Efforts to crack down on money laundering and the abuse of secretive offshore structures have collided with stubborn resistance among several British Overseas Territories, as key island jurisdictions failed to meet the UK’s deadline for implementing public registers of beneficial ownership. Despite intense diplomatic pressure, four of the five territories that committed to more robust transparency have not enacted measures that would allow authorities and those with a legitimate interest to see the true owners behind corporate structures registered in these havens. The high-profile setback underscores how entrenched offshore secrecy remains in parts of the UK’s global financial architecture, raising sharp questions about compliance, the credibility of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, and the broader fight against dirty money.

Beneficial Ownership Registers and the Fight Against Money Laundering

At the heart of modern anti-money laundering frameworks lies the principle of corporate transparency, specifically through beneficial ownership registers. These registers are designed to prevent individuals, especially those with criminal or corrupt intent, from hiding their identities behind shell companies and complex structures. The UK’s 2018 Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act mandated that its Overseas Territories must make beneficial ownership information publicly accessible by the end of 2023, with implementation roadmaps agreed and final deadlines set for mid-2025.

The British Virgin Islands (BVI), Bermuda, Anguilla, and the Turks & Caicos Islands—long associated with a vibrant offshore financial sector—had all pledged to introduce these transparency measures. Registers would have allowed authorities, and in certain models the public, to access company ownership data, thereby closing avenues commonly exploited for illicit finance. This push aligned with international standards championed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which requires countries and significant territories to ensure competent authorities can swiftly obtain beneficial ownership information to deter and detect money laundering and terrorist financing.

Despite the rhetoric and repeated commitments, most of these territories missed the June 2025 deadline. Only Bermuda was recognized for making substantial progress, while others either stalled or presented frameworks falling short of global expectations. Notably, some draft proposals included provisions allowing company owners to be notified of information requests or to seek exemptions, undermining the intention of immediate and unfettered access for legitimate investigations.

The UK’s Compliance Challenge and Its Global Implications

Britain’s complex constitutional relationship with its Overseas Territories has repeatedly surfaced in international financial crime debates. While these territories are not sovereign states, they operate with significant autonomy and have developed offshore finance industries that attract global clientele. This autonomy has sometimes clashed with the UK government’s obligations under international AML conventions and its standing in global standard-setting bodies like the FATF.

The repeated delays and perceived reluctance to implement effective beneficial ownership registers have broader consequences. The UK has come under scrutiny from the European Union, the United States, and transparency NGOs, all of which argue that failure to rein in offshore secrecy not only damages the UK’s reputation as a financial center but also creates a safe haven for the proceeds of corruption, organized crime, and tax evasion.

There is a growing debate about whether Westminster should intervene directly. One constitutional tool is the Order in Council, which the UK government can use to legislate directly for its territories in exceptional cases, as seen in 2000 when it decriminalized homosexuality in several Caribbean OTs. While rarely used in financial regulation, mounting frustration over non-compliance is making this option less unthinkable.

International pressure has only increased since the Financial Action Task Force grey-listed the BVI in 2025, placing the territory under enhanced monitoring due to deficiencies in its anti-money laundering regime. This designation not only signals heightened risk for those doing business in the BVI but also risks spillover reputational harm to the wider network of British-affiliated jurisdictions.

Corporate Transparency Standards: Global Trends and Legal Realities

The global fight against dirty money has seen a marked shift towards greater transparency, with beneficial ownership registers becoming a cornerstone of AML/CFT strategy. The European Union, through directives like the 4th and 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directives, requires Member States to implement public beneficial ownership registers, while similar standards are emerging in Asia-Pacific and the Americas.

The FATF, in its 2023 revision of Recommendation 24, strengthened requirements on beneficial ownership transparency, urging jurisdictions to ensure information is accurate, adequate, and accessible in a timely manner. Key to these reforms is not only the establishment of registers but also effective verification mechanisms and meaningful access for law enforcement, regulators, and—depending on the jurisdiction—the general public or those with legitimate interest.

The UK has sought to lead by example, implementing its own People with Significant Control (PSC) register in 2016 and advocating for overseas territories and crown dependencies to match or exceed this standard. However, the fragmented progress among its territories exposes the limits of UK influence and highlights enduring commercial incentives for secrecy in some offshore centers.

Furthermore, new methods for frustrating transparency have appeared, such as ‘notification’ regimes that alert company owners whenever their information is accessed. These introduce delays and can compromise investigations, contravening the intent of FATF standards and running counter to guidance from bodies like the OECD and the World Bank.

The Future of AML and Corporate Transparency in British Overseas Territories

The current standoff over beneficial ownership registers brings several critical questions to the forefront for both the UK and the international community. First, it illustrates the difficulty of enforcing international AML standards in semi-autonomous jurisdictions that benefit economically from the very secrecy those standards seek to dismantle.

Second, the situation exposes regulatory arbitrage. As some territories inch toward compliance or water down reforms, illicit actors may shift operations to more permissive locations, perpetuating a cycle where transparency is always a step behind evolving criminal tactics.

There are significant risks if the impasse persists. Ongoing deficiencies could see additional grey-listings, increased transaction scrutiny from global financial institutions, and reputational harm for businesses registered in or transacting with these territories. The lack of progress also weakens the UK’s ability to influence international AML policymaking and risks undermining global initiatives designed to choke off the financial lifelines of criminal and terrorist groups.

The UK government’s willingness to escalate—whether through direct intervention or tighter international cooperation—will be a litmus test for its seriousness in tackling financial crime. Technical support, diplomatic engagement, and possible constitutional tools are all on the table, but sustained political will and coordinated global action will be essential for lasting change.

Conclusion: Secrecy Versus Compliance—What Comes Next?

The failure of several British Overseas Territories to deliver on their corporate transparency commitments is a significant setback for global efforts to combat money laundering and financial crime. As regulatory expectations tighten and the international environment becomes less tolerant of secrecy, these territories face a stark choice: adapt to global standards or risk isolation and regulatory backlash.

While economic incentives to maintain secrecy remain powerful, the long-term costs of non-compliance—including grey-listing, loss of correspondent banking relationships, and potential intervention from Westminster—are mounting. Only meaningful, enforceable, and timely implementation of beneficial ownership registers will restore confidence and credibility to the UK’s offshore financial network.

The coming months will reveal whether the UK and its territories can align on a credible path forward, or whether entrenched secrecy will continue to cast a shadow over the fight against dirty money.

---

Related Links

• Financial Action Task Force Recommendation 24: Transparency and Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons
• UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018
• EU 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5)
• UK Companies House Register of People with Significant Control
• OECD Guidance: Beneficial Ownership Transparency

Other FinCrime Central Articles About the Caribbean

• Uniting the Caribbean to Combat Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing
• Cayman Islands Bolsters Virtual Asset Laws to Secure Top FATF Standing
• Trinidad and Tobago Passes FATF Compliance Bill to Combat Financial Crimes

Source: The Guardian, by Rob Davies

Some of FinCrime Central’s articles may have been enriched or edited with the help of AI tools. It may contain unintentional errors.

Want to promote your brand with us or need some help selecting the right solution or the right advisory firm? Email us at info@fincrimecentral.com; we probably have the right contact for you.