INSIGHT: What to know about the UK law unmasking offshore property owners

For decades, the UK property market, especially in London, has drawn in global wealth. From oligarchs to politicians and business elites, billions of pounds have found their way into bricks and mortar, often routed through anonymous offshore companies.

On paper, many of these properties are not owned by people but by firms registered in tax havens like Jersey, the British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands. The real owners stayed out of sight, obscured by layers of legal structures. Now, that veil of secrecy is beginning to lift.

A 2022 UK law, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, is forcing open a system that long allowed individuals to conceal their property holdings. The law created the Register of Overseas Entities, a public database requiring foreign companies that own UK property to disclose their “beneficial owners”— the real people behind the assets.

A recent report by The Londoner, linking 106 London properties to Herbert Wigwe, the late group chief executive officer (GCEO) of Access Holdings Plc, shows how the law is beginning to lift the veil on offshore property ownership, bringing long-hidden assets into public view.

While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, the disclosures highlight how anonymous assets can now be traced back to individuals.

A SYSTEM BUILT ON SECRECY: HOW OFFSHORE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WORKS

In simple terms, instead of buying a property in their own name, an individual sets up a company, often in a low-tax or high-secrecy jurisdiction, and uses that company to purchase the asset. Legally, the company becomes the owner. The individual, in turn, owns the company.

This arrangement is not inherently illegal. It can be used for legitimate reasons, including tax planning, estate management, or privacy. However, it has also been widely criticised for enabling money laundering, tax evasion, and the concealment of illicit wealth.

For years, UK authorities had limited visibility into who ultimately owned properties held by overseas companies. Public records would show only the company name, not the person behind it. That opacity made the UK an attractive destination for hidden wealth.

But how did the UK suddenly start revealing who owns hidden properties?

THE 2022 TURNING POINT

The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 marked a significant departure from the status quo.

Under the law, any overseas entity that owns or wishes to buy property in the UK must register with Companies House, Britain’s public corporate registry, and provide details of its beneficial owners. These are individuals who control or benefit from the company, typically defined as those holding more than 25 per cent of shares or voting rights.

Failure to comply carries consequences. Non-registered entities are restricted from selling, leasing, or transferring their property. They may also face financial penalties or criminal sanctions. According to the UK government, entities that refuse to reveal their beneficial owner “will face tough restrictions on selling the property and those who break the rules could face a fine of up to £2,500 per day or up to 5 years in prison”.

The law applies retroactively. Overseas entities that acquired property in England and Wales as far back as January 1, 1999, and December 8, 2014, in Scotland,  are required to declare their ownership. This provision has opened a vast archive of previously opaque transactions to scrutiny.

The result is a growing dataset that journalists, researchers, and civil society organisations are now mining for insights.

WHY ARE THE REVELATIONS HAPPENING NOW?

The UK’s Register of Overseas Entities is not exposing hidden property ownership for the first time. Since its introduction in 2022, the law has been used by authorities and journalists to trace assets linked to sanctioned individuals, particularly Russian oligarchs.

“Introduced following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the new legislation will mean the government can move more quickly to impose sanctions against oligarchs already designated by our allies, as well as intensifying our sanctions enforcement,” the UK government said.

Although the law came into force in 2022, its effects are only recently becoming visible. There are several reasons for this lag. First, compliance took time. Existing property owners were given a deadline of January 2023 to register. Many filed close to the cut-off, while others delayed or submitted incomplete information.

Second, the data itself is complex. Tracing ownership often involves navigating multiple layers of corporate structures across jurisdictions. Even with disclosures, connecting the dots requires careful analysis.

Third, investigations take time. Journalists and researchers must verify records, cross-check identities, and ensure accuracy before publication. Together, these factors mean that revelations are unfolding gradually, rather than all at once.

However, the UK law is not a silver bullet. It has its own limitations. In some cases, beneficial ownership information may be incomplete or difficult to verify, as complex arrangements involving trusts or nominee directors can still cover true control.

For example, The Times reports that despite the law, about 45,000 UK properties worth £190 billion are linked to offshore entities, and about 44 per cent still do not clearly reveal their real owners.

There is also the issue of global coordination. Transparency in one jurisdiction does not automatically translate to transparency everywhere. Assets can still be shifted to locations with weaker disclosure requirements.

BEFORE THE UK LAW WERE PANAMA AND PANDORA PAPERS — THE NIGERIAN ANGLE

For Nigeria, the implications are significant. The country has long grappled with trade, investment and human capital flight — movement of wealth out of the domestic economy into foreign assets. Real estate in cities like London has been a preferred destination.

Cases involving high-profile Nigerians, including Wigwe, underscore how offshore structures have been used to hold substantial property portfolios abroad. While such investments may be legitimate, their scale raises broader questions about wealth distribution, taxation, and economic priorities.

Beyond recent disclosures enabled by the UK’s transparency law, several Nigerians have previously been linked to offshore assets through major cross-border investigations and document leaks.

One of the most prominent cases involved Peter Obi, 2023 presidential candidate for the Labour Party (LP), whose offshore connections were uncovered through the Pandora Papers.

The investigation, led by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), revealed that Obi and members of his family were linked to companies in jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands and Barbados. These companies were used to hold assets and manage wealth outside Nigeria.

The revelations did not originate from government records, but from a massive leak of confidential financial documents. This reflects how secrecy jurisdictions can hide ownership until exposed through whistleblowing.

A similar pattern emerged in the case of the then senate president, Bukola Saraki, who was named in the Panama Papers. The documents linked him and his family to a network of offshore companies, some of which were reportedly connected to high-value properties in London. The findings were based on leaked files from a Panamanian law firm rather than official registries.

Also identified in the Panama Papers was Saraki’s predecessor, David Mark, who was connected to multiple offshore entities. As with Saraki, the exposure came through leaked legal and financial records rather than public disclosure systems.

Theophilus Danjuma, former minister of defence, and James Ibori, former governor of Delta state, were also named.

Taiwo Adebayo, an investigative journalist who worked on the Pandora Papers, said offshore property ownership by Nigerian elites followed a consistent and deliberate pattern.

According to him, politically exposed persons and wealthy individuals often registered shell companies in tax havens, which were then used as vehicles to acquire assets in the UK.

By doing so, they avoided regulatory scrutiny that would ordinarily apply if they purchased property in their own names.

He explained that the strategy was largely driven by the UK’s due diligence requirements, which compel foreign buyers, particularly politically exposed persons, to disclose the source of their funds.

“To circumvent that regulatory barrier, they would then go register a shell company… and use it to buy that property,” Abebayo told TheCable.

At the time, a major loophole in British law allowed foreign companies to invest in property without disclosing their beneficial owners, effectively shielding the true identities behind such transactions.

Tracing these ownership structures, Adebayo noted, was extremely difficult prior to recent reforms. As a result, journalists relied heavily on leaks such as the Pandora and Panama Papers to uncover hidden links.

Without those documents, he said, “we wouldn’t have known that certain individuals hid behind offshore shenanigans to invest in the British property market”.

“Now, there’s a register where you can see the beneficial owners.”

WHAT IS DIFFERENT? 

What connects these cases is not necessarily illegality, but method. In each instance, assets were held through layers of companies or legal arrangements registered outside Nigeria, making it difficult to establish ownership without access to internal documents. All were uncovered through leaks and collaborative journalism, not through government-mandated transparency.

This is where the UK’s newer framework marks a shift. Unlike the Panama and Pandora Papers, which relied on whistleblowers, the Register of Overseas Entities forces disclosure through law.

It creates, for the first time, a system where beneficial ownership of UK property held by foreign companies is meant to be publicly accessible, providing a growing database that can be systematically analysed. Together, they are beginning to map a financial landscape that has long operated in the shadows.

NIGERIA’S VERSION OF OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY

Nigeria, on its part, has taken steps towards ownership transparency through the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, which mandates the disclosure of beneficial owners of companies. By law, public office holders are required to declare their assets, including foreign property, when assuming and leaving office.

The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) maintains a register of Persons with Significant Control, designed to reveal the individuals behind corporate entities. This operates similarly to the UK’s Register of Overseas Entities.

However, unlike the UK’s post-2022 reforms, Nigeria’s framework does not directly link ownership to property, nor does it capture assets held through offshore structures.

As a result, while authorities may identify who owns a company within Nigeria, tracing the full extent of that individual’s wealth, particularly in foreign real estate, remains a significant challenge.

WHAT WILL THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE?

With the UK’s law, as more data emerges and more investigations unfold, the full extent of hidden wealth — whether linked to Nigeria or elsewhere — will become clearer.

While early findings have linked politically exposed persons and their families to UK property, Adebayo believes the current revelations only scratch the surface, with further findings depending on how actively journalists and watchdog groups continue to mine the available data.

For now, one thing is certain: the era of anonymous property ownership in the UK is no longer what it used to be. (TheCable)