A free zone hides your ownership from your competitors, and from nobody else

Somewhere near the bottom of every free zone's benefits list there is a line about confidentiality. It is usually the shortest line on the page, and it is the least examined, because it is the only item on the list people are slightly embarrassed to ask about directly. What gets asked instead is a softer version — will my name be out there? — and what comes back is a reassurance rather than a description. The rest of that list, sorted by which body actually supplies each item and which of them the zone is still giving you after the reforms, is worked through in are UAE free zones still worth it; this page takes the confidentiality line on its own.

The description is more useful, and it is not a single answer. A UAE free zone company is looked at by at least six different parties. They hold different things, they obtained them by different routes, and only the licensing side publishes anything at all. Sort the question by who is asking and it stops being a matter of reassurance and becomes a matter of fact you can check.

The word is doing two jobs, and only one of them survives

Two separate claims travel under "confidentiality", and they are almost never separated in the sentence that sells them.

The first is the public cannot see who owns my company. In the commercial free zones that is broadly true, for a reason worth understanding rather than trusting.

The second is no government can see who owns my company, or what it holds. That one is false, and it has been false for longer than most of the brochures making the claim have existed.

Read the two columns against each other before reading anything else on this page. The left column is what the free zone is quietly selling. The right column is what the founder assumed came with it.

A stranger with a browser already has your licence, and you gave it to them

The company itself was never intended to be a secret. The UAE runs a federal platform, reached from the government's own portal, that lets you enquire about an economic licence, enquire about an economic activity, or search whether a trade name is still available. The government describes what it gives back in exactly those terms: instant information about existing companies and business activities in the country.

We have written about that platform from the opposite direction, as the cheapest market research available to a founder. The same fact runs backwards. Whatever you learned about the incumbents in your sector, they can learn about you, on the same afternoon, for the same price.

What that lookup is not is an ownership disclosure. It answers does this company exist and what may it do. Nothing in what the government says it returns reaches ownership: the description runs to licences, activities and trade names, and names no owner, no shareholder and no beneficial owner field. Whose company is it is a different question, governed by an entirely different instrument, and that is where the whole argument lives.

Run the same lookup from the other side of the table — what a person can actually establish about a UAE company before putting money into it — and the same limits produce a due diligence problem rather than a privacy one, which is the subject of what you can verify about a UAE company before you buy into it.

Your owners are filed with your incorporating authority, and in a free zone your incorporating authority is the free zone

Cabinet Resolution No. (109) of 2023 — the resolution on real beneficiary procedures, and the instrument you will also see cited as Cabinet Decision No. 109 of 2023 — is what decides this. It reaches legal persons licensed or enrolled in the country. Under it, a beneficial owner is the natural person who ultimately owns or controls the company: through direct or indirect ownership of 25% or more of its capital, or the right to vote in it by shares of 25% or more — and, separately, through control by any other means, such as the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board. The chain is followed through any number of legal persons or arrangements, of any kind, however many layers deep it runs.

Three consequences follow that are routinely missed.

The threshold is not only about shares. The control limb is written to catch arrangements that leave a person below the percentage on paper and in charge in practice. Somebody who took 24% and kept a board appointment right has not structured their way out of the definition; they have structured their way into the second limb of it.

Sharing a holding does not divide it. Where more than one person takes part in owning or controlling a percentage, the instrument treats all of them as owners and controllers of that percentage, rather than of a slice of it each. Two people who hold a 40% block together have not manufactured two 20% holdings below the line; each of them is treated as owning and controlling the 40%.

The counterparty is your own free zone. For a free zone company the incorporating authority is the free zone authority itself — the same body that issued the licence, leases you the premises and renews you every year. The material is not sent somewhere distant and administrative. It sits with the organisation you deal with every twelve months.

And the record runs on a clock. At the date of review (17 September 2026), the instrument gives a legal person 60 days from the point it exists to build the record, and 15 days from being informed of a change to bring the record up to date. That second window is one of the shortest in the whole framework, and it is the one founders discover late, because the event that starts it — a share transfer, a new director, a change of control somewhere up the chain — rarely feels like a filing event at the time. We set out where it sits alongside the other reporting triggers in the thresholds that reopen a UAE company file, and what it does to a funding round in structuring a UAE company that investors can fund.

Now the part everything else on this page rests on. The resolution does not only create a filing duty; it says who may see the result. The ministry and the incorporating authority may not disclose the beneficial owner record, or the record of partners and shareholders, to anyone without the written approval of the beneficial owner or the nominee board member concerned. Two things are carved out of that rule: the disclosures the resolution itself requires — the record goes to the ministry, to the authorities that ask for it, and through the ministry to foreign counterparts — and the international laws and agreements in force in the country, which the resolution singles out for money laundering, terrorist financing and the exchange of information in tax matters. So the honest form of the privacy claim is narrow, and it is real: your ownership is confidential by rule against the public, and open by rule to governments.

What the rule does not cover is the company's basic file. The same resolution tells the incorporating authority to keep a company's name, legal form, constitutional documents, address and senior managers, and to make that basic data available to the public. Read what your own constitutional documents say before assuming your name appears nowhere.

One further thing about the instrument, because it bears on how long any of this holds. The 2025 anti-money laundering law directs the Cabinet to issue a resolution regulating how the beneficial owner is identified, and it keeps resolutions made under the old law in force only until they are replaced — so the resolution described above governs until its successor arrives, not indefinitely. It is itself the successor to a 2020 resolution, so plan on these rules moving rather than standing still.

The two jurisdictions people pick for discretion are the two that publish most

Cabinet Resolution No. 109 of 2023 does not reach everywhere. Its scope carves out three things: companies wholly owned by the federal or local government, together with any company wholly owned by those; a government partner; and the financial free zones, which run their own arrangements under their own rulebooks. Abu Dhabi Global Market is one of those — established as a financial free zone under its own founding legislation, on a framework built on English common law, with its own civil and commercial laws. The Dubai International Financial Centre is the other centre a founder tends to shortlist beside it, and it publishes guidance on identifying beneficial owners under ownership rules of its own.

A founder who reads that as DIFC and ADGM are outside the disclosure regime, therefore they are more private has drawn precisely the wrong inference. Sitting outside a federal filing duty is not the same as being quiet, and neither centre is quiet by construction. ADGM operates a set of public lookups: financial services firms, an online facility for searching entities and their associated details, audit, authorised individuals, and a directory of professional services providers. DIFC runs a public company lookup of its own, which its site presents as access to company information, and publishes its company framework document by document — a handbook or checklist for each legal form, each carrying its own reference number and revision.

What those lookups display for an ordinary company is not something either centre states on the page that lists them. Treat that as the answer rather than as a gap in it. If discretion is the reason a centre is on your shortlist, what you are buying is a position you would have to go and check field by field, inside a jurisdiction that advertises the fact that its entities can be looked up.

Neither centre was chosen by a serious institution for discretion. They were chosen for the opposite property — a rulebook and a court that a foreign counterparty recognises, which only works because the entities inside it are visible. If discretion is your reason for looking at them, you have selected on the one attribute where they are worse than the zone next door.

The bank holds the fullest file in the country and did not ask your permission for it

Everything above is a file of declarations. The bank's file is different in kind, because it is assembled from what the company actually did — where money came from, who sent it, how often, against which paperwork, and whether the pattern matches what you said at onboarding.

That file exists because the bank answers to a rulebook of its own rather than to you, which is the same reason it will not tell you which part of an application failed. We have covered what it is testing at what actually goes wrong in a UAE company formation and what it does to an outbound payment at repatriating profit from a UAE company.

For this article there is only one point to add, and it is the bridge to the next section. The bank's file is not the end of the chain. It is the source for the chain.

Once a year, your account data leaves the country, and nobody consults you about it

The UAE participates in both of the international account-reporting frameworks, and the Ministry of Finance is the hub for both.

Under the Common Reporting Standard, UAE reporting financial institutions collect and report information on certain financial accounts to the Ministry of Finance annually, and the Ministry passes it to the competent authority of the jurisdiction where the account holder is tax resident. The UAE's participation rests on Federal Law No. 54 of 2018 ratifying the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, Federal Law No. 48 of 2018 ratifying the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement, Cabinet Resolution No. 93 of 2021 and Ministerial Resolution No. 134 of 2021.

Under FATCA, the same institutions report to the same Ministry, which exchanges with the United States Internal Revenue Service, under Federal Law No. 9 of 2016 ratifying the Model 1B Intergovernmental Agreement signed with the United States on 17 June 2015, and Cabinet Resolution No. 63 of 2022.

The self-certification you signed when the account was opened is the document that routes all of this. It is not a formality, and a declaration you know to be untrue is a separate matter from whatever tax was owed on the money — a point we make from the individual's side in UAE tax residency and what your home country still taxes.

Now look at the direction of travel, which is the part that should decide anyone's planning. At the date of review (17 September 2026), the Ministry of Finance has announced that the UAE will implement the updated standard, CRS 2.0, effective 1 January 2027, with the first exchange under it beginning in 2028, and that the update expands scope to electronic money, central bank digital currencies and certain crypto-asset activities. What the announcement does not say is whether those widened categories reach accounts held by companies as well as accounts held by individuals, so any plan that turns on that distinction is a plan resting on something the Ministry has not yet stated. What the announcement does say is plain enough: the update widens what is reported and adds requirements for auditing and reporting, and it describes nothing being taken out. A structure whose value depends on something staying outside the net is a structure betting against the direction the Ministry has announced.

Above a certain size the numbers travel, not just the names

There is one further channel, and it is the one that ends the argument for larger groups.

Under Cabinet Resolution No. 44 of 2020, multinational groups headquartered in the UAE whose total consolidated group revenue in the preceding fiscal year was AED 3,150,000,000 or more must file a Country-by-Country report with the Ministry of Finance. The report sets out, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, revenue, profit before income tax, income tax accrued, and indicators of economic activity such as the number of employees and tangible assets. It has applied to financial reporting years starting on or after 1 January 2019, with the first report due by 31 December 2020.

Read what that means for a free zone entity inside such a group. There exists a document, filed with a ministry and built for exchange between tax authorities, that states what the UAE operation earned, what tax it accrued, and how many people actually work there. The free zone address is a row in that table. It is not a shelter from it.

The AED 3,150,000,000 figure comes from the resolution itself, which defines the groups it catches by it, and the Ministry's own filing guidance repeats it, scaled down in proportion where the preceding fiscal year ran shorter than twelve months. At the date of review (17 September 2026) the same figure also sits in the corporate tax rules on transfer pricing documentation, which borrow the resolution's definition of a multinational group.

What genuinely stays quiet, and it is not what the brochure means

Two things survive all of the above, and both are worth more than the thing that does not.

Your ownership is not on a public lookup. That is real, and it is worth something specific: against a competitor doing preliminary searches, a journalist, an opposing party sizing you up before a claim, or a former partner. None of them can get the beneficial owner record by asking the ministry or your incorporating authority, because the resolution forbids either of them to disclose it without written approval, outside the disclosures to governments it lists. In a jurisdiction that publishes shareholder details as a matter of course, they would not need to ask.

Your commercial terms are not on the federal lookup. Your contracts, your margins, your customer list, what you pay people. The federal platform stops at licences, activities and trade names, and the basic file the beneficial owner resolution tells an incorporating authority to make public runs to a company's name, legal form, constitutional documents, address and senior managers — not its accounts. Zones can still ask for audited financial statements: Shams, for one, lists their submission among the administrative corporate actions a company secretary handles. So ask your own zone who can see them once they are in. The contrast worth keeping in mind is a regime that publishes filed accounts, where a competitor reads your gross margin off a website for nothing.

There is one private-party exposure that no lookup creates and no resolution governs: the portal accounts holding your filings are only as confidential as whoever holds their credentials, and on a first formation that is frequently the consultant rather than the company. The government accounts that are your company sets out which seven they are, who should hold each, and how access is recovered.

Notice that neither of those is the thing the confidentiality line is usually deployed to promise. Both are protections against private parties. Neither is a protection against a state, and no UAE jurisdiction sells one.

Where buying a free zone company for privacy is the wrong purchase

If the point is that a tax authority should not find out. FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard closed that route years ago, they are getting wider rather than narrower, and the declaration that routes them is one you signed personally. This is not a structuring problem with a better answer somewhere else in the country. Choose a different plan, or take advice on the position you are actually in rather than on the vehicle you hoped would end it. The same conclusion applies to the offshore vehicles still marketed on this basis, which we set out on the offshore company page.

If the point is that a creditor, a court or a former spouse should not find out. A record that exists is a record that can be asked for: your company keeps its own beneficial owner and shareholder records, confidential is not unreachable, and a party with a claim against you is not confined to the channels a member of the public has. Worse, a structure whose purpose is to put an asset beyond someone with a claim on it is the category of structure a court is most willing to look through. You are not buying privacy there; you are buying an additional allegation.

If you are structuring around the 25% line. The control limb was written for exactly that attempt; holding a block jointly makes each holder an owner and controller of the whole block rather than of a slice of it; and a nominee arrangement has to be declared rather than used to avoid declaring. Each of the three converts a disclosure into a disclosure plus an explanation.

If DIFC or ADGM appealed to you because they sounded discreet. They sit outside the federal filing duty, which is not the same thing at all — each runs a public company lookup of its own, and both publish their frameworks document by document. They are excellent for reasons that have nothing to do with this one.

If privacy is the deciding factor between zones at all. Then the decision is turning on the one attribute where every UAE jurisdiction has converged, while the attributes that genuinely differ go unweighed — which customers the licence actually reaches, set out in the only UAE customer a free zone licence already reaches, and what the cheap option costs in year two, in what a low-cost UAE licence leaves out.

What we would need before answering this for your structure

The useful version of this question is never "is a free zone private". It is: who specifically are you worried about, what would they actually be able to reach, and what would they do with it. Before we would give anyone an answer, we would want the jurisdictions you are tax resident in, the ownership chain written out to the natural persons at the end of it, whether any person holds control without holding 25%, and one sentence saying which disclosure would change your plans. If the answer to the last one is a tax authority, the conversation is not about which zone to pick. It is about the position you are already in, and it is better had early. Our tax and financial advisory page sets out where that starts.

Frequently asked questions