AML teams use Companies House as a first step when assessing businesses. The register helps confirm a company exists, see who is behind it, and understand its structure. But it’s not foolproof. Fraudsters can and do exploit the lack of verification, using false information or hiding behind opaque ownership structures. That means compliance teams need to dig deeper, cross-referencing Companies House data with other sources, including commercial databases, open-source intelligence, and client-provided documents.
Certain details on Companies House can signal risk. Rapid changes in directors or registered addresses, minimal financial activity despite a company’s claimed size, or links to offshore jurisdictions can all suggest something isn’t right. Companies registered at residential addresses or shared office spaces may also warrant closer scrutiny, particularly if they are engaging in high-risk activities like money service businesses or crypto trading.
Another warning sign is the use of nominee directors and shareholders. While not illegal, the use of professional intermediaries to obscure beneficial ownership can indicate an attempt to distance a company’s true controllers from scrutiny. If a company’s ownership structure appears overly complex for no clear commercial reason, it may be worth investigating further.
To get the most from Companies House data, compliance teams should:
Regularly check company records for inconsistencies or signs of deception.
Cross-reference Companies House data with independent sources.
Pay attention to the patterns of incorporation and dissolution – serial formations and sudden closures can indicate abuse.
Use API access to automate checks and integrate Companies House data into wider screening and monitoring systems.
Keep an eye on upcoming legislative changes and adjust processes accordingly.
