Combating money laundering demands increasingly sophisticated tools. In Spain, security forces and investigative bodies process tens of thousands of alerts each year from banks, registries, and notaries about suspicious activity, while conducting thousands of inquiries into schemes that grow more intricate as offenders adapt their methods.
Yet criminals still exploit gaps in the law. With international sanctions affecting many actors, some aim to shield funds and assets. Russian oligarchs, in particular, have sought to blunt economic pressure targeting Vladimir Putin’s inner circle and hinder the financing of the military actions in Ukraine.
This situation has raised concerns about the so‑called registration gap in Spain, described by the College of Registrars as a potential pathway for money laundering and asset concealment. The concern centers on the fact that limited liability companies may not be required to publicly disclose all partners, while a private set of records could be kept by the company’s manager.
Within the Spanish registry framework, the government has over time revised rules that have been in place since the late 1980s. It is now mandatory for all companies to submit a list of partners to the Trade Registry and to notify changes in ownership when they occur. This requirement is designed to help prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism and is aligned with similar practices in other European countries. It also supports the use of corporate networks and intermediaries as a tool for sanctions enforcement against those Russian interests targeted by the measures.
“Today in Spain it is difficult to know who the actual partners of a limited company are. Other countries maintain public partner lists in their business registers,” observes the College of Registrars. “The chain of company control is known elsewhere in Europe. In Spain, this clarity is missing.”
Beyond the Current Framework
The Union of Registrars has urged the Executive Board to include this change as part of a broader package aimed at strengthening measures against Russian oligarchs sanctioned by the government. The Ministry of Justice has opted for an exceptional system that makes it easier for registrars dealing with real estate, commercial, and movable property to immobilize assets held by sanctioned individuals in Spain, including assets concealed through shell companies and other structures.
The new approach would require a prior assessment from State Security Forces and Bodies to determine whether there are reasonable indications that the true owner of the assets could be a sanctioned oligarch under investigation. The reform signals the government’s intent to prevent any Russian oligarch from financing the war through holdings in Spain. If assets already seized in the name of a third party are involved, action may extend to those assets as well.
In recent weeks, cooperation among state security forces, the prosecutor’s office, registries, notaries, and banks has intensified to enable asset immobilization in cases tied to sanctions on the Kremlin’s circle. The government now seeks to go further by examining hidden assets held through front companies and intermediaries as part of the enforcement effort.
Legal experts remain divided over the appropriateness of this form of confiscation power. Some view it as a legitimate administrative tool that strengthens enforcement, while others question whether it constitutes a preventive embargo outside of judicial review. The College of Registrars maintains that the rule respects due process, noting that inclusion on sanctions lists is subject to appeal and that owners will be notified so they can challenge or clarify the situation if needed. When assets are blocked, parties can raise defenses to demonstrate the action is not warranted.
Overall, these developments reflect a broader push to enhance transparency in corporate ownership and to close gaps that could enable illicit finance. By aligning domestic practices with international standards, authorities aim to reduce the ability of sanctioned actors to obscure ownership and to thwart investigations through opaque ownership structures.