Date of publication: 4 June 2015
Maksym Kopeychykov, Partner, Attorney at Law
Source: Ekonomichna Pravda
He believes that the bank owners try not to advertise their relationship with a financial institution for different reasons. “Someone are afraid that they will muscle in on his bank, someone does not want to spend money for approval with the NBU and the Antimonopoly Committee”, Kopeychykov explained. He also noted that the owners still used different loopholes to hide their relationship with the bank.
“The most common practice was possession through non-residential entities with confidential information about the beneficial owners, or “distribution” of joint-stock capital between 11-12 minority shareholders”, the lawyer said. “The new team in the NBU is serious enough – except for work with the regulatory framework the employees of the National Bank study thoroughly the documents submitted and apply their professional skills to ensure unity of approaches and sufficient transparency of ownership structure of the Ukrainian banks”, Kopeychykov said.
In the expert’s opinion, the schemes for concealing final beneficiaries, although in general possible, will become more expensive and more complex to implement.
He also noted that the sanctions envisaged by the NBU’s resolution for violation of ownership transparency of banks are sufficient to think about the feasibility of preserving the old schemes.
As you know, on May 22, the National Bank adopted Resolutions Nos. 328 and 332, which strengthened requirements for transparency of ownership structure of banks.
