Dear Editor,
In 2019 Sint Maarten introduced the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financ-ing of Terrorism, which law also amended various other laws, including the trade registry decree (“the Law”). The Law, amongst others, obligates businesses and other legal entities (entities) to register the Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBOs) of such entities with the Chamber of Commerce. Every registered legal entity is obligated to register the personal information of its UBO(s). Personal information that must be provided is the name, surname, gender, address, the date and place of birth, nationality, sig-nature and initials of a natural person.
Recently the Chamber has informed the general public that entities had to register their UBO’s by July 1st, 2025, or face a fine up to Cg. 50,000.
However, the list of requirements imposed by the Chamber far exceeds what is mandated by law. The Chamber now demands, among other things: the CRIB number of the entity and the UBO(s), a copy of the UBO’s passport, an original shareholders register, and a signed declaration from the UBO stating that they will not engage in money laundering, terrorism financing, or any other illegal activity. If this information is not submitted, the Chamber will not accept the UBO registration. As a conse-quence, the entity will be in default.
There is no legal basis for these additional requirements. By enforcing them, the Chamber is break-ing the law and acting in violation of principles of good governance. Moreover, the Chamber claims that UBO information is accessible only to the Public Prosecutor, the Central Bank, the Financial Intel-ligence Unit, and the Tax Department. In fact, pursuant to Article 11 of the Trade Registry Ordinance, this information is publicly accessible.
One is left to wonder: if these requirements are not grounded in Sint Maarten law, what is their legal basis? It appears the Chamber mistakenly applies Curaçao law, not recognizing that Sint Maarten has been an autonomous country since 10 October 2010. Indeed, all the requirements listed on the Chamber’s website and in its UBO Registry Guide align with Curaçao’s legislation—not Sint Maarten’s.
This situation is doubly concerning because legal entities that wish to comply with their obligations are now forced to submit highly personal data without any proper legal basis or privacy safeguards. Curaçao law includes provisions restricting access to UBO information to authorized authorities. The Sint Maarten law does not. This means that any third party can access this (illegally collected) person-al information through the Chamber’s public registry, exposing UBOs and businesses to significant privacy and security risks.
We trust that the Chamber will acknowledge the gravity of this situation and take immediate steps to bring its practices in line with applicable Sint Maarten law. Should it fail to do so, concerned busi-nesses and their owners may be left with no other option than to seek judicial intervention.
Pieter Soons
Partner at BZSE, Attorneys at Law
