Resolve the subject
Confirm the legal entity before any shareholder or UBO record enters the case.
Canonical company record
Turn beneficial-ownership rules into a traceable evidence file.
Identify people reached through direct and indirect ownership, keep control indicators separate from equity, and show exactly how each conclusion was produced for review and audit.
For MLROs, AML operations, compliance product teams and reviewers responsible for legal-entity ownership files.
Beneficial-ownership reviewEvidence assembled
SubjectAlder Components S.A.
ResolvedTwo ownership branches traced
Decision questionWhich people meet our ownership or control test—and what evidence supports that conclusion?
Government registry dataTwo corporate shareholders reported at 60% and 40%
Source factVerified public-source evidenceAnnual report confirms the current controlling agreement
Separate evidenceZavia calculation60% × 80% = 48% effective equity interest
Formula shownUnresolved or conflictingOne minority holder behind the 40% branch is undisclosed
ReviewWorkflow outcomeOne threshold owner supported; second branch remains incomplete
One evidence model throughoutExact legal entityNamed source and dateVisible ownership pathExplicit evidence gaps
The operating problem
A UBO name without the path is not an audit trail.
Thresholds, control rules and evidence expectations vary. Zavia preserves the underlying ownership graph so policy can change without rewriting the facts that produced the result.
Decision to support
Which people meet our ownership or control test—and what evidence supports that conclusion?
01
Which natural persons are reached through supported ownership paths?
02
What is each person's direct or calculated interest under the policy threshold?
03
Is control evidenced, merely indicated, or still unresolved?
How the workflow fits
Move from submitted company to reviewable evidence.
Zavia provides the company and ownership layer. Your team keeps control of policy, judgment and the final decision.
Build the graph
Open every supported corporate shareholder and retain the entity-by-entity path.
Direct and indirect ownership map
Evaluate the rule
Calculate effective interests and assess the buyer's threshold while keeping control separate.
Threshold results with formulae
Preserve the file
Record sources, retrieval dates, conflicts and gaps for review, refresh and audit.
Reproducible evidence record
What your team receives
A decision file—not a data dump.
Every output is built to be reviewed by a person, passed into a system and revisited when the underlying company changes.
UBO schedule
People reached, direct and indirect percentages, threshold outcome and the path behind each result.
Control evidence
Separate treatment of voting rights, appointment rights and other supported control indicators.
Source ledger
Named registry records and verified public evidence kept distinct from Zavia calculations.
Exception queue
Missing percentages, circular chains, nominee indicators and conflicting ownership ready for review.
Evidence architecture
Do not flatten four different evidence states into one answer.
The distinction is visible to analysts and available to systems through structured delivery.
Government registry data
The company fact or relationship as reported by the named official registry or government source.
Verified public-source evidence
A named public disclosure matched to the legal entity and kept separate from official registry facts.
Zavia calculation
A result derived from supported source facts, with the entity path and formula available to reproduce.
Unresolved or conflicting
A missing, unclear or inconsistent part of the record that the workflow must not convert into certainty.
The procurement test
What a skeptical buyer will challenge.
These are the controls that prevent a useful company-data workflow from becoming an overclaimed black box.
“A calculated percentage is not a legal determination.”
Correct. Calculations are labelled as calculations and the path is shown. The buyer applies the legal definition and policy.
“Public evidence could contaminate the registry record.”
Registry facts and verified public-source evidence remain separate at field and relationship level.
“UBO identification is only one part of AML.”
Zavia supplies the company and ownership layer. Screening, transaction monitoring and customer risk decisions remain separate controls.
Use the same evidence everywhere
Web platform, API, MCP, bulk data and monitoring.
Agreed web, API, MCP, bulk-data and monitoring implementations are designed to preserve the same resolved entities, relationship paths, evidence types, available dates, calculations and unresolved states.
Compare access methodsStructured decision contextWhich people meet our ownership or control test—and what evidence supports that conclusion?
- entity
- resolved
- registry_evidence
- attached
- ownership_paths
- visible
- calculations
- reproducible
- unresolved
- explicit
Frequently asked questions
Scope, evidence and workflow boundaries.
Need to test a specific jurisdiction or policy? Talk to the Zavia team.
Use your own company cases
Test the evidence before you change the workflow.
Start with a legal entity your team already knows. Compare the sources, ownership path and unresolved gaps against your current process.