Jurisdictions That Still Allow Bearer Shares in 2025

Bearer shares have long been one of the most controversial corporate tools in the offshore world. They allow ownership of a company to be transferred simply by handing over a physical certificate, without any formal registry update.

This feature made them attractive for those seeking maximum privacy, but also a target for regulators who view bearer shares as a loophole for tax evasion and money laundering. Over the past two decades, most major jurisdictions have restricted, immobilized, or entirely abolished them.

Yet despite this global crackdown, some jurisdictions that still allow bearer shares in 2025 do exist, though the rules around them vary. For investors and entrepreneurs looking to maintain a high level of confidentiality, understanding which countries still issue bearer shares today is critical.

Jurisdictions That Still Allow Bearer Shares in 2025

In 2025, the Marshall Islands stand almost alone in preserving the bearer share concept in any meaningful form. Under the Business Corporations Act, companies can issue bearer shares, but since reforms over a decade ago, they must be lodged with an approved custodian. In practice, this means the certificates no longer float freely in the hands of the owner; they are deposited with a licensed intermediary who records the beneficial holder. To the outside world, however, the ownership remains opaque, and for many clients this layer of insulation is precisely the attraction.

Panama is often mentioned in the same breath, and rightly so. It, too, continues to recognize bearer shares, but the system is far from the untraceable anonymity of the past. Today, a Panamanian bearer share must be immobilized with a custodian, usually a bank or trust company, and the beneficial ownership details are retained under strict compliance requirements. While this still provides a measure of flexibility, it is far less absolute than the days when shares could change hands in silence.

Beyond these two jurisdictions, the once-wide map of bearer share havens has gone quiet. Anguilla, Belize, BVI, Cayman, and Seychelles have each removed the option entirely, aligning with OECD and FATF dictates. Nevis, Vanuatu, and Samoa followed the same path. By contrast, the Marshall Islands continue to defend the legitimacy of bearer shares as part of their corporate framework, albeit modernized through custodial oversight.

For a client concerned with discretion, the distinction is crucial. Which countries still issue bearer shares in 2025 is a short list indeed, but it is not yet extinct. And the fact that bearer shares survive at all in this regulatory climate underlines their continued relevance for those who wish to balance lawful compliance with robust privacy.

Banking and Bearer Shares

The central difficulty with bearer shares in 2025 is not their legality, it is banking. The global financial system is built on knowing the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of every account, and bearer shares run directly against that grain.

Any reputable bank today insists on identifying the individuals behind the company before opening an offshore account. That means a company with untraceable ownership through bearer shares will be rejected outright.

There are exceptions, but they prove the rule. If a bank still welcomes bearer share companies without asking who the owners are, that institution is likely one that has little regard for compliance. And where compliance is disregarded, the clientele may include sanctioned individuals, criminal actors, or organizations that no serious business should be associated with. Opening an account in such a place is not privacy, it is a risk.

For this reason, bearer share companies are rarely used as operating entities. Instead, what we see in the offshore world is a different type of structuring. The bearer share company, often in the Marshall Islands, serves as the holding company.

Beneath it sits an operating company, perhaps in the Bahamas, perhaps in Seychelles, that opens bank accounts, receives customer payments, and handles day-to-day transactions. The operating entity may even have employees or directors listed, but its shareholder is the bearer share company.

This layered approach delivers what many consider the ultimate form of privacy: a visible operating company that interacts with the world, yet is owned by a bearer share holding company whose ownership cannot be traced in any public or banking register. The system is not for everyone, but for those who place discretion above convenience, it remains one of the most effective structures available.

The Legitimate Uses of Extreme Privacy

It should be said plainly: if a person is intent on committing crimes or engaging in sanctioned activities, bearer shares will not shield them. In today’s world of cross-border cooperation, data exchange, and forensic banking, such individuals will be found regardless of what corporate form they use. Bearer shares are not a cloak for illegality; they are, at best, a structural tool for privacy within the law.

So why does anyone still want them? The most credible reason is competition. In industries where rivals fight with every means at their disposal, the public disclosure of directors or shareholders can expose a company to commercial attacks, hostile takeovers, or targeted litigation. For those who face aggressive competitors, the ability to separate the visible operating company from an invisible bearer share holding company is not a luxury, it is protection.

This is the nuance often missed by regulators and commentators. Bearer shares in 2025 do not represent the old world of untouchable secrecy; they survive instead as a mechanism for entrepreneurs and investors who legitimately fear that transparency could place them at a competitive disadvantage. Used correctly, they are a defensive tool, not an offensive weapon.

Conclusion

In 2025, bearer shares survive only in a few corners of the offshore world, with the Marshall Islands bearer shares leading the list under custodian regimes. They are no longer a universal tool for secrecy, nor a way to evade compliance.

Their modern role is narrower: offering enhanced privacy for those whose competitive environment makes disclosure dangerous.

For most clients, the risks in banking and compliance outweigh the benefits. But for the rare cases where discretion is essential, bearer shares remain a lawful, if highly specialized, instrument.