New data shows EU citizens back crackdown on dirty money

Issued by Transparency International Liaison Office to the European Union



According to new data released today by Transparency International (TI), four out of five EU citizens are in favour of companies being required to reveal who the real owners are and only one in four believe their government is effective in preventing dirty money being spent in their country.

This data is released on the day the EU agrees new rules aimed at preventing money laundering in the European Union.

Carl Dolan, TI-EU Director said: “Shell companies can be used hide the proceeds of corruption, criminal activity and to evade tax. They have also been used to cover the trail of those behind the horsemeat scandal. There is a clear public interest in stopping the flows of illegal money that is put at $70 billion in the EU alone. The EU, and European Parliament in particular, should be congratulated on passing new legislation that is a welcome first step in unmasking the corrupt in Europe.

 “A number of EU governments say they will establish a publicly accessible register for company ownership. That is what the public want. Making this information fully public would provide instant access for those investigating corrupt money trails in and outside the EU.”

Full access to the information will be granted to law enforcement and relevant government bodies. Members of the public, such as investigative journalists and NGOs, can be granted access to company ownership data if they can prove a legitimate interest. Transparency International calls on all Member States to make such information freely available to all citizens.

The identities of many individuals involved in grand corruption have been concealed through the use of anonymous shell companies, trusts and other entities. According to an analysis by the World Bank and UN of over 200 grand corruption cases, 70 per cent involved corrupt politicians using anonymous companies and trusts to obscure their identity. Money is being stolen from the public on a huge scale, and hidden, depriving people of health, education and other vital services.

The new framework potentially leaves open significant money laundering loopholes, especially with regard to trusts.  Information on trusts will not be made publicly available and the types of trusts covered will be limited in scope. This too needs to change.

EU governments will have two years to implement the new standards at national level. The UK, France, Denmark, Czech Republic and the Netherlands have said they will establish a public register for companies.

The EU rules also go beyond what was agreed by the G20 as part of the beneficial ownership principles, which require relevant government authorities to have “timely” access to the data. Transparency International is working with its national chapters to monitor the implementation of the principles in G20 countries this year.  

 

Editors Notes:

  1. According to research by Global Financial Integrity, nearly $70 billion flowed illegally into or out of emerging EU economies in 2011. At the same time global detection rates for illicit funds by law enforcement are estimated to be as low as 1% for criminal proceeds and the seizure rate at 0.2% (UNODC).  
  2. Today’s plenary vote by the European Parliament confirms the agreement reached in December on the 4th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which requires the creation of centralised registers of beneficial owners - the real persons who have ultimate control - of a company or trust.

Results from the Transparency International survey

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement “The Government should require companies to publish the real names of all their shareholders and owners”

 

NET AGREE (Strongly + tend to agree)

NET DISAGREE (Strongly + tend to disagree)

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

Do not know/ no response

TOTAL

78%

13%

45%

33%

9%

4%

10%

AUSTRIA

78%

14%

49%

29%

9%

5%

8%

BELGIUM

73%

15%

43%

30%

10%

5%

11%

BULGARIA

81%

6%

57%

24%

5%

1%

12%

CZECH REPUBLIC

83%

13%

46%

37%

11%

2%

4%

FINLAND

85%

11%

68%

17%

6%

5%

4%

FRANCE

78%

12%

43%

35%

9%

3%

9%

GERMANY

65%

22%

31%

34%

17%

5%

12%

GREECE

88%

6%

68%

20%

4%

2%

6%

IRELAND

85%

7%

51%

34%

5%

2%

8%

ITALY

81%

13%

49%

32%

10%

3%

7%

LATVIA

81%

10%

51%

30%

8%

2%

10%

NETHERLANDS

69%

11%

22%

47%

9%

2%

20%

POLAND

81%

11%

37%

44%

4%

7%

9%

PORTUGAL

92%

4%

68%

24%

4%

0%

5%

ROMANIA

74%

7%

44%

30%

0%

7%

20%

SPAIN

83%

11%

63%

20%

8%

3%

7%

SWEDEN

72%

13%

46%

26%

8%

5%

15%

UK

84%

7%

44%

40%

6%

1%

8%

 

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement “The Government is effective at preventing corrupt foreign politicians and businesspeople from spending their proceeds from corruption in my country”

 

NET AGREE (Strongly + tend to agree)

NET DISAGREE (Strongly + tend to disagree)

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

Do not know/ no response

TOTAL

26%

58%

8%

18%

30%

28%

16%

AUSTRIA

21%

58%

6%

15%

36%

22%

21%

BELGIUM

14%

70%

4%

10%

38%

32%

16%

BULGARIA

18%

56%

8%

10%

24%

32%

26%

CZECH REPUBLIC

30%

57%

7%

23%

35%

22%

13%

FINLAND

43%

48%

18%

25%

26%

22%

10%

FRANCE

18%

71%

6%

12%

27%

44%

11%

GERMANY

26%

56%

9%

17%

37%

19%

18%

GREECE

15%

74%

6%

9%

28%

46%

10%

IRELAND

20%

61%

5%

15%

36%

25%

18%

ITALY

31%

62%

9%

22%

27%

35%

7%

LATVIA

20%

59%

8%

12%

34%

25%

20%

NETHERLANDS

19%

51%

7%

12%

31%

20%

30%

POLAND

54%

32%

18%

36%

19%

13%

15%

PORTUGAL

18%

71%

3%

15%

71%

0%

10%

ROMANIA

41%

35%

16%

25%

0%

35%

24%

SPAIN

19%

68%

7%

12%

21%

47%

13%

SWEDEN

34%

26%

11%

23%

16%

10%

41%

UK

21%

59%

5%

16%

40%

19%

21%

*Please note percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Further data is available at http://www.transparency.org


For any press enquiries please contact

Brussels
Nienke Palstra
Senior EU Policy Officer
T. +32 2 893 24 57
E. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Berlin
Chris Sanders

T. +49 30 34 38 20 666
E. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Supplementary downloads

Latest

Support Transparency International

Risky business: Europe’s golden visa programmes

Are EU Member States accepting too much risk in their investor migration schemes?

Future Against Corruption Award 2018

TI is calling on young people across the globe to join the anti-corruption movement. People between the age of 18 and 35 are invited to submit a short video clip presenting their idea on new ways to fight corruption. Three finalists will be invited to Berlin during the International Anti-Corruption Day festivities to be awarded with the Future Against Corruption Award. Apply today!

The Azerbaijani Laundromat one year on: has justice been served?

In September last year, a massive leak of bank records from 2012 to 2014 showed that the ruling elite of Azerbaijan ran a $3 billion slush fund and an international money laundering scheme. One year on, has enough been done to hold those involved to account?

Right to information: knowledge is power

The right to information is vital for preventing corruption. When citizens can access key facts and data from governments, it is more difficult to hide abuses of power and other illegal activities - governments can be held accountable.

Paradise lost among Maldives dodgy land deals

Should tourists run for cover as a storm of corruption allegations sweeps across the Maldives?

Foreign bribery rages unchecked in over half of global trade

There are many losers and few winners when companies bribe foreign public officials to win lucrative overseas contracts. In prioritising profits over principles, governments in most major exporting countries fail to prosecute companies flouting laws criminalising foreign bribery.

Ensuring that climate funds reach those in need

As climate change creates huge ecological and economic damage, more and more money is being given to at-risk countries to help them prevent it and adapt to its effects. But poorly governed climate finance can be diverted into private bank accounts and vanity projects, often leading to damaging effects.

Social Media

Follow us on Social Media