TOP 20 company officers with the most companies (Latvia)

What does this list show?

The people with the highest number of DISTINCT companies in which they hold or held the role of officer, shareholder, procurator, liquidator or administrator. Records include both historical and current relationships. B. Jānis has 127 companies. A "real" active entrepreneur typically has 5-50 companies.

Why are natural persons and organisations in two tables?

Because they answer two different questions, and mixed together they give a misleading result. An officer role can also be held by a legal entity: an audit firm, a corporate-services provider or an umbrella association within its own branches. Those reach the top by volume, not by one person's connectedness: in a single combined ranking first place went to a Czech association with an officer role in 8,027 of its own local organisations, and the eight highest places in the global view were taken by Norwegian audit firms. We split by whether the record carries a legal-entity company ID.

Why do thousands of companies per person look suspicious?

People with 1,000+ companies almost always fit one of these profiles: (1) nominee director / agent services, a provider of registered offices and officer services; (2) a liquidator or insolvency administrator appointed to a large number of companies at once; (3) exceptionally, a genuine owner of many businesses. The professional categories differ between jurisdictions, as do the roles a register publishes at all. A high count on its own proves nothing.

Is this information public?

Yes. Registers publish the names of officers, shareholders and liquidators as a public record required by law, and we aggregate what is already there (Uzņēmumu reģistrs). The GDPR applies to these records: they are data about natural persons, even though they come from a public register. A register being public is not a reason the GDPR would not apply; it is part of the legal basis. We process them on the basis of a legitimate interest in the transparency of company control (Art. 6(1)(f)) and limit ourselves to the person–company–role relationship the register itself publishes. The data subject has rights and can exercise them through a personal-data request.

Why are names shortened to “J. Novak”?

Because this ranking is not a reproduction of the register but a ranking of individuals by connectedness, which is a different act from showing an entry on a specific company's page. The officer's full name stays on that company's page, where the register itself publishes it. Here the shortened form supports the same conclusions: concentration, distribution and the nominee pattern can be read from the numbers without identification. Full names in the ranking are available through the authenticated /api/v1/people/search (Bearer, audited), as for other person-level queries. Shortening is a data-minimisation measure, not anonymisation: for a person with thousands of companies, re-identification remains realistic.

How do I drill down to a person's companies?

The per-person detail (which companies, from when to when, in which role) comes from the authenticated /api/v1/people/search?name=… (Bearer auth, pagination, role filter). Nominee-director detection uses a threshold (more than 50 active companies = nominee flag).

Why can 'active records' be higher than 'companies'?

The number of active records today can exceed a person's number of distinct companies, because the total counts every record (historical and current roles) over active companies. One active company can list the person in 2 roles (current officer + former procurator). For the cleanest picture, COUNT(DISTINCT ico) ignores the role.

How do journalists and OSINT researchers use it?

For investigative reporting: 1) Pick a person from the TOP 20. 2) Cross-reference with public procurement (TED covers above-threshold tenders across the EU): nominee contractors sometimes draw public money through SPVs. 3) Compare with the country's register of beneficial owners, if it keeps one. The scope of such registers varies widely between jurisdictions, so the absence of a record proves nothing.

Source: Uzņēmumu reģistrs · Refreshed weekly