Opinion on the identification of the beneficial owner in cases where multiple persons have the right to jointly appoint a statutory body but cannot exercise this right individually. It explains when such persons are considered beneficial owners under Section 6a of Act No. 297/2008 Coll.
In our opinion, if there are two or more persons who have the right to jointly appoint, otherwise designate, or remove a statutory body, management body, supervisory body, or audit body, but none of them can exercise this right independently—for example, none holds more than 50% of the voting rights— and a majority vote is required, such a person is not the ultimate beneficial owner. For example, if a statutory body is appointed by four persons each holding 25% of the voting rights, none of these persons is the ultimate beneficial owner, as none can exercise this right alone. In this case, the identification of the beneficial owner must be based primarily on the provisions of Section 6a(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering, and thus the beneficial owner is considered to be the natural person who “actually controls or manages the legal entity, a natural person—entrepreneur, or an asset pool...".
Furthermore, using the aforementioned example, it should be noted that in the case of four persons each holding a 25% share of voting rights, if three of these persons act jointly (vote together) and the authorized person proves this fact, all three persons shall be registered as ultimate beneficial owners pursuant to Section 6a(3) of the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering.
