Ownership Change - EMI Account Impact?

[AtMo]

Hey everyone, I'm in a situation with my UK LLP and need some advice regarding our EMI corporate account. Here's the scenario:

1. Current structure: 2 UBOs (Ultimate Beneficial Owners), each with 50% ownership.
2. Upcoming change: One partner is leaving. New structure will be:
   • Remaining partner: 99%
   • New partner: 1% (a close family for the partner to maintain the 2-partner LLP requirement)

Questions:

1. Do I need to inform our EMI (Electronic Money Institution) about this ownership change?
2. How likely is it that the EMI might close our corporate account due to this change?
3. Has anyone gone through a similar situation? What was your experience?

Any insights or experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

 

[Sols]

AtMo said:
Do I need to inform our EMI (Electronic Money Institution) about this ownership change?
Click to expand...

Yes

AtMo said:
How likely is it that the EMI might close our corporate account due to this change?
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason and nature of the previous partner's exit. The profile of the new member can cause concern if they hold high risk citizenship or residence, or if they fail screenings.

AtMo said:
Has anyone gone through a similar situation? What was your experience?
Click to expand...

Several times. It all depends on the points mentioned above.

It's a little unusual to have 99/1 split in a partnership. It can be hard to open a new account with such an arrangement, but if everything else remains the same about the company (activities, volumes, money in/out), you'll probably be fine.

Toggle signature
This is the probably the answer to your question.

 

[YoungLansk]

Depends on the EMI in question, Some of them have live monitoring .. The minute any changes accrue in Company house records it automatically triggers a KYC or even account closure. Some of them i had everything changed ( share holder, Address, Director ) and the account was still working no issues for couple of years and business was as usual.
UK based Emi tend to catch on to the changes pretty fast, Others not so much.

 

[Clearsky Network]

1. When entering into a contract with your EMI, it typically includes an obligation to notify them of any changes to your corporate structure, such as changes in ownership. Therefore, it is highly recommended to inform the EMI of any upcoming changes in advance to ensure compliance with contractual obligations.
2. The EMI will need to make verification of the new partner KYC
3. We have similar cases from time to time and if the EMI is updated on time and the new UBO is not from a restricted country, never had a case of a closed account. Every financial institution appreciates honesty and timely update of the structure/activity or turnover change.

Toggle signature
TG: @ClearskyPayments
Join our payments channel https://t.me/PaymentSolutionsClearsky
Payment and Financial Licenses: https://t.me/FinLicense

 

[saturnix]

YoungLansk said:
UK based Emi tend to catch on to the changes pretty fast, Others not so much.
Click to expand...

I closed a UK LLP more than 1 year ago. An EMI still hasn't closed the account.
Wrote to customer service, told them my LLP is closed, then requested a multicurrency account. It got approved clow#¤% Obviously not going to use it, but it's so funny.

Do I need to inform our EMI (Electronic Money Institution) about this ownership change?
Click to expand...

Your UK LLP data is available for the whole world to see, in real-time, online. As YoungLansk correctly told you, some EMIs do live monitoring of this data, others do yearly KYC updates (or both).

If I were you I'd notify the EMI of the change, making sure all partners are owners of strong passports supported by the EMI (if your 1% partner is North Korean, Russian or Iranian: you're 100% getting banned), and with a clean history. There shouldn't be any troubles and, even if there are, you have plenty of alternatives.

Your current situation does not warrant any type of shady behavior such as omitting a KYC update.

 

[AtMo]

Sols said:
It's a little unusual to have 99/1 split in a partnership. It can be hard to open a new account with such an arrangement, but if everything else remains the same about the company (activities, volumes, money in/out), you'll probably be fine.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I thought a 99/1 split would raise fewer questions, as the percentage is low. What do you think is a better split? We can do any split as the new UBO is a close family.

Clearsky Network said:
We have similar cases from time to time and if the EMI is updated on time and the new UBO is not from a restricted country
Click to expand...

The new UBO has the same residency as current UBOs, but would the EMI ask to show proof of payment for taking the shares from the old UBO?

 

[Clearsky Network]

AtMo said:
Thanks for your reply. I thought a 99/1 split would raise fewer questions, as the percentage is low. What do you think is a better split? We can do any split as the new UBO is a close family.


The new UBO has the same residency as current UBOs, but would the EMI ask to show proof of payment for taking the shares from the old UBO?
Click to expand...

The EMI might ask for proof of payment/agreement

Toggle signature
TG: @ClearskyPayments
Join our payments channel https://t.me/PaymentSolutionsClearsky
Payment and Financial Licenses: https://t.me/FinLicense

 

[Forester]

I agree with @Sols , @YoungLansk and @Clearsky Network as well.


My additional comments

AtMo said:
I thought a 99/1 split would raise fewer questions, as the percentage is low.
Click to expand...

IMO, @Sols is right. But I personally do not consider it being fatal.

AtMo said:
What do you think is a better split? We can do any split as the new UBO is a close family.
Click to expand...

In such a case, if I were you, I would simply keep the percentage unchanged. From the point of view of the EMI, this is the most innocent variant.
Having said that, I must also say that running a business within a close family is problematic very often 🙁

AtMo said:
The new UBO has the same residency as current UBOs, but would the EMI ask to show proof of payment for taking the shares from the old UBO?
Click to expand...

Clearsky Network said:
The EMI might ask for proof of payment/agreement
Click to expand...

They might; but especially in the case of just swapping one partner of 50:50, a simple declaration on word of honour should do. Note that there is (IMO) nowhere written that you must pay for the company ownership in cash. You can get it as a compensation for something, for gold, or anything you can name.

Toggle signature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am just a simple countryman. Anything I say is only a personal opinion, not a certified advice 🙂

If you think it makes sense, you can like it; if opposite, please, tell me, why I am wrong...

 

[AtMo]

Forester said:
They might; but especially in the case of just swapping one partner of 50:50
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, I will do what you recommended.

 

[cryptotree]

If you have just 1% would you even be considered a UBO?

 

[ilke]

cryptotree said:
If you have just 1% would you even be considered a UBO?
Click to expand...

Most likely not. UBOs are usually above 10% in ownership.

But, as a member of a partnership (LLP in this case) you have to be identified by banks/EMIs nevertheless.

 

[Forester]

ilke said:
Most likely not. UBOs are usually above 10% in ownership.
Click to expand...

In the EU it is over 25%, if memory serves me well. I cannot recall about the UK but as these rules were enacted while UK was an EU member, I guess the same (but it is possible that it could have been lowered).

ilke said:
But, as a member of a partnership (LLP in this case) you have to be identified by banks/EMIs nevertheless.
Click to expand...

Definitely; and consequently reported (if this is your concern)..

Toggle signature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am just a simple countryman. Anything I say is only a personal opinion, not a certified advice 🙂

If you think it makes sense, you can like it; if opposite, please, tell me, why I am wrong...

 

[cryptotree]

Yes in eu if you have 25%+ of the shares and the bank normally only asks if there are shareholder with more than this percentage otherwise you won't have to disclose the names.

 

[Sols]

25% is just guidance that financial institutions cannot go above, but can ”” many do ”” go below.

Toggle signature
This is the probably the answer to your question.