Define “regulated entity” before verifying it
A “regulated entity” is a legal person (for example, a company) that is authorized or supervised by a public regulator for specific financial activities in a specific jurisdiction. Verification starts with identifying the exact legal entity you are dealing with, not just a brand name.
Use three independent evidence sources
Verification works best when you can confirm the same facts in multiple places.
1) Regulator registers
Start with the regulator’s public register for the relevant financial activity. The goal is to confirm that the registered authorization corresponds to the entity you are assessing (name, legal form, and any identifiers the regulator provides).
2) Legal-entity details in current documents
Next, check the provider’s current, downloadable legal documents (for example, terms, privacy information, and disclosures). Look for the legal entity name, registered office, and entity identifiers. The verification target is that these details align with the regulator register.
3) Consistency across references
Then perform a consistency check across the documents you reviewed. Red flags are not only “absence” of licensing information, but also internal inconsistencies such as a mismatch between the entity on the regulator register and the entity named in the provider’s documents.
Evidence checklist with “AFV” signals
Use a structured checklist so you can explain your verification in plain language.
-
AFV points (evidence and document matches):
- The regulator register includes the entity you identified.
- The provider documents name the same legal entity.
- The documents clearly state what the authorization is for (scope/activities) and which jurisdiction it relates to.
-
Proof of document (what you inspected):
- Use the exact version/date of the documents you reviewed, and note where the entity details appear.
-
Red flags (common failure modes):
- Similar brand names used for different legal entities.
- Outdated legal documents or filings that no longer match the current register.
- A regulator listing that does not clearly cover the described activity, even if the provider is “registered” in some way.
-
Ready-to-verify (“klaarcriterium”):
- You can point to (a) the register entry and (b) the matching legal-entity details in the provider’s current documents, with no unresolved mismatch about identity.
Verification limitations and risks
Verification answers an identity and authorization question, not a performance or outcome question.
Material limitations include:
- Scope uncertainty: A register entry may cover some activities but not others. If the provider describes an activity outside that scope, verification is incomplete.
- Operational uncertainty: Authorization does not remove risks from costs, execution quality, systems reliability, or customer support behavior.
- Name and structure complexity: Corporate groups can use multiple legal entities. Brand names can obscure the underlying entity.
A practical “next question” to finish your verification
After identity alignment is confirmed, the next question is: Does the provider’s described activity clearly fit the authorization scope shown in the register? If you cannot map the activity description to the authorized scope using current documents, treat the verification as partial and keep the mismatch unresolved.