Why is requiring each property to have a named, non-LLC owner not feasible?
Only 4 states in the US allow anonymous LLCs anyways: Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
The problem is that even with owner's identities, unless you follow the trail of money very far, it's hard to know whether the capital is clean or not.
you can form companies, do the transaction, dissolve the company or let the state dissolve it automatically eventually
the record of the title the stays as is, regardless who (or what) the property ownership passed through to
but real estate aside, I know people do political contributions this way
But increasing investigation and enforcement of money laundering laws requires the political will of state prosecutors, who are usually elected officials. Only recently have prosecutors willing to actively go after this stuff (like AG Letitia James in NY).
LLCs have a useful function (allowing business that limit their owners personal exposure to the business's liabilities, and vice versa).
Anonymity doesn't require a lack of paper trail. Only a benign paper trail.
What did you have in mind for such AG to do?
Of course, London real estate market complained loudly.
Now, if you're specifically referring to residential properties, maybe.... although there are lots of mixed-use properties, and ownership of land can be separate from the house that's on it, etc
They probably intended to limit this to residential properties.
Second, privacy is a human right. You should not be forced to list yourself in a publicly accessible database to own real estate. Needing to pay a trustee to avoid this is bad enough.
Registering the beneficial owners of entities privately with the government is as far as makes sense. Of course then we run into the problem that government isn't terribly incentivized to do enough analysis to catch the large scale evaders.
I think there is a core of truth here - individual persons should not be forever tied to business they've worked for. Everyone should always have the right to "walk away". However - while you're executing actions on behalf of a business you should not have a right to privacy of your actions - you are actively executing them and if you're doing shady or illegal things that should be knowable.
Freedom of speech doesn't free you from the consequences of that speech - and I think it's unreasonable to demand to be free from the consequences of your actions.
I do whole-heartedly agree with your final point though - it's the beneficiaries that should be on the hook as the first point of contact - agents of the company may be shielded by the company but the beneficiaries should achieve that shield by making themselves clear points of contact.
Generally you don't. Most states require you to publicly declare managers of LLCs, and trustees of real estate.
> it's the beneficiaries that should be on the hook as the first point of contact
Nowhere did I suggest that beneficiaries should be points of contact, or otherwise available in a public database.