A business application tells you which company you are dealing with. It may not tell you who ultimately owns or controls the company.
Understanding a company’s beneficial ownership helps compliance teams establish who is behind the business and identify information that may require further review. This is important during onboarding and ongoing monitoring, when teams need to assess client risk and apply the appropriate due diligence.
When ownership passes through holding companies, trusts, or other entities, identifying the people behind the business can require tracing several layers of ownership and control.
In Canada, understanding beneficial ownership also means knowing how FINTRAC’s requirements apply and, for federal corporations, how they relate to the separate concept of an individual with significant control (ISC). This guide explains how to identify beneficial owners, calculate indirect ownership, address cases where nobody reaches the 25% threshold, and handle material discrepancies involving high-risk federal corporations.
Note: This article provides general information, not legal advice. FINTRAC’s beneficial ownership guidance applies to reporting entities subject to these requirements and currently excludes title insurers.
UBO requirements in Canada at a glance
FINTRAC uses the term beneficial owner. UBO, or ultimate beneficial owner, is commonly used in Know Your Business (KYB) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) processes.
- The ownership chain may extend beyond the immediate shareholder. When another entity sits in the ownership structure, trace the chain to the relevant natural persons and consider both direct and indirect ownership and control.
- Not every ownership structure will have an individual who meets the 25% threshold. If no individual owns or controls 25% or more, document the information reviewed and the basis for that conclusion.
- ISC and FINTRAC beneficial ownership records are not interchangeable. The two frameworks use related but different tests, so they may legitimately identify different individuals.
- Some discrepancies trigger a 30-day reporting requirement. An unresolved material discrepancy involving a high-risk corporation incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) must be reported to Corporations Canada within 30 days of identification.
What is an ultimate beneficial owner in Canada?
Ultimate beneficial owner, or UBO, is a common term in KYB processes. FINTRAC uses the term beneficial owner in its requirements.
For FINTRAC purposes, beneficial owners are individuals who directly or indirectly own or control 25% or more of a corporation or an entity other than a corporation, such as a partnership.
The important word is individual. If a corporation is owned by another corporation, identifying that corporate shareholder does not complete the review. The ownership structure needs to be traced through the intermediate entity to determine which natural persons ultimately meet the applicable ownership or control criteria.
Trusts require a different analysis. For a trust, the relevant parties are the trustees, known beneficiaries and settlors. Separate FINTRAC requirements apply to widely held or publicly traded trusts.
Beneficial owner vs. individual with significant control
Another ownership concept enters the picture for corporations incorporated under the CBCA: the individual with significant control (ISC).
Corporations Canada maintains ISC information for federal corporations subject to the regime. That information can be valuable when checking an ownership and control structure, but an ISC should not automatically be treated as the same thing as a FINTRAC beneficial owner.
The two frameworks overlap, but their tests are not identical. As a result, an ISC record and a FINTRAC beneficial ownership record may legitimately identify different individuals.
This distinction becomes particularly important when reviewing discrepancies. A difference between the two records is something to understand and assess; it is not automatically evidence that either record is wrong.
Why a shareholder list is not enough
Consider a client whose shareholder register shows that 80% of the company belongs to North Company. You know who the immediate shareholder is, but you still do not know which individuals ultimately own that interest.
A useful beneficial ownership record goes further by showing how ownership and control move through the structure. It should make the ownership chain understandable, including the entities and individuals involved, relevant direct and indirect interests, and control relationships. The file should also contain the information and records required for the type of entity being reviewed, including directors for corporations.
The objective is not simply to collect more data. It is to create a record that another reviewer can follow. They should be able to see where the ownership information came from, reproduce important calculations, understand how control was assessed, and follow any discrepancies through to their resolution or escalation.
Complex ownership is not inherently suspicious. However, multiple layers of entities can make it more difficult to establish who ultimately owns or controls a business. Unexplained complexity, inconsistent ownership information, or difficulty confirming the individuals behind a structure may therefore be relevant to the client’s broader risk assessment.
A structured KYC and KYB onboarding process can help keep ownership information, supporting records, review notes, and decisions within the same workflow.
How to calculate indirect beneficial ownership
Indirect ownership occurs when an individual owns an interest in the client through one or more intermediate entities.
Suppose North Company owns 80% of Client Company, and Maya owns 60% of North Company. Maya’s indirect ownership is:
80% × 60% = 48%
Maya therefore has a 48% indirect interest in Client Company and crosses the 25% threshold.
Now suppose another individual owns 20% of North Company:
80% × 20% = 16%
That individual has a 16% indirect interest through this ownership path and would not cross the threshold based on that path alone.
Real ownership structures can be more complicated. The same individual may have interests through multiple branches, or an ownership percentage may not fully reflect that person’s ability to exercise control. A complete review therefore looks beyond the arithmetic to relevant voting rights, agreements, and other control relationships.
For more on structuring business verification, see AMLForms’ guide to KYB and business verification.
What if nobody owns or controls 25%?
Not every ownership structure will produce an individual who meets the 25% threshold. That can be a legitimate conclusion, and it is importantly different from failing to obtain enough information to determine beneficial ownership.
If no individual directly or indirectly owns or controls 25% or more of an entity, the record should document the information obtained, the steps taken to understand the ownership and control structure, and the basis for concluding that nobody meets the threshold.
A director, CEO, or other senior officer does not automatically become the beneficial owner simply because no individual meets the 25% threshold.
| Outcome | What the file should establish |
|---|---|
| Beneficial owners identified | Who they are, their interests or basis of control, and how the information was confirmed |
| Nobody meets the threshold | What was reviewed and why the information supports that conclusion |
| Information cannot be obtained or confirmed | What is missing, the measures taken, and the resulting risk response or escalation |
The third outcome requires a different response. If the required beneficial ownership information cannot be obtained, kept up to date, or confirmed, FINTRAC requires additional measures. These include taking reasonable measures to verify the identity of the entity’s chief executive officer, or the person performing that function. High-risk business relationships are also subject to the applicable enhanced measures, including enhanced ongoing monitoring.
The distinction matters because “nobody meets the beneficial ownership threshold” and “we could not determine the beneficial owners” are not the same conclusion.
Identifying a beneficial owner is not the end of the review
Identifying the beneficial owners establishes who ultimately sits behind the business. From there, the compliance team can complete the verification, screening, and due diligence that apply to the relationship based on regulatory requirements, the organization’s AML program, and the client’s risk profile.
Depending on the applicable requirements and risk profile, that may involve confirming beneficial ownership information against reliable sources, verifying the identity of relevant individuals where required, and conducting sanctions, politically exposed person (PEP), or other risk screening.
When an ISC record does not match your beneficial ownership record
For high-risk corporations incorporated under the CBCA, FINTRAC requires an additional check against Corporations Canada’s database when initially identifying the high-risk business relationship and during ongoing monitoring.
This can reveal differences between the corporation’s ISC information and the beneficial ownership information in your file. Not every difference is a material discrepancy.
Minor variations in names or addresses are not material on their own. Nor is a difference automatically material simply because one person qualifies as an ISC but does not appear in the FINTRAC beneficial ownership record. The two frameworks use different tests, so some differences can be expected.
The question is whether the inconsistency is significant enough to affect who appears to own or control the corporation, or could conceal those individuals.
For example, a discrepancy may be material if it leaves out an individual who appears to meet the relevant criteria, changes who appears to control the corporation, or points to a materially different ownership or control structure.
This is where a well-documented ownership map becomes especially valuable. Rather than simply flagging two records as a mismatch, the reviewer can understand why they differ and determine whether further action is required.
What happens when a discrepancy is material?
When a material discrepancy is identified for a high-risk CBCA corporation, document when it was identified, what information conflicts, and why the difference may be material. The discrepancy can then be investigated and clarification sought where appropriate.
If the material discrepancy remains unresolved, it must be reported to Corporations Canada within 30 days of identification. The acknowledgement notice received after reporting must be retained for five years from its creation date.
If the discrepancy is resolved within those 30 days, FINTRAC says it does not need to be reported, although it may be reported sooner. A reporting entity that identifies a material discrepancy involving a low-risk CBCA corporation may also choose to submit a Beneficial Ownership Discrepancy Report voluntarily.
New or conflicting ownership information may also affect the client’s risk profile. It should therefore be considered within the organization’s broader risk-based approach and reflected in ongoing monitoring where appropriate.
Build a beneficial ownership process you can reproduce
Complex ownership structures become harder to manage when supporting evidence is spread across intake forms, emails, spreadsheets, registry searches, and reviewer notes.
A stronger process connects those pieces. The ownership map shows the entities and individuals involved, source records support key facts, calculations explain indirect interests, and discrepancies remain linked to their investigation and outcome.
In practice, that means building a process that can:
- open additional ownership layers when an owner is another entity
- capture ownership and control separately
- preserve the sources supporting important ownership information
- make indirect ownership calculations visible and reproducible
- flag incomplete branches and conflicting information
- track discrepancies through review, escalation, and resolution
- revisit relevant ownership and control information during ongoing monitoring
Technology can remove some of the administrative friction without replacing compliance judgment. AMLForms helps teams structure verification workflows and continuous monitoring so that evidence, follow-up, and decisions remain connected throughout the compliance process.
Common UBO review mistakes
Even when the underlying ownership calculation is correct, weaknesses in the process can make the record difficult to defend.
- Stopping at a corporate shareholder. Identifying the immediate owner does not establish the natural persons behind it.
- Focusing only on percentages. Ownership percentages matter, but relevant control rights and relationships also need to be considered.
- Missing multiple ownership paths. The same person may hold interests through more than one branch of the structure, which can affect the overall beneficial ownership determination.
- Treating every ISC difference as an error. The ISC and FINTRAC beneficial ownership tests are related but not identical.
- Failing to preserve the evidence. A conclusion is harder to reproduce when the sources, calculations, or follow-up are missing from the file.
- Treating beneficial ownership as an onboarding-only exercise. Ownership and control can change, and information needs to be kept current in accordance with the applicable requirements.
Can another reviewer reconstruct the decision?
A good beneficial ownership record should do more than identify a name. It should show how the reviewer moved from the business on the application to the individuals behind it, including the ownership chain, calculations, supporting sources, discrepancies, and final determination.
A useful test is simple: Could another reviewer reconstruct that decision without searching through separate inboxes, spreadsheets, and documents?
AMLForms helps compliance teams bring KYB information, verification, supporting evidence, review steps, and ongoing monitoring into a more consistent workflow. Book an AMLForms walkthrough to see how it works.
References
- FINTRAC, Beneficial ownership requirements
- FINTRAC, Beneficial ownership: Understanding your requirements
- Corporations Canada, Individuals with significant control
- Corporations Canada, Beneficial ownership discrepancy reporting
Financial Action Task Force, Guidance on Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons
See AMLForms in Action
Book a personalized demo to see how AMLForms helps you onboard, verify, screen, and monitor customers with confidence.