A register discrepancy is not automatically a suspicious transaction. It has its own statutory AML procedure; FAÚ’s revised June 2026 opinion maintains that procedure despite the dispute over registration enforcement.
Verify the discrepancy first
The definition covers incorrect registered information and missing entries, including current or historical data. Check the entity, identities, effective dates and legal basis of any change.
Failure to display an extract without entitled access does not prove missing registration. Distinguish technical restrictions from inaccurate or absent data. A client’s ownership statements alone do not establish that the register is wrong.
Notify the client and seek clarification
Where you reasonably conclude that identification or due diligence has revealed a discrepancy, section 15a requires notifying the client and specifying the difference. If appropriate in the circumstances, allow the client to respond. Identify, for example, the person and holding inconsistent with current documents.
Compare the response with evidence. The client may show that a change was ineffective, an entry historical or your interpretation mistaken. Do not close the matter merely on a promise to correct it eventually without following the outcome.
Notify the competent court
If the client does not remove or refute the discrepancy without undue delay, notify the court competent for discrepancy proceedings. Attach evidence of the difference and any client response. No universal number of days permits postponing every discrepancy automatically.
Record discovery, request, response, assessment and delivery. A court discrepancy notification is different from a suspicious transaction report to FAÚ in recipient, purpose and legal regime.
Current interpretation and remaining duties
In its opinion dated 19 June 2026 and published on 22 June, FAÚ expressly maintains the applicability of section 15a and the discrepancy definition for AML. It responds to a new judgment on enforcing registration. This position does not establish that every consequence of non-registration is undisputed.
FAÚ may instruct that section 15a not be applied if it would jeopardise suspicious-transaction inquiries or criminal proceedings. Assess professional exceptions for protected information under sections 26 and 27 separately. Complete your own due diligence; section 15 applies if that is impossible. Assess suspicion separately and observe confidentiality.
Practical steps
- Verify the specific difference and evidence.
- Notify the client and specify the difference; allow a response where appropriate.
- Assess removal or refutation without undue delay.
- If it persists, notify the competent court and retain evidence.
Illustrative scenario
Documents establish a beneficial-owner change while the register still names the previous owner. The office documents the difference, seeks a response and notifies the competent court if it remains unresolved.
When the situation differs
An office sends the court only “the data do not match”, without explanation, documents or the client’s response.
What to document
- Register extract and evidence of actual circumstances.
- Specific request, response and assessment.
- Notification and delivery evidence; any FAÚ instruction.
Common pitfalls
- Confusing technical unavailability with a discrepancy.
- Replacing an STR with a court notification.
- Relying on an outdated opinion.
Frequently asked questions
Did the court dispute abolish section 15a?
FAÚ’s current opinion says it did not. Enforcement of the entity’s own registration duty and the obliged entity’s AML procedure are different questions.
Can a discrepancy also be suspicious?
Yes, depending on circumstances. Assess suspicion separately; the difference alone does not automatically establish it.
Put this guidance into practice
Choose a record for the step you are working on. Adapt it to your profession and actual case.
Complete client information online
Where to go next
- Beneficial owners: establish first, then verify — Distinguish identifying a beneficial owner, verifying identity and substantiating why the person owns or controls the company.
- The closed public beneficial ownership register: obtaining an extract — Current access for obliged entities, client-supplied extracts and handling non-public beneficial ownership data.
Sources and legal references
- Zákon č. 253/2008 Sb. — aktuální znění e-Sbírky ↗
§ 15a; § 9 odst. 2 písm. b); § 15; § 26–27 · accessed 2026-10-04 - Zákon č. 37/2021 Sb. — aktuální znění e-Sbírky ↗
§ 2 písm. l) · accessed 2026-10-04 - FAÚ: revidované stanovisko ke skutečným majitelům a nesrovnalostem, červen 2026 ↗
§ 15a; dokument z 19. 6. 2026, zveřejněn 22. 6. 2026 · accessed 2026-10-04
Editorial work and source checks are not independent legal approval of your particular process. Compare the conditions and exceptions with your own circumstances.