Beneficial Owner and Banking Obligations: A Comparison of Italy and Monaco

Transparency, compliance and transformation of the international financial system

The identification of the beneficial owner is one of the cornerstones of contemporary anti-money laundering architecture. Gradually introduced internationally under the impetus of the FATF, this requirement has taken different forms in different jurisdictions, reflecting the degree of integration into global markets and regulatory pressure. A comparison between Italy and Monaco reveals not only a chronological difference, but also a different trajectory of adaptation: on the one hand, European harmonization; on the other, a progressive adaptation aimed at preserving the international reputation of Monaco's financial center.

1. The beneficial owner: from a technical concept to a systemic protection

The concept of beneficial owner arose in response to a concrete need: to overcome the legal barriers of corporate structures to identify the entity who ultimately exercises economic control.

It is therefore not a question of a mere formal fulfillment, but of a paradigm shift: from the apparent customer to the substantial holder of economic power .

The FATF Recommendations (particularly those updated in 2003 and 2012) represented the starting point of this evolution, requiring financial intermediaries to "look beyond" the legal form.

2. The European Union and Italian implementation: anticipation and systematization

The European Union has implemented these requirements with Directive 2005/60/EC (Anti-Money Laundering Directive III) , which for the first time imposed an explicit obligation on intermediaries to identify the beneficial owner.

In Italy, the transition was clear and early:

• Legislative Decree 231/2007 (in force since 29 December 2007)

  → introduces a general obligation for banks to identify and verify the beneficial owner as part of customer due diligence.

Subsequent developments have strengthened the system:

• 2017 (Legislative Decree 90/2017) – implementation of the IV AML Directive

  → greater depth of checks, centrality of continuous updating, risk-based approach.

• 2019 (Legislative Decree 125/2019) – implementation of the V AML Directive

  → increased transparency and greater accessibility of data.

• 2023 – Operation of the Register of Beneficial Owners

  → public formalization of an obligation that has already existed for over a decade.

📌 Key element : in Italy, the obligation was born early (2007) and developed organically within a coherent European regulatory system.

3. The Principality of Monaco: progressive adaptation and reputational logic

The Principality of Monaco has had a different trajectory, traditionally characterized by a strong international financial vocation and, historically, greater confidentiality.

The turning point is represented by:

• Law No. 1,362 of August 3, 2009

  → formally introduces the obligation for banks to identify the beneficial owner .

This intervention is not accidental: it comes within the context of international pressure following the 2008 financial crisis and the intensification of FATF controls on financial centers.

The subsequent phases show a clear path of convergence:

• 2016–2018 (regulatory updates, Loi n. 1.462/2018)

  → substantial alignment with the standards of the IV EU Directive (although without formal constraints), including the 25% threshold.

• 2021 (Loi n. 1.503/2020 and implementing legislation)

  → establishment of the Register of Beneficial Beneficiaries at the RCI.

📌 Key element : Monaco introduced the obligation in 2009 , but has progressively strengthened it under international pressure, with a logic of reputation preservation rather than regulatory integration.

4. Structural differences: not just a question of dates

The comparison between Italy and Monaco cannot be reduced to a mere time difference (2007 vs. 2009). The differences are more profound.

a) Source of the obligation

• Italy : direct derivation from EU law (binding harmonization)

• Monaco : Voluntary compliance with FATF standards (international soft law)

b) System logic

• Italy/EU : Building an Integrated Compliance System

• Monaco : Progressive adaptation to avoid financial isolation

c) Transparency

• Italy : progressive opening and publicity of data

• Monaco : Greater caution, with more limited and controlled access

d) Operational approach

• Italy : rigorous and standardized formalization

• Monaco : Greater emphasis on substantive assessment and banking relationship

  
  

5. Implications for investors and capital structures

For international operators – family offices, HNWIs, institutional investors – the question of beneficial ownership is no longer a merely regulatory issue, but a strategic variable.

Three implications emerge clearly:

1. End of substantial anonymity

   Opaque structures are no longer sustainable in the medium term.

2. Centrality of economic coherence

   It is not enough to declare the beneficial owner: it is necessary to demonstrate the economic rationale of the structure.

3. Reputational risk

   Transparency has become an asset: the lack of clarity leads to exclusion from financial circuits.

   
   

6. Perspectives: towards a substantial convergence

Despite their differences in origin, Italy and Monaco are converging towards a common model:

• penetrating identification of the beneficial owner,

• traceability of structures,

• integration between bank registers and controls.

The real issue is no longer whether to identify the beneficial owner, but how to do so in a credible and sustainable way over time.

In this sense, the beneficial owner is now seen as a key to understanding economic legitimacy , rather than a simple personal data.

Conclusion

The introduction of the obligation to identify the beneficial owner marks the transition from finance based on form to finance based on substance.

Italy and Monaco, despite starting from different trajectories, are today part of the same plan: to make transparent what, for decades, has remained deliberately opaque.

With an implicit but decisive consequence: in the contemporary financial system, transparency is no longer a constraint – it is a condition of access .

For specialized advice on investing abroad, you can contact us at 011-6605068

About the Author

Edoardo Tamagnone is a lawyer and partner at the law firm Tamagnone Di Marco Avvocati Associati. He focuses on international taxation, investment structures, and wealth planning for investors, family offices, and businesses with cross-border operations.

He works in Turin and international contexts, focusing on the intersection of law, economics, and global capital.

#wealth #tax #investments #lawyers #abroad