原文から自動翻訳 · 原文を読む (English)
規制された環境、特にフィンテックプラットフォームやブローカーが、それ自体が規制されている非米国法人（例：EU認可の投資会社や英国の決済機関）をオンボーディングする場合のKYBについて、実質的支配者のデューデリジェンスの深さに関する一般的なコンセンサスはどうでしょうか？在職証明書と本国規制当局からの適格証明書が、標準的な法人書類と制裁チェックに加えて十分とされていますか、それとも、たとえその法人が上場企業または規制対象であったとしても、すべてのUBOを特定しようと、企業はより深く掘り下げていますか？
Interesting point. For regulated non-US entities, I've seen varying approaches. Some platforms do a deep dive into beneficial ownership, similar to an unregulated entity, while others rely more on the entity's own regulatory oversight and good standing certificates. It often depends on the risk assessment framework of the onboarding institution.
That's a good question and often depends on your internal risk framework and the specific regulations you're subject to. For regulated non-US entities, we typically start with public registry checks and their regulatory license status, then follow up with incumbency certificates and good standing letters. However, we also conduct a more in-depth UBO check beyond a certain ownership threshold, particularly if the entity is from a higher-risk jurisdiction.
The level of detail for beneficial ownership on regulated non-US entities often depends on the specific regulatory framework you're operating under, as well as the risk assessment of the entity itself. A simple certificate might not be enough for a high-risk jurisdiction.
Traderforum · 日本語