<p>The UK decided to impose public registers of company owners on the Overseas Territories. However, the territories themselves oppose, believing that by such a decision the UK violates their constitutional rights. Some even talk about constitutional detachment from the Kingdom.</p><p> </p><p align="center"><b>Great Britain requires offshore public registries of beneficiaries</b></p><p>In early May, quite unexpectedly, the UK government voted to introduce publicly accessible registries of beneficiaries of companies in the Overseas Territories. Even the former opponents of the proposal in the British parliament eventually agreed.</p><p>Implement changes in 14 Overseas Territories due until 2020, including the popular offshore jurisdictions of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Caymans, and the like. One of the reasons for this decision is the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism. According to the Panamanian papers, half of the companies that were in the field of view of journalists were registered in the BVI, plus through this jurisdiction, $ 68 billion was spent from Russia in the period from 2007 to 2016.</p><p>British officials consider it their moral duty to introduce such requirements in the British offshore and compare them with the abolition of the death penalty in 1991 and the decriminalization of homosexuality in 2000.</p><p>A separate indignation was caused by the fact that the innovations refer only to the Overseas Territories. The crown territories - the Isles of Maine, Jersey and Guernsey - do not qualify for claims, because the British Parliament does not have the right to do so. However, after success with the Overseas Territories, experts believe, officials can try to introduce amendments for the Crown Territories.</p><p>At the same time, the Overseas Territories are extremely negative and even evil against the decision of the British Parliament.</p><p align="center"><b> </b></p><p align="center"><b>Overseas Territories go to conflict with London</b></p><p align="center"><b> </b></p><p>A unilateral decision by London could harm the economies of the Overseas Territories. So representatives of several island jurisdictions consider. In addition, such a decision is a direct interference in the life of jurisdictions and violates the constitution.</p><p>The economy of the Overseas Territories is highly dependent on foreign investment. In case of forced introduction of public registries of beneficiaries, a large share of investments will leave the islands. And the money will go to other, even more non-transparent jurisdictions.</p><p>On the BWO, against the introduction of the rules, a protest march took place, in which 1,000 people took part. For a 30 thousandth island - this is a huge number. Also, the BWO authorities decided to hire an international law firm Withers to prove the non-constitutionality of the adopted bill. The BWO states that it will not approve the bill until public registers become the norm of international law.</p><p>The Cayman Islands believe that London's behavior is a manifestation of colonial despotism. They want to get rid of the possibility of such a strong influence on the part of Great Britain. Representatives of the Cayman and other jurisdictions are sure that the financial sector will not limit the pressure of London. After the implementation of these rules, other proposals will be followed, from which it will be impossible to refuse.</p><p>Prime Minister Bermuda told Teresa May that she will not announce the amendment, since his country does not recognize the right of Great Britain to influence the domestic policy of the country. He agrees to introduce public registries only if such practice becomes an international standard.</p><p> </p><p align="center"><b>The war against the British offshore</b></p><p align="center"><b> </b></p><p>Against privacy and offshore is a real war. Especially against the British offshore. In some moments, it seems that the UK itself actively supports the attack on its offshore territories, essentially giving the audience and clients to offshore companies that are subordinate to other states, for example, the United States.</p><p>Offshore companies require the exchange of tax information. The BWO was required to transmit data to the UK upon request within 48 hours. Now offer to create public registers of ownership of companies that exist far from anywhere even in onshore jurisdictions.</p><p>The open registry of the UK is criticized because it partially violates the right to confidentiality and opens up wide opportunities for using information by scammers. This is expected by many experts in the event that offshore companies will oblige publicly disclose information about the owners of companies.</p><p>At the same time, we understand that this measure will not be a cardinal decision to whitewash the economy, or it can help to reduce the flows of laundered funds. Most likely illegal means will move to less transparent places. Some analysts are sure that you do not need to go to a little-known offshore for this, it is quite possible to use the USA or even the UK for this. The latter introduces various anti-money laundering laws and increases the transparency of asset ownership, but many see this as only a lever of political pressure, and not an attempt to actually remedy the situation.</p><p>The use of offshore companies becomes difficult. Planning, preparation, timely work with documents is required. Any bank in which you want to open an account requires accountability and proof of the legality of the origin of the funds. The old schemes stop working and become a source of danger for the entrepreneur. If you do not take this into account, you can get a whole bunch of adventures, which you can really avoid.</p>