[ddelt]

> Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act. Churches, charities and other non-profits are also exempt.

Just to confirm - am I reading this correctly in that, this massive corporate secrecy legislation does not apply to the vast majority of publicly traded corporations in the US? If they had just not included those exemptions, this would have been extremely beneficial for everyone right?

Why would we want to allow anonymous corporate shell organizations which are deemed to hide funds if they are tied well known US corporations, as opposed to some shady criminals? Isn’t the crime the same either way?

[unilynx]

If the exemption criteria are AND more than 20 people, AND 5 million, AND a physical presence, it makes some sense, as shell companies typically have few or no employees, and little actual presence other than an accountant or law firm.

[dan-robertson]

I think those are the criteria

[hliyan]

I can't speak for revenue, but physical presence and real employees are indicators of an actual corporation, rather than a shell.

[josefx]

If I understand correctly then this forces the shell companies to report their "secret" benefactors. So it keeps the small players from hiding behind a shell because the cost of running a fake company with 20 full time employees would be prohibitive to them. The bigger ones can probably run a few of the exempt shells in parallel without loosing too much of their overall profit.

[tremon]

Also, companies with a physical presence in the USA are much easier to audit or prosecute.

[dan-robertson]

What would you expect a large publicly traded corporation to write down as their beneficial owner? Maybe it’s a bit tricky for firms with dual class stock like Facebook, but for most firms the beneficial owners are their shareholders (so basically a big stake for blackrock and vanguard, maybe a few other big stakes, and a lot of small stakes).

[tylermenezes]

Typically there's a special provision on forms for this, as with non-profits (which have no owners).

[dan-robertson]

Sure but I’m replying to a comment which suggests that the regulation shouldn’t exclude large publicly traded companies

[high_density]

> Just to confirm - am I reading this correctly in that, this massive corporate secrecy legislation does not apply to the vast majority of publicly traded corporations in the US? If they had just not included those exemptions, this would have been extremely beneficial for everyone right?

why would anyone go against 'all publicly traded corporations'? do you believe they are inherently evil, and should be taxed?

this law limits the depth of shell-company layers. it's more costly to add shells with this law.

[ceilingcorner]

Considering that the vast majority of lockdowns and other COVID-response actions have been against small businesses (shut down the corner store but let Walmart stay open), it isn't particularly surprising. Politicians and corporate leaders gain nothing by supporting small business owners.