not enough. The register is a starting point, not a conclusion. Firms must verify independently, challenge anomalies, and understand the logic of the structure in front of them.
And then there is the reality of modern corporate structuring. Complex, multi layered arrangements are no longer the preserve of large corporates or offshore specialists. They appear in property transactions, SME restructurings, family wealth planning, and cross border investments. Some are legitimate. Others are designed to obscure control, ownership, or the source of funds. The challenge for firms is distinguishing between the two — and documenting how they reached that conclusion.
What’s changing in 2026 — and why it matters
One of the most significant changes is the introduction of mandatory identity verification for directors and PSCs. This will undoubtedly improve the reliability of Companies House data, but it does not absolve firms of responsibility. If anything, it raises the bar: with better data available, firms are expected to use it intelligently.
Overseas entities are also under sharper scrutiny. The Register of Overseas Entities (ROE) has matured, and enforcement is increasing. Firms must understand when ROE applies, what information is required, and how to verify ownership across jurisdictions with varying transparency standards. The days of accepting “registered in X jurisdiction” as an explanation are over.
Perhaps the most important shift is conceptual. Supervisors are increasingly focused on control, not just ownership. A minority shareholder with contractual veto rights may exert more influence than a majority shareholder with none. A settlor who retains informal influence over a trust may be more relevant than a named beneficiary. A family member who “isn’t involved in the business” may still be the person who ultimately benefits.
This broader interpretation of control requires firms to think more critically about the structures they encounter. It also requires them to document their reasoning — not just the outcome.
Where firms are still getting it wrong
Despite years of guidance, supervisors continue to see the same patterns:
• Over reliance on Companies House — treating the register as definitive rather than indicative.
• Accepting complexity without challenge — assuming that if a structure exists, it must be legitimate.
• Failing to identify indirect control — overlooking contractual, familial, or informal influence.
• Weak scrutiny of overseas entities — particularly in jurisdictions with low transparency.
• Poor documentation — files that show the structure but not the thinking behind it.
These are not technical failings. They are judgement failings — and they are exactly what the 2026 reforms are designed to expose.
What firms need to do now
The firms that succeed in 2026 will be those that treat beneficial ownership as a thinking exercise. That means:
• Strengthening verification procedures so that ownership is mapped, understood, and tested — not merely recorded.
• Building a consistent approach to overseas entities, including jurisdiction risk, transparency standards, and the reliability of available information.
• Encouraging a culture of challenge, where fee earners feel confident asking why a structure exists and who really benefits.
• Enhancing scrutiny of trusts and foundations, focusing on purpose, influence, and economic reality.
• Improving audit trails, ensuring that files show not just the structure but the reasoning behind acceptance.
• Training for judgement, helping professionals recognise red flags, challenge inconsistencies, and escalate concerns.
These steps are not optional. They are the foundation of defensible AML in 2026.
Introducing our April resource: The 2026 Beneficial Ownership Verification Toolkit
To support firms in applying these expectations, we’ve created a practical toolkit that brings together:
• guidance on mapping ownership structures
• methods for identifying indirect control
• approaches to assessing overseas entities
• examples of effective challenge
• documentation templates
• common red flags and how to address them
👉 Download the toolkit
👉 Share it with your teams
ALSO… in case you missed it, listen to the latest episode of our podcast, Complete Simplicity here.