Transparency International New Zealand's July 2026 briefing paper makes the case for closing one of the country's transparency gaps.
New Zealand has long enjoyed a reputation as one of the world's least corrupt countries. Yet behind that reputation lies a significant gap: for well over a million companies, limited partnerships and trusts: the people who ultimately own or control them often cannot be identified from public records.
Our new briefing paper: Why New Zealand Should Enable Open Beneficial Ownership Registers for Companies, Limited Partnerships and Trusts sets out the economic, reputational and law-enforcement case for a beneficial ownership register.
We draw on FATF evaluations, government reports and our internal expertise. Through an Official Information Act request, we also try to understand more about why reform plans keep starting and stopping.
The gap
New Zealand's Companies Register records directors and shareholders, not the natural persons who ultimately benefit from an entity. Of an estimated 733,000 companies and limited partnerships, and between 300,000-500,000 trusts, only a small portion face anything resembling beneficial ownership disclosure and then only to Inland Revenue under strict secrecy rules.
While there have been more due diligence requirements under AML laws and trust disclosure rules via the Inland Revenue (IR) and the Trusts Act 2019, the underlying settlors, trustees, and beneficiaries of domestic family, business, and foreign-owned trusts remain largely shielded from the view of the public, investigative agencies and other businesses.
The FATF's own 2021 Mutual Evaluation was blunt about the consequences, finding that gaps in beneficial ownership information for companies, limited partnerships and trusts left New Zealand's financial system exposed.
The country's foreign trust population ballooned in the years before the 2016 Panama Papers leak, largely via a single Auckland law firm; and in the Azerbaijani Laundromat, where eight New Zealand companies moved a combined quarter of a billion US dollars, some serviced by a provider already under an anti-money-laundering warning from the Department of Internal Affairs.
There is at least one international court action in play that is hampered by the lack of beneficial ownership information of a New Zealand foreign-owned trust.
Reform that keeps stopping
Promises have been made over several governments to address the gaps and there has been some progress around anti-money laundering expectations. But TINZ's OIA request reveals that a companies and limited partnerships register was fully drafted, costed, and ready to progress in 2024 – but was shelved by the responsible Minister, against official advice.
TINZ links this pattern to two structural weaknesses in New Zealand's policy environment: the absence of any lobbying register, which means the public cannot see who is making the case against reform behind closed doors; and a shrinking investigative media sector, historically the main check on exactly this kind of concealment.
Balancing transparency and privacy
TINZ acknowledges privacy concerns including those identified by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2022.
But there is a sharp distinction between legitimate personal privacy (a family's modest financial affairs, provision for a vulnerable beneficiary, genuine safety concerns) and the use of corporate or trust structures specifically to obscure control for the purposes of laundering money or evading tax.
International jurisprudence is converging on a workable middle path: broad access gated by a legitimate-interest test, paired with a genuine, well-administered exemption pathway for individuals with real safety concerns.
Six recommendations, one practical first step
TINZ's six recommendations range from the structural (a single legislative programme covering both companies and trusts, rather than two competing bills) to practical solutions. For example we suggest a voluntary private register for ordinary family trusts: trusts that register basic settlor, trustee and beneficiary details would qualify for standard, rather than enhanced, customer due diligence. This would be a real compliance saving that gives low-risk trusts every reason to opt in, while trusts with something to hide default to full scrutiny. This deliberately modest mechanism is a practical step towards a fuller trust register.
New Zealand's next FATF evaluation is due in 2029. FATF is assessing countries whether transparency frameworks work effectively in practice, not just whether the right rules exist on paper. We are now in the window to make sure we get this right.
Read the full briefing paper, including TINZ's OIA findings and detailed recommendations: Why New Zealand Should Enable Open Beneficial Ownership Registers
