The US Treasury Department has published a final rule permanently exempting American companies and individuals from disclosing their beneficial owners, and has directed that previously filed ownership data be deleted, in a move that law enforcement and national security experts say will hinder efforts to tackle money‑laundering and corruption.
What the rule changes
The rule revokes the reporting obligation created by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which was enacted as part of the National Defence Authorisation Act six years ago. Under the CTA, companies were required to disclose individuals who met the statute's definition of a beneficial owner — generally those who hold at least 25% of a company or exercise “substantial control”.
The Treasury had already ceased enforcement of the reporting requirement when it announced an interim measure in March 2025. The newly published final rule goes further by removing the requirement permanently and directing the deletion of beneficial‑ownership information that domestic entities have already submitted to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
Authorities and experts raise alarms
The rollback has prompted immediate concern from a broad cross‑section of stakeholders. Groups representing law enforcement, national security professionals and small businesses have publicly urged the Treasury to reconsider the approach, warning that the absence of a central register of beneficial ownership will create blind spots for investigations into illicit finance.
“the most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades.”
The comment above, made in 2020 by then‑Senator Marco Rubio when the CTA was being championed, underscores the stark reversal represented by the new rule. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global watchdog on money‑laundering and terrorist‑financing, has previously compared shell companies to a “getaway car” for illicit actors, highlighting the role anonymous corporate structures can play in concealing proceeds of crime and corrupt wealth.
- Deletions ordered: Beneficial‑ownership filings already submitted to FinCEN will be removed.
- Exemption applied: Domestic companies and individuals will no longer be required to disclose beneficial owners.
- Enforcement paused earlier: Obligations were already not being enforced after a March 2025 announcement.
Implications for investigations and policy
Proponents of the CTA have argued the regime was a critical tool for investigators and for curbing cross‑border money‑laundering and kleptocratic transfers. Critics of the reversal say that without a reliable source of ownership information, tracing the origin and movement of illicit funds will become more difficult and time‑consuming, increasing investigative costs and delaying prosecutions.
The Treasury's action also risks widening a gap between US practice and international expectations set by bodies such as the FATF, which emphasise transparency of corporate ownership as a core safeguard against misuse of business structures. Observers note that shell companies have long been used by transnational criminal networks and foreign kleptocrats to shield assets from authorities; removing a reporting mechanism may re‑open avenues for such concealment.
| Element | Before rule | After rule |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting requirement | Mandatory beneficial‑ownership filings to FinCEN | Permanently exempted for US companies/individuals |
| Existing data | Stored at FinCEN | Ordered deleted |
| Enforcement status | Enforced initially | Stopped March 2025; finalised in new rule |
Those concerned by the change have called on the Treasury to reverse course and restore a workable, targeted mechanism for identifying beneficial owners — arguing that such transparency is necessary both to protect legitimate commerce and to deny criminals the ability to hide proceeds behind opaque corporate vehicles.
The Treasury’s final rule represents a sizeable shift in US anti‑money‑laundering policy. Its full practical impact will depend on how quickly law enforcement adapts and how other countries and international bodies respond to what some regard as a rollback of transparency standards.
