The Limits of Analogy in the Private Legal Status of the Beneficial Owner of a Legal Entity

The author reveals the inconsistency of judicial practice on the issue of the private legal status of beneficial owners (final beneficiaries, beneficiaries) of a legal entity: in cases of challenging decisions of general meetings of participants and transactions of such legal entities, courts without proper references to the legal basis tend to recognize the beneficiaries of the right to appropriate claims, and in disputes over their demands for information the activities of the corporate entities actually controlled by them are denied on the grounds of the lack of grounds for applying the analogy of the law, considering the silence of the legislator about the relevant protective instrument of the beneficiary qualified. Due to the absence of special rules on the presence or absence of analyzed protective capabilities of beneficial owners, the effectiveness of analogy as a traditional means of overcoming legal gaps has been tested. The prospects of the analogical introduction of the public-law concept of "beneficial owner" into the structure of the private-law status of legal entities are evaluated. The development of a formal approach based on the absence of a direct legal connection of the beneficiary with the organization controlled by them is not excluded. It is concluded that it is necessary to develop a unified judicial approach to the possibility of an analogical application of public-law rules on the figure of beneficial owners to private-law relations with their indirect participation before the legislative solution of the issue under study.

qualified silence of the legislator, legal gaps, subsidiary liability, conduit organization, beneficiary, indirect claim, analogy of the law, controlling person, final beneficiary, beneficial owner