Switzerland strengthens financial integrity: new Transparency Act and central register of beneficial owners, as well as stricter Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) rules for advisers

From October 2026, a paradigm shift will come into effect in Switzerland: for the first time, a central transparency register for beneficial owners of legal entities will be established. Companies will be obliged to disclose their ownership and control structures to the authorities. At the same time, advisers – in particular solicitors and notaries – will be subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act when carrying out certain structuring activities. The reforms are primarily intended to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, but they entail significant new compliance obligations for the companies and advisers concerned. What does this mean in practice for board members, managing directors and those in advisory professions? And where do the new liability and compliance risks lie? We set the record straight.

13. July 2026

With the Act on the Transparency of Legal Entities and the Identification of Beneficial Owners (TJPG), Switzerland is establishing, for the first time, a central, nationwide transparency register. This central, federal transparency register is maintained by the Federal Administration and is accessible only to certain authorities and financial intermediaries under defined conditions. At the same time, the amendment to the Federal Act on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism (Money Laundering Act, GwG, SR 955.0) comes into force, extending its scope to cover certain structuring activities carried out by lawyers and notaries. The aim of both reforms is to close transparency gaps in complex corporate and asset structures and to implement international standards – in particular those of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF, Recommendation 24). The authorities are to be granted rapid, reliable and standardised access to information on beneficial owners via the transparency register. This increased transparency is intended, in particular, to facilitate the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and complex economic crime, and to close existing transparency gaps in corporate and shareholding structures.

From a legal perspective, this represents a twofold systemic shift: on the one hand, transparency regarding beneficial owners is being transformed from an ad hoc verification regime applied by financial intermediaries into a structural obligation under company law. On the other hand, the preventive system under anti-money laundering law is being extended to advisory activities not previously subject to it, provided these have a structuring or administrative effect.

The Transparency Register: Systematic Classification

Obligation under company law

The TJPG obliges legal entities under private law, such as public limited companies (AG), limited liability companies (GmbH), co-operatives, investment companies, foundations, associations, as well as certain foreign legal entities whose effective management is based in Switzerland or which own property in Switzerland, to actively identify, verify and report their beneficial owners to a central register. The inclusion of foreign structures with effective management or property interests in Switzerland prevents circumvention through offshore or shell company arrangements.

Legally, this is to be classified as a separate organisational obligation on the part of the company. The obligation is not limited to the formal receipt of self-declarations, but requires appropriate due diligence and plausibility checks (the ‘Know-Your-Owner’ principle). This makes transparency regarding ownership and control structures an integral part of legal compliance under company law. Responsibility lies with the governing bodies (Board of Directors, management, Board of Trustees). Failure to report or providing incorrect information may result in administrative measures and criminal sanctions.

The concept of the beneficial owner

The concept is based on the definition already established in the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). The beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately exercises ownership or control, typically through a holding of 25 per cent or more, or through comparable means of control. A key legal principle is that it is not merely formal shareholdings that are decisive, but the actual power of control. What is decisive is substantive control (‘ultimate beneficial ownership’), not the intermediate stage under civil law. If no such person can be identified, the highest management bodies must be reported instead (subsidiary solution). The necessary details include, at a minimum, the full first name and surname, date of birth, nationality, place of residence and nature of the influence exercised within the legal entity.

New AMLA coverage for advisory and structuring activities

Under the revised Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG), advisers – in particular solicitors and notaries – will in future be subject to anti-money laundering due diligence obligations if they carry out professional activities that:

are aimed at the design or structuring of corporate or asset structures,
enable the establishment or administration of legal entities,
involve board, fiduciary or nominee functions,
provide a domicile or registered office,
or are objectively likely to make it more difficult to identify beneficial owners.

The extension of the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Act raises fundamental questions, particularly with regard to legal professional privilege (Art. 13 of the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers, BGFA, SR 935.61; Art. 321 of the Swiss Criminal Code, StGB, SR 311.0). Professional secrecy protects all information entrusted to a lawyer in the course of their professional activities or which comes to their knowledge in that context. It serves not only to protect the client as an individual, but is also an institutional prerequisite for the proper administration of justice.

The legislature takes account of this tension by structuring the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) not on the basis of status but on the basis of activity. Pure legal advice, forensic work and representation in court or administrative proceedings remain exempt. It is only when the lawyer functionally engages in structuring, administrative or asset-related activities – that is, assumes a role that is economically comparable to that of a financial intermediary – that the scope of the Act applies. In legal theory, this can be described as a distinction between ‘the exercise of legal functions’ and ‘economic involvement’: as long as the lawyer’s core activities consist of providing legal advice or enforcing the law, professional secrecy takes precedence. If, on the other hand, they assume organisational or structuring functions in commercial transactions, the preventive purpose of money laundering legislation takes precedence.

Relationship between the Transparency Act and the revised Anti-Money Laundering Act

The Transparency Act itself does not establish a separate obligation for lawyers or notaries to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The reporting obligation applies to the legal entity. However, the register has an indirect impact on due diligence practices under money laundering law, as it constitutes an additional – albeit not, on its own, sufficient – source of information. This results in a two-tier system:

Primary responsibility of the company for accurate register filings
Separate due diligence obligations for those subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act when accepting a mandate and during the business relationship

The Transparency Register does not replace risk-based assessment. Financial intermediaries and regulated advisers must not rely blindly on information from the register, but must always verify for themselves any information they receive or obtain.

Sanctions and corporate liability

Breaches of reporting obligations may result in fines and administrative measures. It is particularly relevant for board members that transparency obligations form part of the general duty of organisation and supervision. If they fail to implement appropriate internal controls or do not update register details in a timely manner, they may be held personally liable. Where a company is subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG), there is also a risk of regulatory measures, disciplinary consequences and criminal sanctions in the event of intentional or grossly negligent breaches of duty.

Practical implications for companies

Companies must establish processes for identifying beneficial owners, define responsibilities, ensure documentation and updates, monitor reporting deadlines and adapt their governance and compliance systems. Holdings structures, international chains of shareholdings and domiciliary companies are particularly affected. In these cases, the workload involved in verification and documentation increases significantly.

Practical implications for advisers

Advisers (i.e. solicitors and notaries) must systematically classify their activities: Is the activity purely advisory? Or does it involve structural, administrative or organisational intervention? As soon as an activity subject to reporting requirements is involved, lawyers and notaries are, in principle, also subject to the obligation to report to the MROS in the event of reasonable suspicion of money laundering. However, it must be carefully assessed whether, and to what extent, legal professional privilege precludes a report, or whether a statutory exception applies.

Professional secrecy is only set aside where the lawyer is not acting in their traditional capacity as a defence counsel or adviser, but is functionally acting as a financial intermediary. In borderline cases, the classification of the specific activity will be decisive. This highlights the importance of a clear internal classification of activities and documentation.

As soon as the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) applies, the standard due diligence obligations must be implemented: identification of the contracting party, determination of the beneficial owner, risk analysis, documentation and, where necessary, reporting of suspicions to the MROS.

This applies in particular to:

Domiciliation services
Board mandates
structuring corporate advisory services
Involvement in complex restructuring

Criticism and outstanding issues

During the consultation process, discussions focused in particular on the lack of public access to the register, the compatibility of being subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) with legal professional privilege, and the additional administrative burden on SMEs. Criticism was also levelled at the fact that the transparency register could increase the administrative burden without being directly accessible to the public, and that reporting obligations for advisers could go beyond the original concept.

The tension between preventive law and professional secrecy remains a matter of legal principle. The legislature is attempting to resolve this through activity-based, rather than status-based, regulation. Activity-based regulation represents an attempt to strike a proportionate balance between the state’s interest in prevention and the protection of lawyers’ independence. Whether this distinction can be applied with sufficient clarity in practice or whether it will lead to uncertainties regarding its application will only become apparent during implementation and in future case law.

The tension between the duty of transparency, the duty to report and professional secrecy also touches upon constitutional guarantees, not least the freedom to conduct business (Article 27 of the Federal Constitution, FC) as well as the rights of the defence and the right to a fair trial (Articles 29 et seq. FC; Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR).

Conclusion and Outlook

With the Transparency Act and the parallel amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), Switzerland is undergoing a regulatory paradigm shift: transparency is becoming a structural societal obligation – and the scope of anti-money laundering measures is being functionally expanded. The reforms strengthen Switzerland’s international position as a business centre – yet at the same time they significantly increase the regulatory responsibilities of all stakeholders. Companies, boards of directors and the advisory professions should use the transition period until October 2026 to review their governance structures, adapt client acceptance processes, implement internal guidelines and conduct training.

Update: Transparency register to launch on 1 October 2026

The Federal Council has now finalised the definitive timetable: the Federal Act on the Transparency of Legal Entities and the Identification of Beneficial Owners (TJPG) will come into force on 1 October 2026. On the same day, the transparency register is due to commence regular operations. The revised Money Laundering Act will also come into force on this date.

This marks the project’s transition from the legislative to the implementation phase. For businesses, the focus is no longer on whether the register will be introduced, but on how they can prepare their submissions in good time, both technically and organisationally.

More than 500,000 companies are expected to submit their reports via EasyGov

According to EasyGov, from 1 October 2026, more than 500,000 companies will be required to submit details of their beneficial owners. In principle, these declarations are to be made via the federal EasyGov platform, which is already used for other government services.

The actual reporting function has not yet been made generally available. Although the relevant service is already visible on EasyGov, it can currently only be used by selected companies as part of the pilot scheme. For all other companies, regular submission will only be possible once the register goes live.

Companies therefore do not yet need to submit a precautionary registration. However, they can and should already be putting the technical arrangements in place to do so.

Registration is already possible

EasyGov and the Federal Office of Justice strongly recommend that affected companies register on EasyGov before the regulations come into force. This also applies to external service providers who will later be required to submit notifications on behalf of several companies.

Early registration is not merely a non-binding convenience measure. According to information from the federal government, the validation process for granting access may take several days for security reasons. Anyone who opens a user account or has authorisation set up for a company only shortly before a statutory reporting deadline therefore risks avoidable delays.

In particular, the following needs to be clarified:

Who is to submit the declaration on behalf of the company?
Does this person already have EasyGov or AGOV access?
Is the person correctly linked to the company on the platform?
Should the company act itself or should an external representative do so?
Who is authorised to amend or update the submitted details at a later date?

These questions should not be left until the day of submission. Particularly in the case of corporate groups, trust structures or centralised group compliance, setting up the necessary access rights may require further coordination.

Pilot scheme tests infrastructure and procedures

Since 16 June 2026, the Federal Office of Justice has been testing the technical infrastructure and the planned procedures with a selected group of companies. The so-called ‘Friends & Family’ pilot is designed, in particular, to test the collection and transmission of reports in practice prior to the official launch.

Participation in the pilot project is not open to all companies. For non-participating companies, however, this sends an important signal: the federal authorities are already conducting operational trials of the system. Companies should therefore not assume that the launch date will be postponed again or that organisational preparations can only begin once the system has come into force.

At the same time, it remains to be seen whether the pilot phase will lead to further adjustments to user guidance, the reporting process or technical documentation. Companies should therefore continue to monitor the official information from EasyGov and TranspaReg until 1 October 2026.

What companies should do specifically now

The legal identification of beneficial owners has already been covered in the existing HÄRTING article. This latest update primarily concerns implementation. Companies should complete at least the following organisational tasks by the time the register goes live.

Check EasyGov and AGOV access

Those responsible for reporting should have functional and validated access. Outdated user accounts, former employees or unclear company assignments should be rectified in good time.

Define reporting responsibilities

A binding decision should be made within the company as to who prepares the notification, approves it internally and ultimately submits it electronically. In larger companies, the Legal, Compliance, Finance, Corporate Office and Board of Directors departments may be involved. Without clear lines of responsibility, there is a risk that, whilst several departments may have partial information, no one will feel responsible for the complete filing.

Organising representation by service providers

If a law firm, trust company or other external body is to handle the submission, the mandate, power of attorney and technical platform access must be arranged. External representatives can also register on EasyGov now. HÄRTING Rechtsanwälte AG is already registered and taking part in the pilot scheme.

Providing data in a format suitable for reporting

Information already collected internally should be structured in such a way that it can be transferred once the service goes live without the need for further basic data collection. This includes, in particular, unambiguous personal details, the documented derivation of control relationships and internal evidence of the verification carried out.

Defining the update process

The Transparency Register is based on self-declaration. Companies must independently identify, verify and report their beneficial owners, and subsequently ensure that the information remains accurate and up to date.

It is therefore important to establish, even before the first declaration, which internal events trigger a re-verification. Relevant events include, for example, transfers of shareholdings, changes in capital, restructuring or changes to contractual control rights. The register must not be treated as a one-off administrative registration.

Special considerations for corporate groups

In the case of corporate groups and groups of companies, the additional question arises as to whether reporting should be organised centrally or decentrally. As, in principle, each legal entity concerned must fulfil its own obligations, an overview maintained solely at the level of the parent company is not sufficient from an organisational perspective.

Centralised coordination may nevertheless be advisable. It enables a consistent assessment of shareholding chains, prevents conflicting notifications from different group companies and facilitates subsequent updates. However, this requires clear rules governing which local company discloses which information and who submits it via EasyGov.

Access for external or intra-group service providers should also be carefully restricted. Technical authorisation to submit reports should only be granted to individuals who actually require this task.

No reason to wait

There are only a few months left until the regulations come into force on 1 October 2026. Many companies may already have begun their legal analysis. Now, concrete technical preparations via EasyGov must also be undertaken.

The greatest short-term risk lies not so much in the complexity of the platform as in unclear responsibilities and access rights being set up too late. In particular, companies that wish to coordinate reports for several entities or use external agents should not delay registration.

The sensible next step is therefore not to submit a report prematurely, but to carry out a technical and organisational ‘readiness check’: have the responsible persons been appointed, access rights validated, powers of representation clarified and the data prepared for transfer?

Those who complete these tasks before 1 October 2026 will be able to carry out the statutory registration efficiently once the register has been activated. Those who, on the other hand, only begin once the official launch has taken place will have to manage legal reviews, internal coordination and technical registration all at the same time.

Conclusion

The definitive launch date for the Swiss Transparency Register has been set. From 1 October 2026, registrations will generally be made via EasyGov. Whilst the registration function is not yet generally available, the registration and validation of the required access credentials can already be carried out today.

Companies should make use of this preparation period. The priority now is to set up EasyGov and AGOV accounts, define internal responsibilities, organise any external representations and make the data that has already been identified available in a format suitable for reporting.

Generated by AI and edited by HÄRTING.