Employers' organizations VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland have strongly criticized the draft decision by which the cabinet wants to reopen access to the UBO register to individuals and organizations with a so-called "legitimate interest." According to the organizations, the proposal falls short in terms of privacy protection, legal certainty, and enforceability, while offering far-reaching access to highly sensitive personal data.
This is evident from theirconsultation response to the Amendment Decree on Access to UBO Registers, which was recently submitted to the responsible ministers.
Although VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland appreciate that the government wants to provide clarity with the draft decision following the ruling of the Court of Justice and the introduction of the sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6), they note a fundamental problem: the proposal is primarily designed to meet the needs of parties who want access to the register, while the legal protection of UBOs (ultimate beneficial owners) remains underexposed.
According to the organizations, this is problematic because the UBO register contains highly sensitive information that, if misused, could lead to intimidation, threats, or other security risks. That is precisely why AMLD6 emphasizes that access to this data must be exceptional and strictly proportionate.
The Advisory Committee on Regulatory Burden (ATR) shares these concerns and issueda negative opinionon the draft decision in December 2025.
A striking point in the consultation response is the criticism of access for journalists. The draft decision seeks to link access to possession of a press card or membership of a professional organization. According to VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland, this is insufficient guarantee for the careful handling of highly sensitive personal data.
They therefore advocate an additional integrity check, for example via a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG), to better prevent abuse and security risks.
In addition, the organizations believe that the draft decision does not make it sufficiently clear what happens in the event of misuse of UBO data.
Little detail has been provided on:
In their view, it is essential for confidence in the UBO register that abuse leads to immediate withdrawal of access and that supervision and enforcement are seriously organized.
The cabinet proposes to shield UBO data only in cases of reports of threats (Article 285 of the Dutch Criminal Code). VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland consider this far too restrictive.
They point out that AMLD6 actually provides scope to protect UBOs in the event of a wider range of real risks, such as stalking, doxing, extortion, identity fraud, and serious abuse. In their response, they make a detailed suggestion to extend the grounds for protection to include multiple criminal offenses.
In situations where a UBO is demonstrably at risk, the organizations consider it logical and necessary for this person to be able to see who has accessed their data. This would strengthen the legal position of UBOs and contribute to transparency and trust in the system.
VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland are particularly critical of the fact that social organizations from third countries can also gain access to the Dutch UBO register. They believe it is unacceptable that organizations from countries such as Russia or China could gain access to such sensitive personal data.
They therefore advocate stricter criteria, explicit safety checks, and the possibility of refusing access.
Finally, the organizations warn of the risk that Dutch UBOs will become dependent on how other EU member states interpret the conceptof legitimate interest.
If the Netherlands automatically relies on foreign assessments, this could lead to an erosion of privacy protection and legal certainty.
VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland acknowledge that the legislator is bound by European rules, but emphasize that AMLD6 demonstrably leaves room for national choices. In their view, the government is currently making insufficient use of that room.
They call for adjustments that will lead to an effective and easily accessible UBO register, with accurate data and low administrative burdens, but with strictly necessary and proportionate infringements on privacy and security.
The full critique can be read inthe consultation response from VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederlandto theAmendment Decree on access to UBO registers for natural persons and legal entities with a legitimate interest.
