TJPG and the Anti-Money Laundering Act
Switzerland has been familiar with the concept of the beneficial owner for years—from anti-money laundering law. The TJPG largely adopts this concept but deliberately deviates from it in one respect. Anyone unaware of this one deviation will transfer the information from the bank form to the registry and submit an incomplete report.
In a nutshell
- The TJPG obliges
- The legal entity
- Subject to GwG
- Financial intermediaries, advisors
- Definition
- Largely identical
- Divergence
- No cascade in the TJPG
- TJPG audit
- In parallel and cumulatively
- Domiciliary company
- Custom GwG Rule
- Maintains a register
- Federal Office of Justice
- Control body
- At the EFD
Two regimes, two target groups
The structural difference lies not in the definition, but in the question of who is subject to the obligation. That is the actual systemic change.
Financial intermediaries—and, following the ongoing revision, financial advisors—identify the beneficial owners of their clients. The company responds using a form. Those who do not have a banking relationship were never asked.
The legal entity must identify, verify, document, and report its beneficial owners on its own—regardless of whether anyone ever asks for this information.
The definition is consistent—in principle
That is the good news and the starting point for any review. According to the Federal Department of Finance’s explanatory notes on the TJPV, a beneficial owner is defined as a natural person who ultimately holds at least 25 percent of the capital or voting rights in the legal entity or otherwise controls it—and this definition aligns with that of Art. 2a(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).
The explanatory notes explicitly conclude that it is generally possible to rely on established practice in the application of money laundering regulations to clarify the meaning of the term. So anyone who has been filling out forms for years is not starting from scratch.
The key difference: no cascade
A “cascade” refers to a review conducted in a predetermined sequence, in which the next stage is only reached if the previous one yields no result.
According to Art. 2a(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG), a person is considered to have a beneficial interest if they hold at least a 25 percent stake or otherwise control the company; if no such person can be identified, the highest-ranking member of the governing body must be determined. The established practice developed for this purpose examines these connections in a fixed order—which is why the explanatory notes to the TJPV refer to the “cascade approach.”
According to the explanatory notes, ownership and control by other means must be assessed in parallel. Control by other means may exist independently of a minimum 25 percent ownership stake—both approaches lead to the same result.
In practice, this means: don’t stop after the first match. The tool guides you through all four control categories individually—even where a holding above the threshold has already been identified.
Launch Management ToolFurther discrepancies
| Point | TJPG | Anti-money laundering law |
|---|---|---|
| The following is required | The legal entity itself | Financial intermediaries as well as advisers |
| Audit methodology | Parallel and cumulative, without cascading | Cascade-style in accordance with Art. 2a(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) and the related established practice; the fallback rule applies only if no beneficial owner can be identified |
| Operational Activities | No distinction; all legal entities pursuant to Art. 2 TJPG | Separate provision for non-operating companies |
| Extent of control | The threshold range under Art. 13 TJPV is part of the report | The focus is on identifying the individual; the scope is not subject to a report to an authority in the same manner |
| Result | Entry in the Transparency Register | Documentation in the client file |
| Counterparty | Federal Office of Justice as the registering authority, supervisory body at the FDF | FINMA, self-regulatory organizations, and supervisory organizations |
The Bridge: Reporting Differences
The two regimes intersect at one point. Art. 30 TJPG requires financial intermediaries to report any discrepancies they identify between the information in the transparency register and the information they hold to the register. Government agencies do the same under Art. 31 TJPG.
This raises the question that inevitably arises from these discrepancies: Does every discrepancy lead to a report—and thus to a note in the entry?
The reconciliation is the task, not the report
The bank form is a good starting point but yields poor results. Compare the two sets of data side by side and document the reasons for any discrepancies.
- Check all four control categories individually, without cascading
- Keep bank details and ledger balances side by side
- Add additional information in accordance with Articles 12 through 14 of the TJPV
- Document reasons for intentional deviations
- Be prepared for a discrepancy report
What this means for your preparation
Five points if you base your preparation on the GwG guidelines.
- Bank records are the best starting pointIf you have already provided information on beneficial ownership for your banking relationships, you have the individuals, the structure, and, in most cases, the supporting documents all in one place.
- But they are not the final result. Because theGwG conducts a tiered review, the scope may be broader under the TJPG. Conduct an additional review in accordance with Art. 3 of the TJPV—not as a secondary measure.
- Four categories instead of a sequencedirect participation, indirect participation, acting in concert, and control by other means—each to be assessed individually.
- Supplementing InformationThe bank forms do not require details on the nature and extent of control under Articles 12 through 14 of the TJPV in this specific format.
- Document discrepanciesIf your registry entry intentionally differs from the bank’s information, document the reason. This is your response when a discrepancy report is received.
Details of Your Case
This point concerns the institutional side.
Who is responsible for what? Registry management, oversight, and anti-money laundering supervision are separate functions.
The two regimes are also institutionally separate.
Maintains the transparency register, receives notifications, makes ex officio entries, and adds annotations.
It verifies the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the information in the register, conducts audits, and orders measures pursuant to Art. 38 TJPG. Pursuant to Art. 45 TJPG, the FDF also serves as the prosecuting and adjudicating authority.
Continue to oversee financial intermediaries’ compliance with anti-money laundering due diligence obligations. This has nothing to do with the transparency register.
For legal entities, this means: A complaint from the supervisory authority and a complaint from the bank are two separate proceedings with different consequences.
Frequently asked questions
Does the registration with the transparency register replace the information provided to the bank?
No. The two obligations coexist. The TJPG requires legal entities to identify their beneficial owners and report them to the transparency register. The Anti-Money Laundering Act requires financial intermediaries and advisors to identify the beneficial owners of their clients. You will therefore continue to fill out your bank’s forms.
Does the definition correspond to that of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA)?
Largely. According to the Federal Department of Finance’s explanatory notes on the TJPV, the definition aligns with that of Article 2a(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), meaning that the established practice under anti-money laundering legislation can generally be applied. However, certain deviating rules apply—notably the absence of a cascade mechanism when determining the type of control.
What does it mean that the TJPG does not support cascading?
The explanatory notes to the TJPV refer to the approach set forth in Article 2a(3) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) as a “cascade”: The connections are examined in a fixed order, and the fallback rule applies only if no beneficial owner can be identified. Under the TJPG, however, ownership and control by other means must be assessed in parallel and cumulatively. Control by other means can exist independently of a minimum 25 percent ownership interest—anyone who stops after the first match is submitting an incomplete report.
Why was the cascade approach not adopted?
The explanatory notes justify this by citing the different starting point: The legal entity is not in the same situation as a financial intermediary. It must be able to determine at any time who exercises actual control over it, and it can do so because it knows by whom and in what manner the relevant decisions are made. During the consultation process, a cascade provision was explicitly requested but was not adopted.
Does every deviation trigger a discrepancy report?
No. Article 56 of the TJPV excludes discrepancies arising from differing provisions in money laundering legislation—specifically mentioned are the differing definition of the beneficial owner of a domiciliary company and the fact that financial intermediaries are not required under that legislation to identify all beneficial owners as defined by the TJPG.
What applies to domiciliary companies?
This is where the two regimes differ most significantly. Anti-money laundering law has its own definition of the beneficial owner for non-operating companies. The TJPG does not distinguish based on whether a legal entity is operational. Article 56 of the TJPV exempts the resulting differences from the reporting obligation.
Who maintains the registry, and who oversees it?
The transparency register is maintained by the Federal Office of Justice. The supervisory authority is the relevant unit of the Federal Department of Finance, which, pursuant to Article 45 of the TJPG, also serves as the prosecuting and adjudicating authority in cases of violations. These are two federal agencies with distinct roles.
Can we simply use the bank’s form?
As a starting point, yes; as a result, no. Because the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) conducts a tiered review and the TJPG does so in parallel, the group of persons subject to the TJPG may be larger. In addition, there is information that the bank forms do not require—such as the nature and scope of the review under Articles 12 through 14 of the TJPG Implementation Ordinance (TJPV).
Has your question been answered? Then review your structure according to the four categories of the TJPG.
Launch Management ToolLegal Basis and Additional Resources
- Federal Act of September 26, 2025, on the Transparency of Legal Entities and the Identification of Beneficial Owners (TJPG, SR 955.3) and Ordinance of June 12, 2026 (TJPV, SR 955.31)
- Anti-Money Laundering Act of October 10, 1997 (AMLA, SR 955.0)
- Explanatory Notes of the Federal Department of Finance on the TJPV and its Report on the Results of the Consultation Process
- More on this site: What data to report · Switzerland and Germany · Supporting evidence and documents · Frequently asked questions
Last updated: September 16, 2026.
An Exception You Need to Know About
The bank form is a good starting point but yields poor results. We review your structure based on the TJPG’s four verification categories, add the necessary details, and document the reasons for any discrepancies with the AMLA disclosures.