www.register.openownership.org/search

                                                                   

BOR REGISTER MAIN

The OpenOwnership Register is not merely a database; it is our primary tool for identifying the true “beneficial owner” (BO)—the specific human who ultimately owns, controls, or benefits from a corporate entity. 3 This is critical because, as our intelligence shows, anticompetitive actions are frequently hidden by layering companies across multiple jurisdictions, including secrecy jurisdictions. 4 While our other tools can identify companies, this register identifies the people behind them.

Our application of this tool is therefore central to our core strategies:

  • Uncovering Stealth Consolidation: By mapping the ownership of multiple, seemingly independent companies back to a single BO, we can prove that a market is far more concentrated than it appears. 
  • Informing MATOIPO Analysis: In any merger, acquisition, or takeover, identifying the ultimate BO of all parties is essential to understand the true strategic intent and to determine if a transaction triggers undisclosed competition issues. 
  • Executing FOC DAM: Discovering a single BO behind multiple companies engaged in harmful practices exponentially increases our ability to “Find Other Claimants” and “Monetise Damages,” creating a much larger and more valuable case. 

Part I: The Search Platform’s Rules (OpenOwnership Register)

To excel at our mission, we must first master the tool’s capabilities. The OpenOwnership Register’s search functionality is based on the following principles.

  • Universal Search Bar: The primary search box queries across all indexed data, including person names, entity names, and identifiers.
  • Entity Types: The register differentiates between three main types of records you will encounter in a search:
    • Beneficial Owner: An individual (a real person). This is our primary target.
    • Entity: A legal entity like a limited company or a partnership.
    • Interested Party: An entity that has an interest in the subject company but is not a direct beneficial owner (e.g., another company in the ownership chain, a state-owned entity with control rights).
  • Filtering Capabilities: The most powerful features are the filters available after an initial search is performed. These are the key to refining our intelligence. The main filters are:
    • Record type: Allows you to view only “Beneficial owners,” “Entities,” or “Interested parties.”
    • Jurisdiction: Narrows results to entities registered in a specific legal jurisdiction (e.g., United Kingdom, Nigeria).
    • Country: Filters individuals or entities by their stated country. This is useful for tracking the global footprint of a specific BO.
  • Search Syntax: The register uses a straightforward search system and does not publicly detail complex Boolean operators (like AND, OR, NOT) or proximity searches. The intended methodology is to perform a broad name search and then use the rich filtering options to narrow the results. For precision, searching for exact names in quotation marks (e.g., "Johnathan Doe") is standard best practice.

Part II: The COCOO Strategic Search Model

This is the standard protocol for any investigation using the OpenOwnership Register. It is designed to be systematic and to build a complete network map of ownership and control.

Phase 1: Target Identification (Pre-Search)

Never begin a search blind. Your starting point must be intelligence gathered from our other platforms (e.g., Companies House, LSE RNS, Violation Tracker).

  • Step 1.1: Compile Target List: From your initial investigation, create a list of key names. This must include:
    • The target company name(s).
    • The names of all current directors and Persons with Significant Control (PSCs) from Companies House.
    • The names of any parent companies or major corporate shareholders.

Phase 2: The Multi-Layered Search Protocol

  • Step 2.1: The Entity Search:

    • Search for the primary target company name.
    • On the results page, analyze the list of declared “Beneficial owners.” Record every name.
    • Note the “Jurisdiction” filter. Does the company have declarations in multiple countries? This is a red flag for a complex structure.

  • Step 2.2: The Person Search:

    • Systematically search for every individual director and PSC name from your target list compiled in Phase 1.
    • For each person, analyze the search results. Does their name appear as a BO for the target company? For other, unexpected companies? Record all associated entities.

  • Step 2.3: The Network Expansion (The Critical Step):

    • This step turns intelligence into a strategic map. Take the name of a key Beneficial Owner identified in Step 2.1 or 2.2.
    • Conduct a new search using only the BO’s name.
    • The result is a list of every single entity in the database for which this person is a declared beneficial owner. This is how we find the hidden connections and prove stealth consolidation.

  • Step 2.4: Jurisdictional Analysis:

    • During the Network Expansion search, use the “Jurisdiction” filter.
    • Filter the BO’s ownership network by secrecy jurisdictions (e.g., British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, etc.) to identify where financial assets and control may be deliberately obscured. 8888

Phase 3: Evidence Analysis & Integration

  • Step 3.1: Map the Ownership Structure: Use the collected data to draw a visual mind map of the ownership chain, connecting the ultimate BO to all intermediate and target-level entities.
  • Step 3.2: Aggregate Control: If a single BO owns, for example, 15% of three different “competitors” in a highly segmented market, their effective control over that market segment is far greater than any single holding suggests. This is the core evidence for a “Stealth Consolidation” complaint. 9
  • Step 3.3: Synthesize and Escalate: Integrate these findings with our other intelligence streams. Does a BO’s network of companies show up on Violation Tracker? Did an LSE RNS announcement about a “minority stake” acquisition coincide with a change in BO declaration? This synthesis forms the basis of a formal complaint to regulators or a USP. 

Part III: Application to COCOO Doctrines

This model directly operationalizes our core strategic principles from the mind maps:

Mind Map Doctrine Application of the OpenOwnership Register Model
Stealth Consolid 11 The Network Expansion Protocol (Step 2.3) is the exact mechanism to uncover this. It connects disparate companies through a common BO, providing prima facie evidence of consolidation that falls below M&A notification thresholds.
MATOIPO Analysis 12 Before acting on any M&A announcement, this model must be run on all acquiring and target entities to confirm the identity of the ultimate BOs. This verifies if the deal is a simple transaction or part of a larger, undeclared strategic consolidation.
FOC DAM 13 If we identify a harmful practice at one company, using this model to find other companies controlled by the same BO allows us to proactively find new classes of victims suffering from the same practices, dramatically increasing the scope of the potential claim.
JR2COURT / Challenge Regulators 14 When we file a complaint with a regulator (e.g., the CMA), submitting a detailed ownership map from this model as evidence makes our claim far more credible. It prevents the regulator from dismissing the issue as isolated and forces them to confront the systemic nature of the problem we have uncovered.
Noisefilter 15 An alert from another platform (e.g., an RNS announcement) is just noise. Running the involved parties through this BO model is the filter that qualifies the event as a genuine opportunity or a false alarm.

Leave a Reply