What does it mean?
A beneficiary is a person who receives benefits, profits, and income from a business. This is what the final recipients of the payment are called. The meaning may vary depending on the situation.
Company Ownership
Most often, when opening enterprises, shareholders, directors, etc. are registered, but the names of the real owners remain unspoken. In this case, the beneficiary is the person who is actually the owner and receives the benefit and profit from the activities of the enterprise. This role can be played by an individual who, through participation in other companies or directly controls the shares of the enterprise. In this case, legal ownership can be assigned to other people or companies. Information about beneficiaries is confidential and is provided exclusively to the bank or registered agent.
Through the use of nominee directors and shareholders in offshore companies, it is often hidden who the ultimate beneficiary is. This scheme is most often concluded using a nominee agreement or a declaration of trust. Occasionally, a deed of trust is used.
Thus, the chain of ownership, including beneficiaries, rarely becomes public knowledge.
Owning a bank account
In this case, the beneficiary is the owner who has control over the assets or funds in this account. This person can indirectly or directly manage finances. Moreover, the concept applies exclusively to persons who have full control over these funds, even if the beneficiary does not directly perform any transactions, but they take place at his direction. When opening an account, credit institutions always request information about the ultimate beneficiaries.
Trust management
In this case, the beneficiary is the person who receives income from property transferred to trust management or given for use to third parties.
Insurance
In this case, the term is used in relation to the person who will receive the insurance amount. If a person has death insurance, the primary (or contingent) beneficiary can be any other person.
Inheritance
The beneficiary is the heir in accordance with the will.
Renting out property for rent
The term applies to an individual who receives or annuities.
Letter of Credit
If money is issued under a letter of credit, the beneficiary is the person in whose name the issuing bank opens it.
Opportunities and rights of beneficiaries
If a beneficiary owns shares in a business, he has the right to transfer his ownership rights to another person. The ultimate owner takes part in resolving issues related to authorized capital. The beneficiary also has an indirect presence at shareholder meetings. The owner can take part in choosing the board of the company.
At the end of June 2013, Federal Law No. 134-FZ dated June 28, 2013 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Combating Illegal Financial Transactions” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 134-FZ) came into force. This law affected more than twenty existing regulations, including amendments to the Federal Law of August 7, 2001 No. 115-FZ “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 115FZ). The most discussed new norm is the emergence of an obligation for companies to provide information about beneficial owners upon the bank's request. The inclusion of this provision in national legislation is associated with recommendations prepared by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and strongly recommended for UN member states, including Russia. This is stated in UN Security Council Resolution No. 1617 (2005).
Banks have already begun to apply the new provisions, although with caution, since there are still no clarifications from the Bank of Russia and Rosfinmonitoring. For example, banks are already sending letters to clients demanding that beneficial owners be disclosed. There have also been cases of refusals to open a bank account due to failure to provide this information.
Beneficiary disclosure
Before amendments to Law No. 115-FZ, banks requested information only about the clients themselves and their beneficiaries. According to the new rules, they are also obliged to take reasonable and accessible measures in the current circumstances to identify the beneficial owners of their clients (paragraph 14, article 3, subparagraph 2, paragraph 1, article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). Rosfinmonitoring can at any time request from the bank information about the beneficiaries of a particular client, and the bank is obliged to provide this information (subclause 5, clause 1, article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). Otherwise, he faces a significant fine - from 300 to 500 thousand rubles (Part 2.3 of Article 15.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).
Law No. 115-FZ names not only banks, but also other organizations that carry out transactions with funds or other property as persons who have the right to demand disclosure of beneficial owners. These include any credit organizations, insurance companies (except for those that work exclusively in the field of health insurance), pawnshops, leasing companies and professional participants in the securities market, etc. (Article 5 of Law No. 115FZ).
In this regard, bank clients are obliged to provide, at the bank’s request, information about their beneficiaries (clause 14 of article 7 of law No. 115-FZ). But the problem is that neither Law No. 115-FZ nor any other legal act contains a list of measures that can be considered reasonable and accessible. Therefore, there are certain difficulties in understanding what measures banks need to take to identify the client’s beneficiary in order to avoid penalties, and what information needs to be submitted to Rosfinmonitoring if it requests this information. Now Law No. 115-FZ, as amended, provides that the volume, nature and procedure for banks to provide information on beneficial owners is established by the Bank of Russia. But at the moment such an order has not yet been established. Nevertheless, the Regulation on the identification of clients and beneficiaries by credit institutions for the purpose of combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism, approved by the Bank of Russia on August 19, 2004 No. 262-P, is now in force. Of course, it refers to providing information only about the client and the beneficiary. But in the absence of any other clarification, this provision can be taken as a guideline in order to at least roughly understand what documents the bank may require.
“The new concept should include only the ultimate owners of the business”
What was the purpose of introducing the concept of “beneficial owner” in Law No. 115FZ?
— Changes in terms of control on the part of the credit institution of the final recipients of funds are the result of a purposeful long-term government policy to disclose information about major shareholders and beneficial owners of Russian large and medium-sized companies. Yes, history this issue began with the general concept of reforming and clarifying the concept of “affiliated entity,” which was set out in the Financial Market Development Strategy for 2006–2008, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated June 1, 2006 No. 793-r.
Do the banks themselves now have a clear idea of who should be understood as the beneficial owner of the company?
— To date, banking practice regarding an unambiguous interpretation of the concept of “beneficial owner” has not been formed. But it is quite obvious that the new legal term in its interpretation is significantly narrower than the original concept of “beneficiary”. Considering the practical side of the definition of the beneficial owner, enshrined in paragraph 13 of Article 3 of Law No. 115-FZ, within the framework of general standards of corporate governance in Russia, we can say that the new concept should include only the ultimate owners of the business who have a stake in authorized capital parent holding companies more than 25 percent, as well as owners of management organizations of clients - legal entities (paragraph 3, paragraph 1, article 69 Federal Law dated December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ “On Joint-Stock Companies”, art. 42 of the Federal Law of 02/08/98 No. 14-FZ “On Companies with limited liability»).
Do members of the board of directors automatically become beneficial owners just because they have some ability to control the actions of the company precisely because of their direct function?
— Automatically no, they don’t hit. Members of the board of directors can only be recognized as beneficial owners in certain cases. Until now, investment banking practice, when conducting Due Diligence of a client, followed exactly this path and requested, along with lists of affiliates, lists of participants (for limited liability companies), lists of registered persons in the register of shareholders (for joint stock companies) of clients, also protocols annual general meetings, as well as extraordinary meetings at which the current composition of the board of directors was elected (since previously it was necessary to identify the beneficiary, that is, the person for whose benefit the client of the credit institution acts). This was done to establish the affiliation of a member of the board of directors and the ultimate owners of the companies, since the concept of “beneficiary” can be interpreted much more broadly than “beneficial owner”. But you need to keep in mind that board members are elected and accountable general meeting participants (shareholders) and do not act on behalf of the company, but only participate in internal management company, while monitoring the activities of the executive body (general director and (or) members of the board). In other words, when determining beneficial owners, it is necessary to clearly understand that the degree of control of members of the board of directors over the activities of a company that is a client of a credit institution is always mediated by the will of the shareholders (participants) of the company.
Beneficial owner. To implement the requirements of Law No. 115-FZ, it now establishes the concept of beneficial owner.
WE QUOTE THE DOCUMENT
Beneficial owner - an individual who ultimately directly or indirectly (through third parties) owns (has a predominant participation of more than 25 percent in the capital) a client - a legal entity or has the ability to control the actions of the client (paragraph 13 of article 3 of law No. 115- Federal Law).
From this definition it follows that the beneficiary is considered not only certain participants (shareholders), but also persons not formally associated with the company who somehow control the actions of the client. In this case, not any participant (shareholder), but only that participant (shareholder) who owns a share (shares) exceeding 25 percent of the authorized capital can be recognized as the beneficial owner. For example, if in a limited liability company one participant owns 60 percent, and the remaining two have 20 percent each, then it is quite obvious that in this case the beneficiary will be the participant with a share of 60 percent.
Moreover, there are already banks that automatically recognize the general director as a beneficiary if nothing is indicated in the questionnaire in the “information about beneficial owners” column. Although there are those who consider each situation separately.
Also, the sole executive body of a legal entity can be recognized as the beneficial owner. This right is granted to the bank in the event that, as a result of all the measures taken, the beneficial owner cannot be identified (paragraph 5, subparagraph 2, paragraph 1, article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). For example, if the company does not respond to the bank’s request to provide its beneficiaries. Or if the company has provided all the information, but it is impossible to identify the beneficiary. We are talking about a situation where, for example, a limited liability company has five participants, each of whom owns a share of 20 percent. In this case, none of them can be considered a beneficiary (since to be recognized as a beneficiary, the share must exceed 25 percent). Therefore, the bank can conclude that since it was not possible to identify the beneficiary after taking all possible measures, it is the sole executive body.
If the company does not fill out the column about beneficiaries in the questionnaire, then the bank can stop there (after all, it has taken all available measures to identify the beneficiary) and recognize the sole executive body as the beneficiary. But another option is also possible - the bank will notice that the chain of participation includes foreign companies, or will see other suspicious signs. Then he will use any methods to force the client to reveal the beneficiaries or change the bank.
Other controversial issues arise. For example, it is not clear who is considered the beneficial owner if one individual has a dominant participation in the capital of a legal entity, and another individual has the ability to control its actions. It seems more logical that the ability to control the actions of a legal entity is more significant for the purposes of combating the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism, so the beneficiary can be considered the individual who controls the actions of the company. It is also not entirely clear whether a company can have more than one beneficial owner. In Law No. 115-FZ, the definition of a beneficial owner is formulated in such a way that one can draw the following conclusion: there should be only one. But then difficulties arise with determining the beneficiary in a situation where there are two individuals in the company and each of them has a share of participation (indirectly) in the capital of 50 percent.
Risks when disclosing beneficiaries. Some companies do not have any risk in providing information about beneficial owners. In particular, if they are participants (shareholders). In this case, there is nothing to hide, since such information is already known to the bank. It’s another matter if the company uses various tax planning schemes with the participation of companies located in offshore zones. There is a risk that at some stage tax legislation may limit the use of bilateral double tax treaties. And this trend can now be seen in many countries, including Russia. In this case tax authorities access will be provided, for example, to information accumulated by banks regarding the beneficial owners of clients. Then companies that use so-called tax planning (and perhaps not only them) may overnight lose all the benefits of the scheme they have implemented, which involves the use large quantity foreign companies.
True, it must be taken into account that the bank is obliged to maintain bank secrecy and does not have the right to transfer information about the client, and therefore about its beneficiaries, to third parties (clause 1 of Article 857 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Information containing bank secrecy is subject to disclosure only in cases prescribed by law.
Also, disclosing beneficial ownership information could potentially make companies worse off in some legal cases. In particular, in the context of bankruptcy of controlled companies. The fact is that the term “person controlling the debtor”, used in the Federal Law of October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 127-FZ), is generally similar to the concept of “beneficial owner” , used in law No. 115-FZ. The only difference is that Law No. 127-FZ establishes a higher ownership threshold (50 percent) as a determining factor for the presence of control. If the court hearing the bankruptcy case is provided with a bank questionnaire in which the client (the debtor in this case) indicated its beneficial owners, as well as relevant supporting documents, this can serve as significant evidence of the existence of control of such persons over the debtor. And then there will be a risk that the debtor will be declared bankrupt as a result of the actions or inaction of the persons controlling the debtor (essentially, his beneficiaries), which threatens them with being brought to subsidiary liability for his obligations in the event of insufficiency of the debtor’s property (clause 4 of article 10 of law no. 127-FZ).
Beneficial Owner Identification Procedure
Law No. 115-FZ states that banks are required to take measures, including to establish information about beneficiaries, which are specified in subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ (on requesting information about the client and its beneficiaries). Thus, the bank has the right to inquire about the beneficiary ( individual) the following information: last name, first name, patronymic (unless otherwise provided by law or national custom), citizenship, date of birth, details of an identity document, migration card details, details of a document confirming the right of a foreign citizen or stateless person to stay (reside) in the Russian Federation, address of place of residence (registration) or place of stay, TIN (if its availability).
This is not the first time that some companies are faced with the requirement to provide information about the chain of ownership. Read more in the article “Features of contracts with state-owned companies. How to respond to the requirement to disclose beneficiaries” (No. 12, 2012).
Identification of clients' beneficiaries. Banks identify beneficial owners twice: before opening a bank account, and also during the next update of client information. During initial identification, that is, when a company contacts a bank to conclude a bank account agreement, the bank provides a questionnaire in which you need to fill out a column about the company’s beneficiaries. Based on this information, the bank will make a decision on opening an account.
If we are talking about an already existing client of the bank, the bank is obliged to establish the beneficial owner of such a client at the next update of information about him. Such information updating is carried out at least once a year (subparagraph 3, paragraph 1, article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). Thus, no later than one year from the date of entry into force of Law No. 134-FZ (that is, no later than 06/30/14), banks must complete the identification of the beneficial owners of their current clients. If the bank has doubts about the reliability and accuracy of previously received information, then it is obliged to send a request demanding that this information be provided within seven working days following the day such doubts arise (subclause 3, clause 1, article 7 of Law No. 115- Federal Law). For example, if he finds any of the transactions involving funds suspicious.
Cases when the bank does not identify beneficiaries. Law No. 115-FZ lists several cases when banks may not identify the beneficiaries of their clients. Firstly, if a client - an individual contacts the bank to make a payment or transfer (including electronic funds) in an amount not exceeding 15 thousand rubles, and also if he purchases or sells foreign cash for the same amount . Although this rule will not apply if a bank employee has suspicions that this operation is being carried out for the purpose of legalizing (laundering) proceeds from crime or financing terrorism (subclauses 1.1–1.4, clause 1, article 7 of law No. 115-FZ ).
From the wording of paragraph 13 of Article 3 of Law No. 115-FZ, it follows that banks are required to identify the beneficiaries of not only companies, but also individuals - bank clients. After all, it talks about a person who controls any client (regardless of whether it is a company or an individual). Most likely, this was done intentionally: to prevent money laundering through fake individual entrepreneurs.
In addition, identification of beneficial owners is not carried out in the case of accepting clients who are state authorities or local governments, institutions under their jurisdiction, state extra-budgetary funds, state corporations or organizations in which the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities have more than 50 percent of shares (shares) in the capital. Also, international organizations, foreign states and their administrative-territorial units that have independent legal capacity are not included in the identification. And also issuers of securities admitted to organized trading, who disclose information in accordance with securities legislation (subclause 2, clause 1, article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). True, the same subclause provides for an exception - when Rosfinmonitoring sends a request to provide information about beneficiaries.
Risks of failure to provide information about beneficial owners
Law No. 115-FZ only provides for the client’s obligation to provide the bank with information about the beneficial owner. Neither administrative nor criminal liability has been provided for a client who has failed to fulfill such an obligation (there are no corresponding bills yet either). Despite this, companies face other risks of failing to disclose their beneficial owners.
Refusal to conclude a bank account agreement. If a company has just applied to the bank to start banking services, but has not indicated its beneficiaries in the application form, it may face the bank’s refusal to accept it for service. Thus, according to paragraph 5.2 of Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ, the bank has such a right if there are suspicions that the purpose of concluding such an agreement is to carry out transactions for the purpose of legalizing (laundering) proceeds from crime or financing terrorism, and at the same time if such a possibility is provided for in the rules internal control jar. Naturally, we are talking about a case when the bank really has doubts regarding the activities of a potential client. The fact that, due to objective economic reasons, the bank is interested in opening an account for the client, allows us to conclude that banks are likely to resort to such refusals only if they really believe that servicing such a client creates a risk of sanctions being applied to the bank by regulatory authorities .
Refusal to make a payment. According to paragraph 11 of Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ, the bank has the right to refuse to execute a client’s order to complete a monetary transaction in two cases. Firstly, if the documents necessary to record information in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 115-FZ are not submitted. Secondly, if, as a result of the implementation of internal control rules, a bank employee suspects that the operation is being carried out for the purpose of legalizing (laundering) proceeds from crime or financing terrorism. True, the bank will not be able to refuse to credit funds received to the account of an individual or legal entity. Thus, if the company does not provide information about the beneficiaries, there is a possibility that the bank will be able to use any of these grounds and refuse to carry out the client’s monetary transactions. Moreover, if within calendar year The bank has twice refused to carry out transactions with the client due to the client’s failure to provide documents required by the bank, then the bank has the right to terminate the bank account agreement with him (clause 5.2 of Article 7 of Law No. 115-FZ). But it seems that these will be extreme measures, given that it is not profitable for the bank to lose customers.
“Information about participants (shareholders) is not enough to determine the ultimate beneficiary”
The definition of beneficial owner, enshrined in Law No. 115-FZ, has long been known both to international financial practice and to Russian financial organizations, primarily banks. Some of them (primarily subsidiaries of foreign organizations) are already requesting information about beneficial owners as part of the KYC (“Know Your Customer”) procedure. The Bank of Russia has also been requesting information about the beneficial owners of Russian banks for several years. Therefore, Russian banks definitely have a certain understanding on this issue. It is difficult to call it clear due to the vagueness of the wording “indirect possession” and, as a consequence, the inevitable ambiguity of its interpretation. But it is absolutely clear that information about the participants (shareholders) of the company, especially if they are legal entities, is not enough to determine the ultimate beneficiary. Members of the board of directors are also not automatically considered beneficial owners, since their ability to control the client’s actions is limited both by law and by the provisions of the constituent documents. Here we need to look at each specific case separately. Obvious situations of indirect participation in a company seem to be a chain of shareholding, confirmed by information from available sources - for example, trade and other registers and not encumbered, for example, by trust agreements. In practice, such obviousness in its pure form is rare - for example, if the chain ends with a public company and it is not possible to establish the final beneficiary. A more common situation is when individuals - the real owners of the business - are the beneficiaries of the trust.
recipient of payment of money, income, profit and other advantages and benefits under a debt instrument or contract, the so-called person who transfers his property into trust and receives income from it
Information about the concept of Beneficiary, the rights of the Beneficiary, their identification, the Beneficiary code, and what a beneficiary is
Expand contents
Collapse content
Beneficiary is the definition
The beneficiary is, a legal or natural person who receives money, financial benefit based on a debt instrument or agreement. In addition, he also receives income from the trust by also renting the property to another person. And, of course, the Beneficiary can make a profit by transferring shares to shareholders for use by a broker.
There are several other interpretations of the term beneficiary. When conducting trust operations, the beneficiary is the person in whose favor the trust management of the property is carried out. In insurance, the beneficiary is the person designated to receive benefits. His name is included in the insurance policy.
You can also become a beneficiary by virtue of inheritance law. This occurs when the person recorded in the insurance policy as a beneficiary does not live to see the end of the insurance contract. When insuring property, any owner becomes a beneficiary if his property is insured for his benefit by another person. In addition, the beneficiary is any person in whose favor the issuing bank will open a documentary letter of credit.
Beneficiary(also beneficiary, beneficiary from French benefice - profit, benefit)- This, physical or legal entity, to whom the cash payment is intended, the recipient of the money.
A beneficiary is one who receives income from his property transferred into trust management to another person, legal or physical (when leasing, hiring), or from the use of his property by third parties (for example, when a shareholder transfers shares for use to a broker in order to obtain maximum profit (dividend)), the true owner.
The beneficiary is In the case of a trust, the person who receives the income from the trust.
The beneficiary is, in insurance, a person appointed by the policyholder to receive insurance payments under an insurance contract. Fixed in the insurance policy.
The beneficiary is, there may also be a person by virtue of inheritance law, if the person designated as such in the insurance policy (agreement) does not live to see the expiration of the insurance contract.
In property insurance, any owner can be a beneficiary if the property belonging to him is insured by another person in his favor. For example, the lessee (tenant) enters into an insurance contract, being the policyholder, and the beneficiary under the contract is the lessor (lessor).
The beneficiary is also the person in whose favor the issuing bank opens a documentary letter of credit
Beneficiary rights
As Avanesova G. notes, “the rights of the beneficiary to receive a sum of money under a bank guarantee may be at risk in accordance with Article 174 of the Civil Code * (384), which states that if the powers of a body of a legal entity to complete a transaction are limited by its constituent documents in comparison with the way they are defined in the power of attorney, in the law, or as they can be considered obvious from the situation in which the transaction is made, and when it was carried out, such a body of the legal entity went beyond these restrictions, the transaction may be declared invalid by the court at the request of the person, in whose interests restrictions are established, if it is proven that the other party to the transaction knew or should have known about these restrictions.
In addition, it should be borne in mind that according to Article 173 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, “a transaction entered into by a legal entity in conflict with the goals of its activities, which are specifically limited to its constituent documents, or by a legal entity that does not have a license to engage in the relevant activity, may be declared invalid by the court at the request of this legal entity, its founder (participant) or the government body exercising control or supervision over the activities of the legal entity, if it is proven that the other party to the transaction knew or should have known about its illegality"
With the adoption of the Federal Law "On State Registration of Legal Entities" and in connection with the amendments made on August 7, 2001 to the Federal Law "On Banks and Banking Activities", the problem of ascertaining the legal capacity of the guarantor becomes less complicated. And yet the need to study the legal capacity of the guarantor remains. As G. Avanesova correctly notes, the beneficiary’s verification of the guarantor’s documents confirming the legality of its creation, special legal capacity, legality and powers of the bodies acting on its behalf should not seem to him a waste of time, since the information contained or absent in the constituent documents will help correctly resolve the issue of accepting the guarantee and fulfilling the main obligation.
The main source of information about the guarantor is its charter and therefore, before starting to study it, the beneficiary must make sure that it has latest edition charter. He must look at the original copy of the certificate of state registration of the legal entity, since on its reverse side notes are made about all changes made to the charter. * (387)
A bank guarantee cannot be revoked by the guarantor unless otherwise provided in it.
The right of claim against the guarantor belonging to the beneficiary under a bank guarantee cannot be transferred to another person, unless otherwise provided in the guarantee.
The beneficiary's request for payment of a sum of money under a bank guarantee is submitted to the guarantor in writing, accompanied by the documents specified in the guarantee. In the request or in an appendix to it, the beneficiary must indicate what the principal’s violation of the main obligation for which the guarantee was issued is.
The beneficiary's claim must be submitted to the guarantor before the end of the period specified in the guarantee for which it was issued.
Upon receipt of the beneficiary's demand, the guarantor must immediately notify the principal and provide him with copies of the demand with all documents relating to it.
The guarantor must review the beneficiary's claim and its accompanying documents within a reasonable time and use reasonable care to determine whether the claim and its accompanying documents comply with the terms of the guarantee.
The guarantor refuses to satisfy the beneficiary's claim if this claim or the documents attached to it do not comply with the terms of the guarantee or are presented to the guarantor after the end of the period specified in the guarantee. The guarantor must immediately notify the beneficiary of the refusal to satisfy his claim.
If the guarantor, before satisfying the beneficiary's claim, becomes aware that the main obligation secured by the bank guarantee has already been fulfilled in full or in the relevant part, has terminated for other reasons or is invalid, he must immediately notify the beneficiary and the principal about this.
The beneficiary's repeated claim received by the guarantor after such notification is subject to satisfaction by the guarantor.
Beneficiary code (decoding KBe)
KB (Beneficiary Code) carries encrypted information about the recipient of the funds.
The value of this field consists of two digits: the first digit indicates whether the recipient is a resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the second indicates the sector of the economy to which he belongs.
First digit – Residence code
1 – resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan
2 – non-resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan
The second digit is the economic sector
1 – Central Government
2 – Regional and local authorities management
3 – Central (national) banks
4 – Other depository institutions
5 – Others financial organizations
6 – State non-financial organizations
7 – Non-governmental non-financial organizations
8 – Non-profit organizations serving households
9 – Households
Questionnaire of an individual (beneficiary)
The specified information is requested by the Bank from the Client on the basis of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Federal Law of August 7, 2001 No. 115-FZ “On combating legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism.” Based on paragraph 14 of Article 7 Law 115-FZ The Client is obliged to provide the Bank with the specified information.
In accordance with Article 3 of Law 115-FZ (as amended by Federal Law No. 134-FZ of June 28, 2013 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Combating Illegal Financial Transactions”), the beneficial owner is an individual which ultimately directly or indirectly (through third parties) owns (has a predominant participation of more than 25 percent in the capital) of a client - a legal entity or has the ability to control the actions of the client. In the absence of ultimate owners with a direct/indirect share (through third parties) ownership of more than 25%, the questionnaire includes information about the individual (individuals) who has the ability to control the actions of the Client - a legal entity.
The questionnaire must be accompanied by a diagram of the ownership structure of the Client - a legal entity, including intermediate organizations, up to the ultimate owners - individuals with a direct/indirect (through third parties) ownership share of more than 25%, drawn up by analogy with Appendix 1 to this questionnaire.
What is Benefice?
Beneficium (from Latin beneficium - benefit). In the Middle Ages and later, this word denoted land ownership transferred for lifelong use on condition of service - court, administrative, but mainly military; therefore, benefice is usually understood as a military conditional land holding (in contrast to the precarium, which was a conditional holding of the peasant type). Failure to comply with the conditions by the holder entailed the liquidation of the benefit. In the event of the death of the recipient or grantee, the benefits were returned to the owner or his heirs. The benefices could then be transferred on the basis of a new agreement.
The emergence of benefice- one of the manifestations of the agrarian revolution that occurred in the Frankish state in the 8th century. : allods, donations of complete unconditional ownership were replaced by grants for lifelong use. Has changed social structure Frankish society, a new military layer of beneficiaries appeared, connected with the royal power through land relations. In the IX-X centuries. benefices acquired the features of a feud (lena). Beneficiaries contributed to the emergence of professional knight warriors, as well as the emergence of relationships of personal loyalty and patronage (vassalage) between the grantor and the beneficiary. Benefices were distributed not only by kings, but also by large feudal lords. Soon many of the beneficiaries became more powerful than the kings.
From the beginning of the 6th century, this term also began to mean a profitable position or plot of land received by clergy as a reward
Who is the Beneficial Owner?
Government officials have repeatedly spoken about the need to identify the ultimate owners, justifying this with the task of ensuring transparency of the ownership structure and interested party transactions, tax aspects, as well as the desire of the state to clearly understand who is behind business structures and is ultimately responsible for their activities. As a result, in June 2013, the concept of “beneficial owner” appeared in Russian legislation. At first glance, nothing has changed in the activities of business entities - additional responsibility has not yet been introduced. However, collecting information about beneficial owners is only the first step towards future changes in the field of business control.
Beneficial owner vs controlling person
The concept of “beneficial owner” was introduced into the Federal Law of August 7, 2001 No. 115-FZ “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and the Financing of Terrorism” by the Federal Law of June 28, 2013 No. 134-FZ “On Amendments to Certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation regarding combating illegal financial transactions.”
The new concept will be used for the purpose of mandatory collection and storage of information about any company that is a client of an organization that carries out transactions with funds or other property.
The innovation will affect almost all legal entities that have a bank account or are clients of insurance companies or professional participants in the securities market.
The need to adopt these changes is due to bringing Russian legislation into compliance with the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
In general, the definition of beneficial owner given in Law No. 115-FZ corresponds to the definition contained in Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of October 26, 2005 on preventing the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing).In accordance with this Directive, the beneficial owner is an individual ( person) who ultimately owns or controls the client, and/or the individual on whose behalf the transaction or activity is conducted.
It is easy to notice that the new concept is similar to the concept of “controlling person” already used in legislation (federal laws dated April 22, 1996 No. 39 Federal Law “On the Securities Market”, dated October 26, 2002 No. 127-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)”) (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 127-FZ). The main difference between them is the threshold for owning shares in the authorized capital - a person who has the ability to control more than 50% of the votes in the authorized capital is recognized as a controlling person. highest body management of the controlled organization.
To this we can also add the concepts already contained in Russian legislation:
Affiliates;
Group of persons;
Interdependent persons;
Stakeholders.
An active discussion continues regarding the innovations provided for by the proposed amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Along with the concept of “affiliated persons,” whose status is determined by formal characteristics, it is proposed to introduce into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the concept of “controlling person,” whose status is associated, first of all, with the ability to control the management of a legal entity, including informally. Behind the proposed wording about “the ability to give mandatory instructions for such a legal entity” (Article 53.3 of draft federal law No. 47538-6) there are unlimited grounds for classifying various relationships as entailing control of one person over another.
In current legislation, such relationships of dependence are regulated by Art. 105 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Subsidiary business society”, where we are talking only about relationships of dependence between societies or partnerships. The changes proposed in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation also introduce individuals and organizations of other organizational and legal forms into the circle of controlling persons and imply both direct and indirect control.
The variety of definitions seems unnecessary, but it is caused by the difference in the tasks facing the legislator. The main goal of the fiscal authorities is to counteract so-called tax planning, and in this case, recognizing the beneficial owner of an individual who is ultimately the actual recipient of the income would correspond to this goal.
The purpose of antimonopoly authorities is to control economic concentration, and they (as well as securities market regulators) rather require information about the persons exercising actual control, as well as about the forms and grounds of dependence (economic and legal), i.e. on controlling persons. Law No. 115-FZ pursues another goal - to combat the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime (we also include corruption here) and the financing of terrorism.
The legal status (legal personality, rights and obligations) of the beneficial owner is not defined by law. Information is collected in order to combat illegal financial transactions.
However, the state has repeatedly voiced other plans. For example, the Budget Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly dated May 25, 2009 “On Budget Policy in 2010–2012” contained recommendations to legislate mechanisms to counter the use of double taxation agreements in order to minimize taxes when carrying out transactions with foreign companies in cases where the ultimate beneficiaries are not residents of the country with which the agreement is concluded.
The main directions of tax policy of the Russian Federation for 2012 and for the planning period of 2013 and 2014 (approved by the Government of the Russian Federation on July 7, 2011) provide for amendments to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation in order to counter the use of international tax agreements for unseemly purposes, as well as for the purpose of creating tax incentives for the transition of organizations from offshore zones to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. In particular, it is assumed that the benefits and preferences provided for by current international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party will not apply in cases where their ultimate beneficiaries are not residents of countries party to such treaties. It is possible that the information base currently being created will later be used in other areas of state interests.
Returning to the issue of the relationship between the concepts of “beneficial owner” and “controlling person,” one cannot help but recall the liability of controlling persons that already exists in the current legislation.
In particular, in accordance with Law No. 127-FZ, the persons controlling the debtor are jointly and severally liable for his monetary obligations and (or) obligations to make mandatory payments.
Thus, in one of the cases, the defendant was held vicariously liable for debts because, according to the court, he established actual informal control over the activities of the debtor through persons formally controlling him. When making a decision, the court considered various evidence of the debtor’s control over the defendant (including a letter of representation sent to the auditor, which contained a list of companies controlled by the defendant) (Resolution of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 27, 2012 No. 17AP-1775/2010-GK in case No. A60-1260/2009). Obviously, the availability of information about the beneficial owner in the event of litigation of this type will be further evidence of actual control. We should not forget about the proposed amendments to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation mentioned above, which also propose to introduce in a number of cases joint and several liability with a controlled legal entity for the obligations of the controlled entity.
Disclosure
This is not the first time that Russian business has faced the need to disclose the beneficial owner. Thus, at the beginning of 2012, in accordance with the Instruction of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation dated December 28, 2011 No. VP-P13-9308, many enterprises (mainly companies with state participation) began to send requests to counterparties to provide information regarding the entire chain of owners, including beneficiaries, in including final ones. In the absence of an appropriate concept and legal regulation of the procedure for disclosing the ultimate beneficiary, many organizations have encountered difficulties in providing the requested information.
It must be said that with the introduction of the definition of beneficial owner, the procedure did not become clearer. However, from July 1, 2013, banks are required to take measures to identify the beneficial owners of clients.
In accordance with Law No. 115-FZ, the volume, nature and procedure for providing information about the beneficial owners of clients are determined in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation. Since such a procedure has not yet been published, it can be assumed that the requirements of Law No. 115-FZ and the Regulations on the identification of clients and beneficiaries by credit institutions in order to combat the legalization (laundering) of proceeds from crime and the financing of terrorism will apply.
In accordance with Law No. 115-FZ, in order to identify the beneficiary - an individual, it is necessary to establish:
Last name, first name, and patronymic;
Citizenship;
Date of birth;
Details of the identity document;
Details of a migration card, a document confirming the right of a foreign citizen or stateless person to stay (reside) in the Russian Federation;
Address of place of residence (registration) or place of stay;
Taxpayer identification number (if available).
It should be noted that along with the new concept of “beneficial owner”, Law No. 115-FZ uses the concept of “beneficiary” and the Regulations regulate the process of identifying the beneficiary. According to Law No. 115-FZ, this is a person for whose benefit the client acts, including on the basis of an agency agreement, contracts of agency, commission and trust management, when conducting transactions with funds and other property. Based on the above definition, Law No. 115-FZ allows that a legal entity can also be a beneficiary.
However, the beneficial owner can only be an individual. Therefore, it should be expected that banks will require disclosure of both the beneficial owner and the beneficial owner.
If everything is more or less clear with the issue of identifying the beneficial owner (since it means establishing the identity of an individual - the beneficial owner), then the question of actually identifying the beneficial owner remains open. Its establishment is actually confirmation of the circumstances on the basis of which it is recognized as a person corresponding to the concept of “beneficial owner” given in Law No. 115-FZ. The legislation does not contain requirements for confirmation of such circumstances, and a credit institution has no reason to request from the client information other than that necessary to identify the beneficial owner.
Currently, to generate information on beneficial owners, banks have the right to use any sources, including information and documents provided by the client (a questionnaire of a legal entity, a letter from the client addressed to the bank, etc.). At the same time, Law No. 115-FZ has now also introduced a provision that “if, as a result of taking the measures provided for by this Federal Law to identify beneficial owners, the beneficial owner is not identified, the sole executive body of the client may be recognized as the beneficial owner.” This rule is obviously aimed at combating so-called shell companies, however, it will most likely be applied to organizations whose beneficial owner is truly impossible to establish.
There will be many such organizations, including:
Non-profit organizations that do not have an owner (although there may be beneficial owners);
Mutual investment funds;
Companies that have several shareholders or participants, none of whom meet the characteristics of a beneficial owner established by the Law;
Companies whose participants use trust structures to own assets, etc.
As already mentioned, all legal entities that have a bank account or are a client of an organization that carries out transactions with funds will have to disclose information about beneficiaries. The obligation to disclose beneficial owners will not affect only the following categories of customers:
state authorities, other state bodies, local governments, institutions under their jurisdiction, state extra-budgetary funds, state corporations or organizations in which the Russian Federation, constituent entities of the Russian Federation or municipalities have more than 50% of the shares (stakes) in the capital;
international organizations, foreign states or administrative-territorial units of foreign states with independent legal capacity;
issuers of securities admitted to organized trading, disclosing information in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on securities.
In accordance with Art. 6 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2006 No. 152-FZ “On Personal Data”, the consent of the subject of personal data for their processing is not required if such processing is necessary for:
Achieving the goals provided for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation or law;
Implementation and fulfillment of the functions, powers and responsibilities assigned by the legislation of the Russian Federation to the operator.
About the final beneficiaries
The campaign to find the ultimate beneficiaries of Russian companies has not yet produced very noticeable results. At least when it comes to the new requirements of the Federal Financial Markets Service. According to amendments to the law on the securities market, shareholders owning more than 5% of shares must notify joint stock companies about the persons who control them. The FFMS regulation prescribes that issuers themselves must then disclose this information in the form of material facts and publish them on agency feeds.
Approximately 250 Russian issuers actually disclosed before the beginning of May, that is, in deadline, information about the final beneficiaries. In total, about 750 messages were published on news agencies' feeds. It seems like a good indicator.
However, ideally, all 4,000 Russian issuers that publish quarterly reports and facts should have received notices from their shareholders and disclosed this information. In fact, some companies did not disclose information, since they had previously reported about their beneficiaries and should not have done so again. As far as we can tell, the remaining companies, of which the vast majority, did not disclose information because their shareholders and beneficiaries simply did not give them notice. It should also be taken into account that, according to the logic of the new provision, companies had to separately disclose information about each person who sent them information - that is, along the entire chain of owners.
As a result, in most cases, issuers that did publish messages limited themselves to disclosing information about intermediate owner companies, and not about individuals - the final beneficiaries. Thus, among 25 large companies, only 4 issuers reported private owners.
Finally, I will quote the document. In accordance with the order of the Federal Financial Markets Service of Russia No. 11-44/pz-n, no later than 90 days from the date of entry into force (i.e. no later than the beginning of May 2012), shareholders were required to notify issuers about the presence of controlling persons or their absence. In addition, persons who have the right to directly or indirectly control more than 5% of the votes in the issuer were required to send a notification about the share controlled by them, and organizations controlled by the issuer - a notification about the number of voting shares or ADRs that they have the right to dispose of, or about the absence such right
Beneficiary and letter of credit
The beneficiary is responsible for carefully examining the letter of credit to ensure that:
The beneficiary is able to receive all the documents provided for in the letter of credit;
All terms of the letter of credit can be met;
The letter of credit was opened in accordance with the purchase and sale agreement or other agreement.
In addition to the fact that problems arise as a result of insufficient agreement between the applicant and the beneficiary on the essential details of the underlying agreement, a significant part of the difficulties in transactions with documentary letters of credit is due to the fact that the beneficiary has not scrupulously examined the letter of credit immediately after its receipt to determine the above points.
Beneficiary, letter of credit and advising bank
During the above L/C review, the beneficiary is strongly advised to contact the advising bank for advice and consultation, at which point the advising bank may provide its expertise.
In consultation with the advising bank, the beneficiary should clarify the nature of any changes that need to be made, especially if circumstances have changed since the agreement.
Responsibilities of the Beneficiary
In addition to the obligation to check the letter of credit upon receipt and ask for any necessary changes, the beneficiary has the obligation to ship or perform obligations under the letter of credit and to provide the documents required under the letter of credit.
Processing changes to a letter of credit
Despite the valid agreement and the letter of credit under which the beneficiary can act, when the beneficiary prepares the presentation of documents, discrepancies may arise in them. In this case, the beneficiary can contact the applicant to evaluate the latest discrepancies and understand whether the applicant will object to these discrepancies.
Valid submission of documents
L/A practitioners should be aware that while most beneficiaries carefully review the documents received to ensure they comply with the letter of credit, some beneficiaries submit documents without due care.
The beneficiary is obliged to ensure that:
All required documents have been collected to ensure that they are presented in accordance with the terms of the letter of credit and that any required drafts are duly issued;
Signed and endorsed if necessary;
Where there are discrepancies, they are noted and explained, and the accompanying letter includes instructions on how to deal with them;
The covering letter indicates where and how the payment should be made, the contact person, his phone numbers, fax numbers, etc.
It is the beneficiary's responsibility to ensure that a valid presentation has been made and that the bank to which the presentation is made has precise instructions on how the presentation should be processed.
Beneficiary and applicant
The beneficiary should be wary of any request by the applicant to agree to the applicant being named as the consignee on the transport documents provided for in the letter of credit. If the beneficiary agrees to such a request, then in the event of non-payment, the beneficiary will no longer have the opportunity to prevent the issuing bank or other party responsible for delivering the goods to the ordering party as the consignee.
For the smooth progress of a documentary letter of credit transaction, it is always useful if friendly relations have been established between the beneficiary and the applicant, which at least allow working problems to be resolved from a position of good will.
We disclose the beneficiaries of foreign companies
The peculiarities of the Anglo-Saxon legal system make it possible to separate the figures of shareholders and beneficiaries of a company. And if information about shareholders is publicly available in almost all countries (with the exception of offshore jurisdictions, direct cooperation with companies where transactions are recognized as controlled), then information about the company’s beneficiaries is more difficult to obtain - only the registrar company and the servicing bank have it.
Recently, more and more often the media have been mentioning the disclosure of various foreign ownership structures, amendments to bilateral international agreements regarding the exchange of information about the ownership of bank accounts, etc.
Let's look at three typical situations in which it becomes necessary to disclose the beneficiaries of a company formally controlled by an independent foreign company.
Firstly, disclosure of beneficiaries is voluntary - directly by the beneficiary himself
The last most striking situation is related to the owners of Domodedovo. Let us recall that after the terrorist attack at Domodedovo in 2011, all possible inspections were carried out against the group of companies - from the tax office to an inspection by the Prosecutor General's Office, which led to the initiation of a criminal case for violation of aviation safety rules. The President demanded to reveal the owners of the airport, however, apart from the fact that the owner of the main company is a resident of the classic offshore island of Man, it was not possible to find out anything. Then it announced an IPO, canceled an IPO, and even announced the sale of the company to new investors. The buyer, however, was a Cypriot company, and the final owners remained undisclosed.
In our opinion, the impossibility of filing claims, at least at the tax level, was caused by compliance with the “golden rule”: not to mix ensuring property security with tax optimization.
After this, the stick was replaced with a carrot, promising significant federal investment in infrastructure development. A completely logical condition for this was the disclosure of the ultimate owners of the companies: according to the President, “it is important to clearly understand who, at whose expense, in what volume will finance the development of airport infrastructure and what is ultimately responsible for.”
After this, one of the company’s top managers, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, named himself the beneficiary of the airport. It is still difficult to predict how the situation will develop further: a number of experts express the opinion that the newly announced beneficiary is not such and is covering for a much more influential figure. But in the context of our story, it is not the figure of the beneficiary itself that is important, but the motivation to reveal it. The transition from some prohibitive and threatening measures to stimulating ones is quite symbolic.
The second situation - let's call it voluntary-compulsory
Associated with recently introduced amendments to the Federal Law “On Combating the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime” in order to counter financial transactions. We wrote in detail about the changes earlier.
In accordance with the changes, banks and other organizations carrying out transactions with cash and other property are required to take measures to identify the beneficial owners of organizations when opening a current account, as well as regularly update information about beneficiaries and beneficial owners. It is prohibited to open a bank account without identifying the beneficial owner of a legal entity. Moreover, if a legal entity does not provide information about its beneficiaries, the director of the company may be recognized as a beneficiary.
Let us recall that the beneficial owner is an individual who ultimately directly or indirectly (through third parties) owns (has a predominant participation of more than 25 percent in the capital) a client - a legal entity or has the ability to control the actions of the client.
In other words, the bank may require disclosure of the ownership structure of the company if its participant, for example, is a foreign organization. Being interested in opening a bank account in a specific “convenient” bank, clients themselves disclose all information to the bank. Currently, such information is confidential, but does not relate to banking secrecy, and therefore can be provided at the request of authorized bodies.
Third situation requiring disclosure of beneficiaries
Associated with litigation and the need to prove the absence of communication between some parties to transactions.
A striking illustration was the Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2013 in case No. 14828/12 (the text of the resolution was published only in July 2013).
The Supreme Arbitration Court indicated that if an offshore company participates in a legal dispute, it bears the burden of proving the presence or absence of circumstances indicating the independence of the offshore company in relations with other participants in the process. Such proof is carried out, first of all, by disclosing information about who really stands behind the company, that is, disclosing information about its ultimate beneficiary.
Examples of Beneficiaries
Minister of Natural Resources Trutnev turned out to be a beneficiary of Uralkali
The conflict “Yuri Trutnev – Oleg Chirkunov” flared up in earnest. The spark for a powerful political fire, as usual, was the accident in Berezniki. The two politicians have almost opposite views on solving the Bereznikov problem. The Perm leader is being helped to survive his dispute with the minister by his high-ranking friend, the head of Rosoboronexport, Sergei Chemezov. Meanwhile, URA.Ru became aware of a sensational fact: Yuri Trutnev is a beneficiary of Uralkali. In this regard, many of the minister’s words and movements appear in a slightly different light...
Mutual hostility of the governor Perm region Oleg Chirkunov and the Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation Yuri Trutnev have already become difficult to hide. And this applies to both politicians. Their confrontation is especially noticeable in the course of solving the problem with the accident in Berezniki.
The misunderstanding started a long time ago. As a high-ranking source in the regional government told URA.Ru, immediately after the mine accident in 2006, the Perm governor said that the disaster in Berezniki was man-made. Thus, the company itself was also to blame for the emergency. However, the Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation thought differently. From his words it turned out that these were exclusively natural disasters. Accordingly, Uralkali in this case was not involved in the accident.
Mr. Chirkunov was unable to resist for long. At the federal level, a government commission was created to monitor the progress of solving the problem in Berezniki. It was expected that it would be headed by the head of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, Sergei Shoigu. But in the end, Yuri Trutnev still won the right to manage the structure. Accordingly, the minister has many new opportunities to lobby his interests.
In this regard, the sensational fact that became the property of “URA.Ru” seems very interesting. As a trustworthy source in government structures told URA.Ru, Mr. Trutnev is a beneficiary of Uralkali. Naturally, in the situation with the accident at the company’s First Mining Department, the minister tried in every possible way to shield Uralkali.
The authorities quickly “forgot” about the budget money that was allocated several years ago, during the corporatization of Uralkali, to fill karst voids in Berezniki. “URA.Ru” learned that these funds were not fully utilized and the work on filling the voids was also not fully completed. They also did not remember that in 2006, in preparation for the IPO, the company sharply increased the production of raw materials in order to increase the price of securities, and this became one of the reasons for the accident at the mine.
To top it all off, the examination recognized that the disaster at the First Mining Department of Uralkali was “natural”, and the company was allowed not to participate in financing the elimination of the consequences of the accident. All money to eliminate the emergency was allocated from the budget. Only recently Uralkali was attracted to invest in two social projects in Berezniki.
At the same time, Yuri Trutnev was slowing down the resolution of the issue with the construction of a 6-kilometer bypass section of the railway in Berezniki. The fact is that Uralkali doesn’t really care about this detour. First of all, two enterprises suffer from problems with the railway - Silvinit and VSMPO-Avisma. It is this section of the railway track that is used to transport carnallite from Silvinit to VSMPO-Avisme. As for Uralkali, the company operates successfully without this bypass. Moreover, it even benefits from the problems of its competitors, in particular Silvinit. Therefore, the minister was in no particular hurry to resolve the “railroad issue” and focused on relocating Berezniki residents from the danger zone.
So, probably, Moscow would not have paid attention to the railway somewhere in the distant Urals, if not for the intervention of the head of Rosoboronexport, Sergei Chemezov. Oleg Chirkunov, who has been friends with the Muscovite since his days working in the KGB, talked with his friend about his problems with Yuri Petrovich. Sergei Chemezov turned out to be quick-witted and quickly found a solution to the issue. The head of Rosoboronexport decided to surprise a friend and called him with intriguing news: “On November 13, watch TV channels. You'll see something interesting."
Oleg Chirkunov was really impressed. On November 13, at a meeting of the Presidium of the State Council in Krasnoyarsk, Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded that the government and JSC Russian Railways take more seriously the problem of constructing a section of the railway bypassing the risk zone in the city of Berezniki. “We need to do this, this is not a joke,” the president said. After that everything went like clockwork. The real work has begun. The authorities began to regularly report on progress in the construction of the bypass. It turned out that Sergei Chemezov found an approach to Vladimir Vladimirovich and asked him to understand the Bereznikov situation.
The press service of OJSC Uralkali left all questions from URA.Ru regarding the situation with the accident at the mine without comment. Representatives of the press service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation reacted similarly. “Unfortunately, to your question about Yuri Trutnev as a beneficiary of Uralkali, I cannot answer anything except that this is nonsense,” emphasized Nikolai Gudkov, deputy head of the press service of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation.
Representatives of the press service of the governor of the Kama region turned out to be more talkative: “I would like to note that the program for filling voids in Berezniki has now been fully completed. Over the course of about 10 years, 90% of the voids under the city were filled with waste ore. That is why Berezniki now has an almost complete guarantee that the rest of the city will not go underground. As for the railway bypass, this section is needed not only by Silvinit and VSMPO-Avisma. In total, about a dozen enterprises are interested in this branch,” noted the press service employee.
At the same time, Anastasia Zhdanova, analyst at BrokerCreditService Investment Company, has a slightly different opinion. It confirms that in the 6-kilometer railway, first of all, it is Silvinit and VSMPO-Avisma that need it. “I haven’t heard anything about other companies. Of course, there are many other plants in the Solikamsk-Bereznikovsky hub. But they, in any case, did not complain about the lack of a bypass section and did not threaten to stop the supply of their products. And Uralkali, naturally, only benefits from the current situation. He doesn’t have any problems,” the expert emphasized.
Dmitry Kamenshchik and Valery Kogan
According to the Investigative Committee of Russia (ICR), businessmen Dmitry Kamenshchik and Valery Kogan, interviewed as witnesses in a criminal case regarding failure to comply with transport security requirements at Domodedovo Airport, refused to recognize themselves as the owners of the airport and generally discuss the ownership structure of their enterprise with the investigator. Their position is quite understandable: according to the legislation in force at the time of the terrorist attack in January of this year at Domodedovo, it was the owner of the airport who should have been responsible for the safety of passengers at the facility it owned. The investigation, in turn, promises to identify the owners based on the results of operational development and with the help of already appointed accounting examinations.
As Kommersant was told by the Investigative Committee, the investigation into a criminal case about “failure to comply with requirements for ensuring transport security at transport infrastructure facilities and vehicles akh" (Article 263-1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), initiated after the terrorist attack at Domodedovo Airport in January of this year, is being carried out in two directions.
One operational-investigative group is developing the so-called official, or police, component of the terrorist attack and has already come to some conclusions. For example, the investigation found that suicide bomber Magomed Yevloev, who detonated a bomb at the airport and thus killed 37 people, could not have hidden the “infernal machine” under his jacket, but carried it openly - when entering the militant’s arrival hall, it would have been all the same there was no one to stop. As can be seen from the recordings from video cameras in the waiting room seized by the investigation, at the moment the criminal passed through the street doors, the only transport police officer guarding the entrance had just left his post to chat with the pretty cleaner of the hall. When the mined terrorist began to walk around the hall, looking for the most crowded place to explode, the policeman completely disappeared somewhere.
The investigation also had questions for the canine service at the Domodedovo police department - after all, a dog trained on RDX could have identified Evloev, who was loaded with explosives, better than any policeman, but animals were not involved in guarding the arrival hall.
The Investigative Committee has already established that funds were regularly allocated for the maintenance of the police kennel, and now financial experts have to find out whether the “dog” money was spent for its intended purpose.
As follows from the official report of the Investigative Committee, its employees have already repeatedly interrogated as suspects the former head of the transport department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Central Federal District Andrei Alekseev, the ex-head of the Domodedovo police department Alexander Trushanin and his ex-deputies Alexander Budtsov and Alexander Degtyarev. Ex-police officers, as they say in the Investigative Committee, may have to answer for negligence or abuse of power, expressed in inaction in ensuring the safety of passengers.
Meanwhile, the second investigative team is working on the commercial aspect crime committed- The Investigative Committee believes that not only police officers, but also employees of the airport, which is privately owned, could have contributed to the tragedy. According to the investigation, it is already known, for example, that the entrance to the hall at the time of the terrorist attack was blocked by only one metal detector frame, which, due to the huge number of people entering, simply could not perform its functions, and passengers walked around the structure. Suffice it to say that Domodedovo now has three frames installed at each of the entrances, and even these, according to the TFR, are still not enough to handle the passenger traffic of Russia’s largest airport.
“The airport complex was not equipped with efficient systems for monitoring and screening passengers and visitors, and the existing screening equipment was not checked and adjusted systematically,” says the official statement of the Investigative Committee. The Domodedovo administration, as it was established, did not consider it necessary to purchase security frames at all, using leased equipment instead.
The investigation believes that the work of the aviation security service (SAS), which is structurally part of the staff of Domodedovo, was also very conditional. There were not enough SAB employees at all, but those who were on duty were not properly organized by their management: the guards, as the investigation found out, did not have a clear idea of which of them was responsible for which sector and how they needed to interact with nearby employees transport police.
It is interesting that, while studying the electronic documentation of Domodedovo OJSC seized during recent searches, investigators simultaneously discovered that the administration of the largest airport did not always use licensed computer programs in its activities. This circumstance, as participants in the investigation say, is not directly related to the safety of passengers, but indirectly speaks of the austerity regime in which the enterprise operated. Namely, the desire of the owners of the enterprise to save on equipment and personnel, as the Investigative Committee believes, became the key problem that made the tragedy possible.
[Izvestia.Ru, 07/20/2011, “At Domodedovo Airport, the special services found counterfeit software”: - Specialized aviation and other programs that were used to manage the airport complex and air navigation equipment are counterfeit. There are no guarantees for the correct operation of control programs for the airport complex and air navigation equipment, a source in the bureau of special technical measures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs told Izvestia. - Insert K.ru]
At the same time, attempts by the Investigative Committee to find the owners of Domodedovo, as officially stated yesterday by the department, have so far been unsuccessful. According to the Investigative Committee, hired top managers of Domodedovo OJSC were interrogated as suspects. Among them were the director of the Russian representative office of the offshore company Airport Management Company Limited (AMCL) registered on the Isle of Man, Igor Borisov, and his deputy Vyacheslav Nekrasov. In addition, the managing director of Domodedovo Airport Aviation Security CJSC, which is responsible for security at the airport, Andrei Danilov and the head of the aviation security service of this CJSC Anatoly Moiseev testified.
The alleged owner of the airport, Dmitry Kamenshchik, and his partner Valery Kogan, according to the Investigative Committee, were only interviewed as witnesses, since both categorically refused to recognize their ownership of the enterprise. In the ICR message, both businessmen, respectively, appear as “positioning himself as the chairman of the board of directors of Domodedovo Kamenshchik Airport” and “positioning himself as the chairman of the supervisory board of Kogan Airport.” According to the committee, Mr. Kamenshchik told the investigator that he was only positioning himself as the head of the airport, since this was provided for in his contract with AMCL, but in fact he was only a consultant to the company’s representative office in the Russian Federation. The witness refused to show the contract and name the real owners of the airport, citing Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which allows you not to testify against yourself. Mr. Kogan, in turn, refused to give not only his position, but even his last name and place of residence, citing the same Article 51 as the reason for his refusal. According to the investigation, the businessman is also listed as a consultant for the AMCL representative office.
The silence of the alleged owners of Domodedovo is quite understandable. The fact is that the owners of the airport identified by the investigation will automatically become suspects, and in the future - the main defendants in a criminal case for failure to ensure transport security. As follows from the provisions of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of February 9, 2007 “On Transport Security” in force at the time of the terrorist attack, it was the owner of the enterprise who had to ensure the safety of passengers at his facility. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the law, “ensuring transport security of transport infrastructure facilities and vehicles is entrusted to the subjects of transport infrastructure, unless otherwise established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.” Clause 9 art. 1 of the same law, in turn, indicates that “subjects of transport infrastructure are legal entities and individuals who own transport infrastructure facilities and vehicles.”
The TFR, in turn, calls the failed polls a tactical retreat, but not a defeat. “In addition to interviewing witnesses, we have at our disposal financial and economic expertise, as well as operational methods that will help in the very near future to identify and bring to justice the true owners of the airport,” noted the Investigative Committee.
“In Russia, there have been terrorist attacks both in the metro and in residential buildings, but the heads of the metro or the Moscow mayor’s office have never been interrogated as part of the criminal cases initiated for these crimes,” noted representatives of Domodedovo CJSC. In their opinion, law enforcement officers should be primarily responsible for the unprevented terrorist attack, and the activity of the investigation against businessmen Kamenshchik and Kogan at the airport is called “an attempt to use the terrorist attack as a lever of economic pressure on the owners of the enterprise.”
Geoffrey Galmond
A member of the IPOC board of directors told the court that Reiman was mentioned in the fund's documents as an “economic beneficiary.”
Information that Minister Reiman could be a beneficiary of the fund surfaced on Tuesday at a hearing in London's Privy Council, the highest court of appeal in civil disputes. These hearings ended in defeat for IPOC - it no longer had the opportunity to sue for the blocking stake in Megafon in the courts of British jurisdiction, and Alfa Group again received the opportunity to dispose of this stake. However, IPOC was struck not only by the judges, but also by Swiss David Hausenstein, a member of the IPOC board of directors. “It has reached a point where the fund can no longer maintain its previous position,” he admitted in a sworn deposition last week.
IPOC's board of directors will no longer insist that Jeffrey Galmond is the sole beneficiary of the fund, and Galmond's testimony to the contrary "could create a misleading impression," Hausenstein said in a deposition obtained by The Wall Street Journal. However, on Wednesday, Jeffrey Galmond called a press conference at which he reiterated that he is the sole owner of the IPOC fund and publicly apologized to the minister information technology Leonid Reiman for his partners, because of whom the minister’s name “groundlessly” surfaced in a London court.
In his testimony, Hausenstein reports that at one of Galmond’s meetings with him in 2001, he “named Leonid Reiman as the economic beneficiary of the Meridium trust company.” Hausenstein also recounted to the court the contents of certain documents seized by the Liechtenstein police from Bank von Ernst and from the office of one of the law firms. In the interview, Galmond admitted that his Danish law firm sent a letter to a Liechtenstein bank in June 2002 in which Reiman was named as the “ultimate beneficial shareholder” of IPOC, as well as the “economic beneficiary” of some companies controlled by Galmond. But this was a mistake by the employees, the lawyer assures.
He also disputes the testimony of an IPOC board member regarding an internal memorandum that, according to Galmond, named Reiman as the “economic beneficiary” of three different trust companies from which IPOC was subsequently formed. However, Hausenstein emphasized that he does not know for sure whether Reiman is the owner of the IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd.
The day before yesterday, Hausenstein confirmed to the WSJ that his testimony to the London Privy Council was accurate, but declined to comment further. And his testimony to the court said that now the IPOC board of directors “is forced to seek legal assistance.”
“Jeffrey Galmond cannot be blamed for this situation, since he has repeatedly confirmed that I am not a beneficiary of IPOC and companies affiliated with it,” the press service of the Ministry of Information and Communications reported Leonid Reiman’s comments to Vedomosti. “As for its employees, it is the company’s task to resolve the issue with people who damage the reputation and solidity of the company they work for.” Indeed, over the past three years, Galmond has given sworn testimony against IPOC and Reiman at least five times, amounting to several thousand pages. (Contributed by WSJ.)
Semyon Mogilevich is 59 years old, he is from Kyiv, a certified economist. According to law enforcement agencies, in the early 1970s he was associated with the Lyubertsy (currency) group, and subsequently with the Solntsevo group. He was convicted twice in Russia. In 1990 he emigrated to Israel, then moved to Hungary. By 1992 he became a citizen of Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Hungary. In the mid-1990s, he acquired a stake in Inkombank. He is on the list of people wanted by the FBI for alleged participation in fraud with shares of YBM Magnex International, Inc., which cost the company's investors $150 million. In the United States, Mogilevich is also accused of racketeering, fraud, and money laundering. In 1998-1999 $10 billion passed through an account at the Bank of New York that belonged to Mogilevich; in the United States and Israel they suspect that it was used to finance the transportation of weapons and drugs. A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (USA) states that Mogilevich controls a network of prostitutes in nightclubs in Budapest and Prague.
Yesterday, in an interview with the Financial Times, the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Alexander Turchynov, said that the SBU is investigating whether Semyon Mogilevich has indirect control over RosUkrEnergo. “The name Mogilevich is not mentioned in the documents of the founding companies of RosUkrEnergo, but there are many indirect indications that a number of people controlled by Mogilevich may participate in the company’s activities.” SBU spokeswoman Marina Ostapenko told Vedomosti that the SBU, while investigating a number of criminal offenses in the country’s oil and gas complex, is checking both former and current intermediaries in the supply of Turkmen gas to Ukraine, including their possible connections with international criminal groups.
RosUkrEnergo transports Turkmen gas to Ukraine through Russian territory. Gazprom has always supplied this gas through intermediaries - first through Itera, then through the Hungarian Eural TG, and since 2004 - through RosUkrEnergo.
In the spring, Ukraine began to demand that Gazprom transfer its share in RosUkrEnergo. It was not possible to reach an agreement, and Ukraine decided to act. In June, Alexander Turchynov said that the activities of Eural TG and RosUkrEnergo were accompanied by “serious abuses,” which resulted in a budget shortfall of over $1 billion; based on the revealed facts, “a number of criminal cases were opened.”
“Yesterday’s statement by the SBU is a signal that Ukraine intends to go all the way towards its goal [transporting Turkmen gas], even if by initiating a scandal,” says Ivan Poltavets, an expert at the Kyiv Institute of Economic Research and Political Consulting. “Starting a PR war will not benefit either Ukraine or Russia.” “With such statements, Ukraine is trying to put pressure on Gazprom in order to extract preferences for itself in the gas agreement, but such tactics are unlikely to ensure its success,” a source at Gazprom is confident. Gazprom and Raiffeisen Investment claim that Mogilevich has no relation to RosUkrEnergo. Deputy Chairman of the Board of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev told Vedomosti that he was surprised by the information that Raiffeisen Investment is a nominal structure, and that Gazprombank’s true partners in RosUkrEnergo may be dubious companies: “We are well aware of who our partner is in the RosUkrEnergo joint venture.”
Raiffeisen Investment representative Wolfgang Puczek called the SBU accusations “groundless.” This is not the first time such accusations have been made, but the SBU has never provided evidence, Puchek said.
It was not possible to contact Mogilevich yesterday. Energy resources are one of Mogilevich’s businesses, says an entrepreneur familiar with him.
Press Secretary of the Prime Minister of Ukraine Vitaly Chepinoga did not comment on the words of the head of the SBU, emphasizing that Yulia Tymoshenko has already stated that she is against gas intermediaries.
Vadim Kleiner from Hermitage Capital Management believes that it makes no sense for Gazprom to have an intermediary engaged in business that Gazprom itself could well do. According to his estimates, the profit of RosUkrEnergo this year alone could amount to $950 million and it is not clear why Gazprom should share half of this income.
Oleg Deripaska
The sole owner and ultimate beneficiary of the Rusal aluminum concern and the Basic Element management company is entrepreneur Oleg Deripaska. Under pressure from international investors, the largest aluminum producer in Russia has revealed its ownership structure.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) have agreed to provide loans to the Rusal and Sual companies in the amount of $150 million for the implementation of the Komi Aluminum project. The total cost of the project is estimated at $1.2 billion.
The decision was made after Oleg Deripaska admitted that he is the sole owner of the Rusal and Basic Element companies.
Earlier, IFC and the EBRD decided to provide financing to Sual for the expansion of the Sredne-Timanskoye field in Komi. But in April 2005, Sual transferred 50% of the project to Rusal. The IFC and EBRD then suspended the deal because "the partnership's new ownership structure was a material change to the original loan agreement." The main condition for providing a loan for the Komi Aluminum project was the streamlining of Rusal's ownership structure. The aluminum concern agreed to this requirement.
On Tuesday, investment institutions announced that the decision to finance an aluminum project in Komi had been made. IFC and EBRD are providing $75 million each for a period of 9 years. The funds will be used to increase bauxite production at the Sredne-Timan deposit and to build an alumina refinery in the Sosnogorsk region. The EBRD and IFC are also considering financing the next stages of the project.
"This decision is important step to the final agreement on the transfer of funds. It is based on full disclosure of ownership by the owner of Rusal and Basic Element, Oleg Deripaska, and involves his acceptance of additional clearly defined commitments to increased transparency, good corporate governance and high business standards relating to Rusal and Basic Element. Compliance with these obligations is enshrined in legal documents with the EBRD and IFC,” the EBRD and IFC said.
In a joint press release, the EBRD and IFC call Oleg Deripaska the owner of Rusal and Basic Element.
From a legal point of view, the use of the term “owner” means that Oleg Deripaska owns 100% of the shares of these companies - he is the ultimate beneficiary of the aluminum concern. “The point is that Oleg Deripaska is the sole owner of these assets. Perhaps he owns them not directly, but through certain structures, but everything belongs to him,” explained Valery Tutykhin, partner at the law firm John Tyner and Partners, to Gazeta.Ru.
“The press release was compiled in consultation with lawyers, so all terms used are extremely accurate. The document does not say that Deripaska controls Rusal and Basel, but rather the term “owner” is used. “Rusal” and “Basic Element” belong to Oleg Deripaska,” a source at the EBRD told Gazeta.Ru.
In addition to disclosing information about the ultimate owner, Rusal has adopted an 18-month plan that includes “significant disclosure of corporate ownership, publication of financial information and specific steps to improve corporate governance.” In particular, it is planned to introduce three independent directors into the company. Independent directors, whose appointment is subject to the approval of IFC and the EBRD, will chair and constitute a majority of subcommittees overseeing audit, corporate governance and other corporate matters. Basel, in turn, will disclose information about the holding’s investments and approve a code of ethics.
The management of Rusal positively greeted the decision of the EBRD and IFC. “The participation of two of the world’s leading financial institutions in this project will allow us to solve one of the most important strategic tasks of the Russian aluminum industry - expanding our own raw material base,” said the company’s general director Alexander Bulygin. “I am confident that our first experience of cooperation with the EBRD and IFC will create a good basis for partnership on a number of new projects both in Russia and abroad,” the top manager added.
Experts interviewed by Gazeta.Ru were not surprised that Oleg Deripaska is the sole owner of Rusal and Basic Element. Disclosure of information about the owner will have a positive effect on the development of companies, analysts are sure.
“Even when Millhouse sold a blocking stake in Rusal in 2003, everyone believed that the buyer was most likely Oleg Deripaska. However, no official confirmation has been published, says Stanislav Kleshchev from Financial Bridge Investment Company. – Disclosure of information about owners will be a breakthrough for companies.
After all, “Basel” has previously had problems attracting loans precisely because of the lack of clarity about who is its owner.” According to Brokercreditservice analyst Vyacheslav Zhabin, the fact that Oleg Deripaska is the sole owner of Rusal will not prevent the company from placing shares on a Western stock exchange (Rusal's IPO, according to unofficial information, is scheduled for 2006–2007). “I see no reason for concern in this,” the expert notes. – Now Rusal will be able to optimize its ownership structure. Numerous assets of the concern are cross-owned. Such schemes are used to hide the ultimate beneficiaries of a business. Now there is no need for this.”
Sources
otvetim.info - educational online magazine
images.yandex.ru - image search engine
youtube.com - video hosting
clj.ru - corporate lawyer.practice
nb-law.com - blog of Breev Emelyanov
operbank.ru - banking operations
toplegal.com.ua - legal company
spark-interfax.livejournal.com - live journal
shpargalki.ru - crib site
yurchenko.kz - website of IP Yurchenko
The concept of a beneficiary is multifaceted and at first glance complex; the word “beneficiary” has several concepts at once, and is often used completely inappropriately by ordinary people. Beneficiaries are persons who own papers and documentation that bring benefits. These persons have a number of rights and obligations depending on the type of activity performed. With the help of a beneficiary, you can receive income in many different ways, each of which has its own characteristics.
Beneficiary is a complex concept in simple words
(French: Benefice - profit) - a person who acquires income from the ownership of contracts of any nature that bring material benefit. The meaning of the word beneficiary implies an individual or legal entity who is the owner of part of the shares of the company, to whom income from activities in trading, providing services, etc. flows.
The ultimate beneficiary is the person (always an individual) who has ownership of the entire business. The identity of the beneficiary is often hidden and known only to the company management working for its benefit. The confidentiality of the beneficiary is maintained through a nominee company that distributes its activities without indicating the ultimate owner. The beneficiary is a person who can be found in the accounts to which profits are transferred. These accounts are used when creating a company and cooperation with a bank.
For example, when concluding an agreement for the provision of services, the beneficiary will be the person indicated in the agreement as the seller of services when settling letters of credit. Beneficiaries can also be found outside of business. Beneficiaries can also include:
- The individual named in the will as an heir is the beneficiary who will receive the contract as a result of ownership of the document (will).
- A landlord who rents out an apartment and receives regular rent for it, who is also a beneficiary of the lease.
- A representative of a trust company who receives income from property that is managed and produced by others.
What is the difference between a beneficial owner and a beneficiary?
Before drawing conclusions about the difference in concepts, it is better to understand them.
is a person who benefits from the actions of his client. The basis for receiving income are various contracts:
- Agency;
- Surety bonds;
- Commission;
- Trust management;
- Allowing operations with property and owner’s funds.
- is a person who owns independently, or company manager through third parties, having interest income from its capital. The beneficial owner must have the ability to control what happens in the business, influence and cause change. The owner's name may not appear on the company's records, but his income from the profits and capital of the entire business must exceed 25%.
The beneficiary, who is the ultimate owner of the company, has the opportunity to:
- Form the initial authorized capital;
- Transfer shares to other persons who will also become beneficiaries later;
- Attend meetings of shareholders, influence decisions and the course of events;
- Elect the directors of the company together with other beneficiaries;
- Choose the field of activity of the company, etc.
Both terms have a number common features, both beneficiaries and beneficiaries receive profit from their clients - companies, organizations. Define, who is the beneficiary, and who is the beneficiary, based on the amount of his income as a percentage.
The beneficial owner, unlike the beneficiary, has 25% of the capital and gets access to the management of the client company. It is the possibility of control over the company that arouses the interest of the inspection authorities in the beneficial owners. The collection of information about company owners takes place under certain circumstances and conditions aimed at excluding:
- Conducting financial fraud;
- Terrorist actions;
- Legalization of illegally obtained funds;
- Criminal actions.
Responsibility for owning the majority of a company's income is what distinguishes a beneficial owner from a beneficiary.
Beneficiary information
The beneficiary, who is the owner, is obliged to provide information about himself when requested by regulatory authorities, as well as concluding agreements with state-owned enterprises. The collection of information is carried out, as mentioned above, to obtain maximum transparency of the actions of the company and its true owners.
Banking structures may also need a certificate of beneficiaries, and owners are required to provide information about themselves starting in 2013. The law obliges banks to provide information about the beneficiaries with whom they cooperate. Detection of concealment of such data entails the imposition of considerable fines (up to 500 thousand rubles), so the final owners will have to provide data at the request of banks and state companies. Otherwise, credit institutions that care about their reputation and transparency of activities will not cooperate with such a company.
Particularly stringent controls surround companies that have a nominal beneficial owner. A beneficiary in whose name an account is opened who only has signature rights and is the sole title owner of the company will raise suspicion. Finding the true owner is not so difficult; for this, the entire chain of account holders is investigated, at the source of which the owner will be.
When concluding contracts with banks and state companies, a special document obliging to provide information about the entire chain of owners. A certificate of beneficiaries, a sample of which will be a prototype for correct and detailed information about the owners of companies, contains basic details. This information must be provided about the owners of the company:
- Passport details;
- Actual residential address of the beneficial owner;
- Complete profile of the beneficial owner.
Without such a document, state-owned enterprises do not enter into contracts with companies. Contracts related to any government organizations, oblige full transparency of the activities of the beneficiary and his subordinates.
Rights and obligations of the beneficiary
The beneficiary has the opportunity to defend his rights in court if they are violated. Such violations include:
- Reduction of rights to influence and control in the company, unless otherwise specified in the agreement;
- Concealment by company managers from the beneficiary of infringement of his interests in the course of their activities;
- Failure to comply with the terms of the agreement concluded with the beneficiary;
- Conducting activities without a license;
- Conducting illegal activities.
Beneficial owner- this is a person who has the opportunity to file a claim if one of the listed circumstances arises, or others that violate his rights and prevent him from receiving income in the amount provided for by the contract. The beneficiary can protect his property by drawing up a property trust management agreement.
This agreement will allow you to punish and terminate cooperation with the nominal manager of the company if his actions lead to the loss of property or infringement of the rights of the beneficiary. There are possible options for concluding a contract obliging the manager to compensate for damage to the beneficiary when it occurs.
The beneficiary may also be liable for violation of the contract. If the company exercising control over its activities discovers non-compliance with the contract or illegal actions on the part of the beneficiary, it has the right to file a claim and recover damages, or terminate the contract.
When concluding a guarantee agreement, the bank issuing the loan will also require a completed Beneficiary Questionnaire. A bank guarantee agreement is always concluded with an individual; its essence lies in the obligation of both parties to compensate for possible damage if it occurs as a result of cooperation with the owner and at his request. The bank that will act as a guarantor during the conclusion of a protective agreement is usually chosen by the beneficiary.
If in the course of activities the beneficiary has not received income from the guarantor, he can draw up a statement demanding compensation for the estimated amount of income stipulated in the contract. At the same time, claims can be made only after the expiration of the warranty period. When the beneficiary applies for a refund, the guarantor will investigate the validity of the claims and make a decision in accordance with the terms of the contract and the circumstances of their implementation or violation.
Beneficiaries are common today - the owner of any assets, real estate and funds for investment can become one of them. The state carefully controls the ultimate owners at the head of especially expensive companies. These actions are of a protective nature, aimed primarily at the interests and safety of the ordinary population. Strict control is also carried out in cooperation with any government organizations. Many beneficiaries are hostile to these measures, citing the right to maintain confidentiality and protect personal information. However, the development of large companies to increase income is impossible without transparent business practices; each beneficiary makes their own choice - maintaining personal information or developing the business.