A company maintains its own beneficial ownership information, while its accountant or other obliged entity performs client AML checks. These tasks are connected but distinct. As at 4 October 2026, the registration rule must also be distinguished from the dispute over enforcement.
Internal information and evidence
Section 8 of the Beneficial Ownership Register Act requires the recording entity to obtain and record complete, accurate and current information, including steps taken when the management fallback applies. Records are retained throughout beneficial-owner status and for ten years after it ends. The law also provides for supplying information to an AML obliged entity on request.
This makes a documented internal overview useful: who qualifies, why and since when. Do not wait for a bank inquiry to discover that internal records no longer reflect shareholding changes.
What the registration rule says
Section 9 requires alignment of register entries with reality and an application or notarial route without undue delay after a relevant event. Automatic entries can help, but check their conditions and completeness. They do not universally transmit every change or form of control.
Assign responsibility for checking extracts and communicating changes in shares, rights or persons. Changes to directors and beneficial owners do not always coincide. Document the event’s effective date and correct identity information.
Why enforcement cannot be assumed
An August 2025 Supreme Court decision addressed the conflict between public access, EU privacy protection and registration enforcement. Public access subsequently closed on 17 December 2025. That alone does not settle later judicial developments.
FAÚ’s revised June 2026 opinion describes a Prague High Court decision dated 21 May 2026 stating that registration cannot be enforced pending new legislation, despite public closure. This describes specific judicial developments rather than predicting every future dispute.
Avoid broader unsupported conclusions
The statutory text also contains administrative and private-law consequences of non-registration. This article does not present them as automatically and undisputedly applicable on the stated date. Nor does the dispute safely justify a universal instruction to stop identifying owners, destroy records or refuse AML cooperation.
FAÚ expressly maintains that an AML obliged entity’s section 15a discrepancy-notification duty continues. In practice, maintain evidence and enable due diligence. Specific registration enforcement, penalties or impacts on voting and distributions require the current legal and procedural circumstances of the particular matter.
Practical steps
- Maintain persons, ownership grounds and effective dates.
- Check extracts and the actual scope of automatic entries.
- Distinguish statutory wording from the enforcement dispute.
- Provide relevant AML evidence and document the particular procedure.
Illustrative scenario
After a share transfer, a company updates its records, checks the extract and supplies its accountant with due diligence information. It does not treat the enforcement dispute as a prohibition on cooperation.
When the situation differs
A company refuses to explain ownership, claiming a judgment abolished all AML duties. The obliged entity consequently cannot complete checks.
What to document
- Internal information and evidence for each person’s status.
- Change dates and extracts, including automatic-entry assessment.
- Cooperation records and relevant circumstances of a particular proceeding.
Common pitfalls
- Assuming public closure removed every judicial objection.
- Confusing a registration dispute with the end of AML checks.
- Relying on automatic entries without checking content.
Frequently asked questions
Are all penalties and restrictions certainly enforceable now?
These documented developments do not support that general conclusion. Distinguish statutory wording from current judicial questions and assess specific consequences in the particular matter.
Can an accountant stop establishing the client’s beneficial owner?
No. AML identification and verification are separate duties; FAÚ’s current opinion also maintains the discrepancy procedure.
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 ↗
§ 9 odst. 2 písm. b), c); § 15a · accessed 2026-10-04 - Zákon č. 37/2021 Sb. — aktuální znění e-Sbírky ↗
§ 8–10; § 37; § 53–54 · 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 - Nejvyšší soud: oficiální informace k rozhodnutí 27 Cdo 1368/2024 ↗
Rozhodnutí z 25. 8. 2025; informace zveřejněna 28. 8. 2025 · 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.