In our opinion, if there are two or more persons who have the right to jointly appoint or otherwise establish or dismiss a statutory body, management, supervisory or control body, but none of them can exercise this right independently – e.g. does not hold more than 50% of the voting rights, where a majority vote is required, such a person is not the ultimate beneficiary. If, for example, the statutory body is appointed by four persons with a total of 25% of the voting rights, none of these persons is the ultimate beneficiary, as none of them can exercise this right alone. In this case, the identification of the ultimate beneficiary must be based primarily on the provisions of Section 6a(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Protection of Assets from the Proceeds of Crime, and therefore the natural person who “actually controls or supervises” the legal entity must be considered the ultimate beneficiary. of the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, and therefore the ultimate beneficiary shall be considered to be the natural person who “actually controls or supervises a legal entity, a natural person - entrepreneur or an association of assets...”.
Beyond this, it should also be noted, using the example mentioned above, that in the case of four persons with a 25% share in the voting rights, if three of these persons act jointly (vote jointly) and the authorized person proves this fact, all three persons shall be registered as ultimate beneficiaries pursuant to Section 6a(3) of the Act on the Prevention of Legalization of Proceeds from Criminal Activity.
