PROCESSING...

Anti-Money Laundering
Consulting Services & Strategies

0 Items - Total: $0.00 CAD
English - Canada English - Canada English - USA English - USA

New Beneficial Ownership Discrepancy Reporting

Effective October 1, 2025, Canadian anti-money laundering (AML) reporting entities regulated by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) are required to report to Corporations Canada any material discrepancies identified between the beneficial ownership information that they have obtained and that is listed in Corporations Canada’s database.

Background

This requirement was introduced to enhance the reliability of beneficial ownership information available to authorities and the public, and to reduce the opportunities for misuse of Canadian corporate structures in money laundering, tax evasion, and sanctions avoidance schemes. Since the usefulness of the beneficial ownership information depends on the accuracy of the information, amendments under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) now will require reporting entities to flag material discrepancies between the information provided by a corporation incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) and what is recorded in the registry, thereby supporting Corporations Canada in maintaining an accurate database.

A “material discrepancy” exists where beneficial ownership information collected by a reporting entity substantively contradicts what is publicly disclosed. While the regulations give limited guidance, missing beneficial owners are considered material, while minor typographical errors are not. Currently, the definition of “material” remains imprecise, which may create some uncertainty for compliance teams.

Who Must Comply

The requirement applies to reporting entities who have the existing obligation to take reasonable measures to confirm the accuracy of beneficial ownership information when they first obtain it and in the course of conducting ongoing monitoring of their business relationships.

Discrepancy reporting applies only to CBCA corporations that are active on the Corporations Canada registry.

When to Report

Reporting entities are required to report a material discrepancy to Corporations Canada within 30 days after the day on which it is identified when the following criteria are met:

  • A client is an active CBCA corporation; and
  • The reporting entity determines that the corporation is high-risk for money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion; and 
  • When there is a material discrepancy in beneficial ownership information that is not resolved within 30 days. Note there is no requirement to address the material discrepancy directly  with the customer. 

In these cases, reporting entities must check the Corporations Canada registry when a high-risk relationship is first identified and continue to check during ongoing monitoring of that high-risk business relationship.

If a previously reported discrepancy is identified again (i.e., during the course of ongoing monitoring) and it has not been resolved, it must be reported again. If there are other issues related to corporate status or registry info (not beneficial ownership information), this information can still be reported to Corporations Canada, but it must be done so separately. Voluntary reporting is permitted if the client is considered low-risk, but discrepancies are still found.

Reporting Steps

Reports are submitted through Corporations Canada’s online portal (accessed through the registry). The process is as follows:

  1. Ensure your reporting entity is registered for FINTRAC Web Reporting (FWR), and that the individual completing the reporting has an active My ISED account with Corporations Canada.
  2. Search the corporation on the Corporations Canada website to confirm it is an active CBCA corporation.
  3. While in Corporations Canada’s online portal, from the page connected to the corporation about which the discrepancy is being reported, select “Report an Issue” (currently a link at the bottom right of the page). This will prompt a My ISED login.
  4. Complete the discrepancy form with:
    • Reporting entity details (legal name, RE number, location, compliance contact/email). This information will auto-populate after the first report. 
    • Corporation details (name and incorporation number for the company you are reporting on).
    • Selecting the reason for reporting a discrepancy (reporting as required under PCMLTFA or voluntary).
    • Discrepancy details (nature of inconsistency, date identified).
  5. Review the information for accuracy and submit the report.
  6. A confirmation screen will appear, including a reference number 
  7. Corporations Canada will validate the report and issue an acknowledgment within 10 business days.
  8. Keep a copy of the acknowledgement as evidence of the completed discrepancy reporting.
  9. If the discrepancy has not been resolved by the next time you complete periodic monitoring for the entity, the process is repeated.

For more detailed steps on reporting, you may refer to the guidance on submitting a beneficial ownership discrepancy report or the following Corporations Canada demo video, which together provide a comprehensive overview.

 

Note that inaccurate or incomplete reporting entity information will result in an invalid Beneficial Ownership discrepancy report. Amendments to submitted reports are currently not possible, and a new report will have to be submitted. 

Reporting entities must retain the report acknowledgment and other supporting documentation as evidence of meeting obligations. 

We’re Here To Help

If you would like assistance in understanding what these changes mean to your business, or if you need help updating your compliance program and processes, please get in touch.

Integrity Over Profit

Earlier this week I was approached by a client with whom we had completed a full overhaul of their Risk Assessment documentation, which occurred about 3-4 months ago. The project was completed with excellent results, and from all accounts, an ideal outcome. Mainly, the client was satisfied with the deliverable, felt more confident in the status of their overall compliance program, and was a delight to work with.

When they reached out this week, they were inquiring about Outlier completing their upcoming 2 year Compliance Effectiveness Review (CER). This was a clear indication of their satisfaction, which was a good feeling. However, we had to keep in mind that we (Outlier) revised their Risk Assessment documentation not too long ago. After some internal discussion, we felt it was not the right move for us to take on their CER, as we would be reviewing a portion of our own work. Not only would this be less value to the client, but should their financial service provider or FINTRAC determine that their reviewer was also the drafter of a portion of the compliance documentation, that would be a bad look. FINTRAC guidance states “Also, as a best practice, to ensure that your review is impartial, it should not be conducted by someone who is directly involved in your compliance program activities.”

Informing the client about our perceived conflict, and that it would not be the right move given the situation, felt less than optimal. No one wants to turn business away. However, the response was received with grace and understanding. This isn’t a shock as this individual is, in my opinion, an underrated pillar of the AML community, and generally, a person with a high degree of integrity.

Ok, So What?

This post is not intended to be a self-congratulatory post, but rather a message to highlight an important point for reporting entities. We have sat through examinations with clients where FINTRAC has identified the lack of separation between the drafter of the documentation and reviewer of the documentation. This situation left the reporting entity in a position they could not defend, resulting in, what I deem, an entirely unnecessary position. Had the reviewer acted with integrity, by informing the reporting entity about the potential risk and downfalls, the FINTRAC examination would have resulted in a more favorable outcome, including one less deficiency.

From my experience, the separation between the drafter and reviewer should go beyond merely assigning different people, or different departments, within the same organization because the baseline knowledge is consistent across the business. You want completely fresh eyes on your compliance program and its effectiveness.

The intent of this post is to serve as an FYI to reporting entities that relying on one firm to handle all aspects of compliance support is not an ideal scenario and can lead to problems down the line. There is no shortage of fantastic compliance consulting firms in Canada, each with deep expertise when it comes to Canadian regulatory requirements and FINTRAC expectations. If you would like some suggestions on additional firms that can offer compliance support, please feel free to reach out to us, and we can make warm introductions to other trusted firms.

Finally, this also raises concerns regarding independence of the CER process when the same company is engaged for multiple reviews in succession. We have strongly suggested to a few longstanding clients that they source a different reviewer for a “fresh set of eyes,” after completing multiple CERs for them previously. We have also received feedback from clients that during FINTRAC exams, FINTRAC examiners are suggesting the same thing. While its nice to have a good relationship with your compliance support providers, there comes a point where a changeup is not only suggested, it is necessary. It’s better to make the choice yourself, rather than have FINTRAC make it for you.

Independent Support

If you are in need of a completely independent reviewer, a suggestion for a couple of different options, or just have general questions, please feel free to contact us. We are here to help, and truly believe that rising tides lift all boats.

Return to Blog Listing