Entity Searches in KYC API 

Searching for an entity in a business register and the binary outcome – whether the entity is found or not – holds significant importance in a compliance use case for several reasons, even before delving into the specific entity data retrieved from the registers.

The presence or absence of a company in a business register serves as an initial legitimacy check. Business registers are official records maintained by regulatory bodies or governments that list entities authorized to engage in business within their jurisdiction. The presence or absence of a company in such a register act as a preliminary check of legitimacy, indicating whether the entity has been officially recognized and meets the criteria to operate. This is a critical first step in due diligence processes, as dealing with unregistered entities can expose a company to various legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Therefore, since interpreting the search results is crucial in a compliance context and affects both risk assessment and risk management strategies, it is important to acknowledge the variations and limitations of search functionalities of business registers across different jurisdictions. The live searches by name and by number performed in KYC API search on the registers in real time and generally mimic the search mechanisms of the registers themselves, therefore exhibiting the associated limitations. Below, we delve into some of these limitations by outlining specific examples, in order to help understand the broader implications.

Some registers, like Indonesia, Cayman Islands, Finland and US – South Carolina, do not provide a functionality to search for an entity by its official registration number. Conversely, others, including Sweden, Singapore and Connecticut, don’t enable searching by the official name of the entity. Wherever possible, like, for example, Sweden, Brazil and Singapore, we deploy complex proprietary mechanisms to ensure that users still have access to both search options.

Search by number

Searching by registration number is typically more straightforward and generally recommended for more reliable search results. However, it is important to understand the aspect of uniqueness of the identifier within the jurisdiction and to use the specific identifier the register supports for searches. For instance, in Germany a search by number might yield multiple results because the registration number is only unique in relation to the associated register court. In Switzerland, for example, following an overhaul of the national company identifiers system, the Swiss register no longer supports search by CH-ID, but only by UID, the newly adopted entity identifier for Swiss entities. In Italy search is available by both registration number and tax number, so users can search by whichever identifier they have for the entity in question.

Search by name

The limitations of the name searches usually arise from the supported alphabet and language, or the search method applied by the register. For example, our connection to the French register through the INPI API doesn’t provide for fuzzy search (a search technique that finds matches even when the search query doesn’t perfectly match corresponding data) at all. The name search is sensitive to special characters (e.g. “Société Gourmalon” Vs. “Societe Gourmalon”) and will only provide a result with the exact entity name. Importantly, the name search on the INPI portal behaves differently and is not comparable to the search the register offers through the official API. The name search in Mauritius also only provides results for the exact entity name and fails to return results otherwise.

The fuzzy search in the Czech business register works well for generic terms like home or invest, but it fails for more specific terms – for example, it returns a result for the search term NOTIX s.r.o., but it doesn’t provide a result for the search term NOTIX s.r.o even though it is only the “.” that is missing in the latter. The name search in the Italian Business Register, besides failing to handle generic terms, applies a 50-character limit of the search term, and therefore it is challenging to find entities with longer names.

An interesting example is the Greek registry. Here, the search by entity name is affected by the supported alphabet and language as well. The searches yield best results when the search is performed with the Greek name of the entity, using the Greek alphabet. Companies with Greek names cannot be found using English or the Latin alphabet. However, some companies, which have their official name registered in the Latin alphabet, are searchable with a Latin search parameter input. When possible, like in Jordan, we deploy a proprietary mechanism to transcribe the Latin characters into the local alphabet so we can better support the searches.

Navigating the complexities of international entity data searches effectively is a significant challenge, and search results need to be interpreted carefully. The complexities can be better navigated by understanding these challenges – ranging from the specificity required in name searches to the nuances of searching by registration numbers in different jurisdictions. For instances where specific jurisdictional challenges or exceptions may arise, we encourage users to reach out to our expert team for support and guidance.