The British Virgin Islands has now enacted the BVI Business Companies and Limited Partnerships (Beneficial Ownership) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, a change that fundamentally alters how confidentiality works in the jurisdiction.
For the first time, beneficial ownership (BO) information is no longer structurally closed, but instead subject to application-based access by the public, overseen by the BVI Registrar.
The process operates as follows:
Much will now depend on how the BVI Registry exercises its discretion in practice. On paper, the Registrar retains control. In reality, the long-term impact will be shaped by interpretation, internal policy, and external pressure.
A key question is whether the Registry adopts a conservative approach, approving access only in truly exceptional cases, or a more open one, where disclosure becomes increasingly routine.
Comparable jurisdictions offer insight. Seychelles, for example, initially implemented limited access frameworks that gradually expanded. Over time, beneficial ownership data became far easier for authorities and cooperating bodies to obtain. While the stated goal is transparency and preventing abuse, which most would agree with, the practical result is that ownership information can be accessed rapidly, often without meaningful opportunity for challenge within the relevant timeline.
These developments introduce new risks that go beyond the criminal-use argument. Short objection windows, repeated application rights, cross-border data sharing, and growing numbers of authorized requestors all increase the possibility of overreach, misuse, or data leakage, regardless of intent.
Even where objections are theoretically available, jurisdictional realities may make them ineffective in practice, particularly where disclosure decisions are made faster than owners can realistically react.
Importantly, this is no longer just a theoretical discussion. Many clients holding BVI structures have already begun migrating to other jurisdictions where confidentiality frameworks remain clearer and more predictable. In practice, Nevis, the Cook Islands, and St. Lucia are frequently chosen as replacements, especially for holding companies, asset-protection structures, and international business arrangements where discretion remains a legitimate requirement.
Some view this shift as inevitable under sustained OECD and EU pressure. Others see it as the moment when the BVI crossed a material threshold, moving from a privacy-anchored offshore centre toward something closer to a conditional-transparency jurisdiction.
The unresolved issue is whether this regime will remain restrained and exceptional in practice, or whether it will gradually expand through administrative behavior rather than further legislative change.
We at OVZA are very curious about what the JohnnyDoe community thinks will happen.
Is this simply a symbolic transparency mechanism that will be applied cautiously, or is it the beginning of a longer-term redefinition of the BVI’s role in the offshore world?
For the first time, beneficial ownership (BO) information is no longer structurally closed, but instead subject to application-based access by the public, overseen by the BVI Registrar.
The process operates as follows:
- Any applicant (including a member of the general public) may submit a formal request to the Registrar seeking access to beneficial ownership information of a BVI company.
- The Registrar has twelve (12) days to review the application and make a decision.
- The beneficial owner is notified and has only five (5) days to file an objection to the request.
- If the Registrar approves the application, the beneficial ownership details are disclosed to the applicant.
- If the Registrar rejects the application, that refusal is time-limited to three (3) years (with a possible extension). After that period, the same request can be filed again and reconsidered.
Much will now depend on how the BVI Registry exercises its discretion in practice. On paper, the Registrar retains control. In reality, the long-term impact will be shaped by interpretation, internal policy, and external pressure.
A key question is whether the Registry adopts a conservative approach, approving access only in truly exceptional cases, or a more open one, where disclosure becomes increasingly routine.
Comparable jurisdictions offer insight. Seychelles, for example, initially implemented limited access frameworks that gradually expanded. Over time, beneficial ownership data became far easier for authorities and cooperating bodies to obtain. While the stated goal is transparency and preventing abuse, which most would agree with, the practical result is that ownership information can be accessed rapidly, often without meaningful opportunity for challenge within the relevant timeline.
These developments introduce new risks that go beyond the criminal-use argument. Short objection windows, repeated application rights, cross-border data sharing, and growing numbers of authorized requestors all increase the possibility of overreach, misuse, or data leakage, regardless of intent.
Even where objections are theoretically available, jurisdictional realities may make them ineffective in practice, particularly where disclosure decisions are made faster than owners can realistically react.
Importantly, this is no longer just a theoretical discussion. Many clients holding BVI structures have already begun migrating to other jurisdictions where confidentiality frameworks remain clearer and more predictable. In practice, Nevis, the Cook Islands, and St. Lucia are frequently chosen as replacements, especially for holding companies, asset-protection structures, and international business arrangements where discretion remains a legitimate requirement.
Some view this shift as inevitable under sustained OECD and EU pressure. Others see it as the moment when the BVI crossed a material threshold, moving from a privacy-anchored offshore centre toward something closer to a conditional-transparency jurisdiction.
The unresolved issue is whether this regime will remain restrained and exceptional in practice, or whether it will gradually expand through administrative behavior rather than further legislative change.
We at OVZA are very curious about what the JohnnyDoe community thinks will happen.
Is this simply a symbolic transparency mechanism that will be applied cautiously, or is it the beginning of a longer-term redefinition of the BVI’s role in the offshore world?
