Trusts: section 21B(4)
A trust client triggers a wider identification net than a company. The institution identifies the trust itself — its name, the Master’s registration number and the Master’s office where it is registered — and then establishes, taking reasonable steps to verify, the identity of:
- each founder;
- each trustee;
- each named beneficiary — or, for unnamed beneficiaries, the particulars of how they are determined (the class definition in the deed); and
- each person authorised to act for the trust.
The “reasonable steps” standard is the same risk-calibrated one that applies to company beneficial owners — and self-declaration alone is not enough (PCC 59 para 6.3).
Corporate trustees and entity beneficiaries
Where a founder, trustee or beneficiary is itself a company or trust, the institution identifies that entity’s beneficial owners through the same cascade that applies to companies (s 21B(4) read with s 21B(2)). The FIC has expressly declined to exempt professional trust companies: asked during the PCC 59 consultation whether identifying the nominal corporate trustee would suffice, it answered that no exemption applies. The mechanics of tracing through layers are in the cascade guide.
Separate duty: the Master’s register
Independently of any institution’s FICA file, trustees must keep and lodge a beneficial-ownership register with the Master of the High Court under section 11A of the Trust Property Control Act — the trust-side twin of the CIPC company filing, with criminal penalties for trustee non-compliance. The two-regimes distinction is unpacked in CIPC BO vs FICA; the trust-law side of registers and trustee duties lives in the Trusts hub.
Partnerships: section 21B(3)
Identify every partner — the Act says every partner, and PCC 59 confirms this applies “regardless of the threshold percentage of ownership” — plus the natural person exercising executive control and anyone purporting to act for the partnership; corporate partners are traced to their beneficial owners.
Note the contrast with companies: there is no 5% marker here. A 1% partner — even a silent partner or partner en commandite — is identified by virtue of the partnership interest itself. Reasonable steps to verify apply, as with all beneficial owners.
Frequently asked questions
Yes. Section 21B(4) requires the institution to establish — taking reasonable steps to verify — the identity of each founder, each trustee, each named beneficiary, and each person authorised to act for the trust. Trustees are routinely surprised that beneficiaries are included.
For unnamed beneficiaries the Act asks for how they are determined — the class definition from the deed — rather than identification of people who may never benefit. Named beneficiaries are identified individually.
Yes. The Act says every partner, and PCC 59 confirms this applies “regardless of the threshold percentage of ownership” — the FIC has expressly confirmed that by virtue of partnership interest all partners are beneficial owners, silent and en commandite partners included.
The partnership still exists in law, and the institution still needs the partners identified. RMCPs commonly accept a letter signed by all partners confirming that no written agreement exists and stating the operating name, address, purpose and all partners — ask what the institution’s RMCP provides for.