6 ms·

Do you know if the beneficial ownership information is (likely to be) subject to the Freedom of Information Act? I ask because this kind of information can be i

Do you know if the beneficial ownership information is (likely to be) subject to the Freedom of Information Act? I ask because this kind of information can be in the public interest. Edit: the Washington Post article on this says “ The general public won’t have access to the ownership data, a disappointment to anti-corruption campaigners, who say public scrutiny would help combat criminal activity.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymous-shell-company-us-ban/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/11/anonymou...

syshum 6y ago
It is a good thing for privacy though, people use business entities like this for legitimate purposes to protect their privacy so the world does not know where they live, the car they drive, etc etc etc The is the problem with "anti-corruption" efforts, is that always hurts people that have legitimate reasons or simply desire to live anonymous lives
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  I wish more people considered this. Lots of people keep pushing to get rid of cash, for example, because it will "reduce terrorism" or "reduce money laundering" or whatever. But I like using cash, because I don't want my bank, or an anti-money-laundering authority, or anyone else to know what I buy, when, why, how much, or from whom. It has nothing to do with illegal activity, or buying drugs, or whatever. My parents and grandparents told me about the days before centralized documentation. A birth certificate was sufficient documentation, and of course those could be changed. One could lie about his birthday and not get caught. These days, no one is a person at all unless the government says he is, and even then, he is only the person the government says he is: I knew someone who was a transgender; she couldn't call herself a woman in many contexts until the government said so. This idea of constantly proving that you are who you claim to be, backed by government verification, strikes me as a bad direction to go.
  - buckminster 6y ago
    I agree, but I feel that measures that are only available to the wealthy (like putting your finances behind an anonymous corporation) are making things worse. The powerful, who are in the best position to bring about change, are shielded from the consequences of the pervasive loss of privacy and so have little reason to do anything about it.
    - syshum 6y ago
      The limits here speak to the exact opposite, it did not take a whole lot of money (a few hundred dollars) to create a fictitious entity to hold your home or other property so that is does not appear on public property tax records. This was not a tool "only for the wealthy" and since the limits of the law are fairly low before the law no longer applies it is clear this law IS NOT targeting "the wealthy"
    - nullc 6y ago
      You don't need to be especially wealthy to own your home via a corporation. It's essentially a one time cost of a few hundred dollars plus a small annual registration fee. Presumably this law still will be easily avoided by the sufficiently wealthy-- some kind of finance structure involving loans and whatever where a nominee is the legal beneficial owner. ... and outright criminals will just break it, because its not like violations of it will be detected quickly and if they are detected the criminals will already have worse problems. Or just purchase a 'real' business that engages in some unrelated activity to own the property... Which is something just about every money launderer already does! It just has to be over the size threshold in this bill, essentially leaving this avenue open only to the wealthy.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>I wish more people considered this. Modern US Society is losing alot of things that used to be a foundation. Privacy is one of them. In general people today agree with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" rhetoric, generally accepting that "only bad people" want or desire privacy, and the government is only their to "protect good people from bad people" It is all a lie ofcourse but that is where we are as a society, and I am not seeing anything on the horizon to change this Largely we (the US) are moving to a more Authoritarian, collectivist society, leaving behind our Individualist libertarian roots
- jjeaff 6y ago
  It is not valid to claim that people have a right to privacy if only those well enough off to afford it are able to take advantage of it.
dvtrn 6y ago
Doesn’t FOIA only apply to government agencies, not companies and corporations?
- wmf 6y ago
  This law requires ownership to be reported to FinCEN, a government agency. So it's natural to ask if a FOIA to FinCEN could get this information. It probably won't work though.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    probably not, it'd be like asking the IRS for information on taxpayers. You won't be able to get your neighbor's AGI over the past four years, but you probably could get some summary or overall statistics on the income of people in your city or state.
    - nullc 6y ago
      It's a felony for tax return information to be disclosed without authorization (e.g. 26 US Code § 6103), though it still happens sometimes. I don't see anything in the bill language that restricts the disclosure, much less makes an unauthorized disclosure a crime.

syshum 6y ago

It is a good thing for privacy though, people use business entities like this for legitimate purposes to protect their privacy so the world does not know where they live, the car they drive, etc etc etc The is the problem with "anti-corruption" efforts, is that always hurts people that have legitimate reasons or simply desire to live anonymous lives

da_big_ghey 6y ago
I wish more people considered this. Lots of people keep pushing to get rid of cash, for example, because it will "reduce terrorism" or "reduce money laundering" or whatever. But I like using cash, because I don't want my bank, or an anti-money-laundering authority, or anyone else to know what I buy, when, why, how much, or from whom. It has nothing to do with illegal activity, or buying drugs, or whatever. My parents and grandparents told me about the days before centralized documentation. A birth certificate was sufficient documentation, and of course those could be changed. One could lie about his birthday and not get caught. These days, no one is a person at all unless the government says he is, and even then, he is only the person the government says he is: I knew someone who was a transgender; she couldn't call herself a woman in many contexts until the government said so. This idea of constantly proving that you are who you claim to be, backed by government verification, strikes me as a bad direction to go.
- buckminster 6y ago
  I agree, but I feel that measures that are only available to the wealthy (like putting your finances behind an anonymous corporation) are making things worse. The powerful, who are in the best position to bring about change, are shielded from the consequences of the pervasive loss of privacy and so have little reason to do anything about it.
  - syshum 6y ago
    The limits here speak to the exact opposite, it did not take a whole lot of money (a few hundred dollars) to create a fictitious entity to hold your home or other property so that is does not appear on public property tax records. This was not a tool "only for the wealthy" and since the limits of the law are fairly low before the law no longer applies it is clear this law IS NOT targeting "the wealthy"
  - nullc 6y ago
    You don't need to be especially wealthy to own your home via a corporation. It's essentially a one time cost of a few hundred dollars plus a small annual registration fee. Presumably this law still will be easily avoided by the sufficiently wealthy-- some kind of finance structure involving loans and whatever where a nominee is the legal beneficial owner. ... and outright criminals will just break it, because its not like violations of it will be detected quickly and if they are detected the criminals will already have worse problems. Or just purchase a 'real' business that engages in some unrelated activity to own the property... Which is something just about every money launderer already does! It just has to be over the size threshold in this bill, essentially leaving this avenue open only to the wealthy.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>I wish more people considered this. Modern US Society is losing alot of things that used to be a foundation. Privacy is one of them. In general people today agree with the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" rhetoric, generally accepting that "only bad people" want or desire privacy, and the government is only their to "protect good people from bad people" It is all a lie ofcourse but that is where we are as a society, and I am not seeing anything on the horizon to change this Largely we (the US) are moving to a more Authoritarian, collectivist society, leaving behind our Individualist libertarian roots
jjeaff 6y ago
It is not valid to claim that people have a right to privacy if only those well enough off to afford it are able to take advantage of it.

dvtrn 6y ago

Doesn’t FOIA only apply to government agencies, not companies and corporations?

wmf 6y ago
This law requires ownership to be reported to FinCEN, a government agency. So it's natural to ask if a FOIA to FinCEN could get this information. It probably won't work though.
- judge2020 6y ago
  probably not, it'd be like asking the IRS for information on taxpayers. You won't be able to get your neighbor's AGI over the past four years, but you probably could get some summary or overall statistics on the income of people in your city or state.
  - nullc 6y ago
    It's a felony for tax return information to be disclosed without authorization (e.g. 26 US Code § 6103), though it still happens sometimes. I don't see anything in the bill language that restricts the disclosure, much less makes an unauthorized disclosure a crime.