Today, private aircraft owners in the United States have a variety of methods for shielding their personal aircraft ownership information from the public eye. Unfortunately, the same mechanisms that facilitate this privacy can frustrate intermediaries to aircraft transactions like brokers, financial institutions, escrow companies, and attorneys who need this ownership information to conduct their due diligence procedures to ensure that the aircraft owner they engage with is not taking advantage of their services for illicit purposes such as tax evasion or money laundering.

Why and How Owners Go Anonymous

Private aircraft owners have legitimate reasons for wanting their identities shielded from the public eye. With just a tail number, anyone can go on the FAA registry and determine who the registered owner of an aircraft is. The same tail number can then be searched on flight-tracking websites which use unencrypted ADS-B data to provide real-time flight tracking to anyone searching for it. For many private aircraft owners, this not only creates a personal security risk, but also runs the risk of compromising confidential business negotiations for owners who regularly utilize their aircraft in the course of their business. The good news (for owners, at least) is that recent changes to the management of aircraft ownership data by the FAA have allowed private aircraft owners to address both these issues.

In 2019, the FAA implemented the Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed (“LADD”) program which allows owners to request that the FAA block their real-time ADS-B flight tracking data and historical flight data from being displayed by public vendors.[1] In 2025, the FAA started allowing private aircraft owners to submit data-withholding requests via the Civil Aviation Registration Electronic Services portal (“CARES”).[2] If an owner submits a CARES request, the FAA will block their ownership information from public viewing on the FAA registry.

Even without submitting a LADD or CARES request, private aircraft owners can maintain privacy as an indirect result of their aircraft’s ownership structure. For example, an aircraft might be registered in the name of a limited liability company as a means of limiting personal liability for the individual aircraft owners. However, this same ownership structure serves the purpose of adding a layer of privacy by means of a private ownership structure and registered agent.

Where Anonymity Becomes a Risk

The same mechanisms that bolster privacy can also mask aircraft owners with illicit intentions. The Government Accountability Office’s (“GAO”) report GAO-20-164, published March 25, 2020, concluded that the FAA needed to better prevent, detect, and respond to fraud and abuse risks in aircraft registration.[3] Self-certification in the FAA’s registration process, the use of registered agents, entity ownership, trust ownership, and aircraft transaction intermediaries were all highlighted by the GAO as risks areas for potential abuse. To combat these risks, nearly all parties to an aircraft transaction whether it be brokers, attorneys, escrow companies, or financial institutions have some sort of regulatory or internal procedure for screening their clients to ensure it’s clear who they’re working with.

Due Diligence for Aircraft Transaction Intermediaries

While due diligence procedures have long been implemented among aircraft transaction intermediaries, there has been an overarching federal push over the last several years to create law aimed at preventing criminals from abusing entities beyond the aircraft registration-specific risks highlighted by the GAO report. Mandatory entity beneficial ownership information reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act, which was ultimately withdrawn by the U.S. Department of Treasury in August of 2026, is one example.[4] The 2021 ENABLERS Act (Establishing New Authorities for Business Laundering and Enabling Risks to Security) which passed in the House, but failed to go further, sought to have non-bank professionals like attorneys subject to the same Bank Secrecy Act requirements as financial institutions.[5]

In 2023, the American Bar Association modified its model rules of professional conduct to create an explicit duty of inquiry requiring lawyers to assess the facts and circumstances of each representation to determine whether they may accept or continue the representation.[6] This was seen by some as a compromise between the ABA and Congress as a means of preventing attorneys’ willful blindness to illicit activity after the ENABLERS Act failed to pass. While the ABA’s model rules aren’t binding on attorneys unless adopted by their respective state bar, as of October 2026, the New York State Bar and the Washington State Bar have already amended their professional rules of conduct to reflect these changes to the American Bar Association’s model rules.[7]

Balancing Due Diligence and Client Privacy

Between CARES data-withholding requests and complex entity aircraft ownership structures, determining the beneficial owner of an aircraft can be a convoluted process for aircraft transaction intermediaries with a legitimate need to know who they’re actually working with. With a growing emphasis on the importance of due diligence screening, professionals involved in aircraft transactions need to take steps to fulfill their due diligence obligations while maintaining the privacy expectations of their clients. This not only means working with the client directly to clarify beneficial ownership but establishing trusted relationships with other parties to an aircraft transaction who maintain the same robust client screening procedures. Whether or not one’s due diligence obligation is fulfilled depends highly on the nature of the transaction matter involved. In a field where client privacy is paramount, and regulatory bodies are placing heightened importance on curbing willful blindness to suspicious activity, intermediaries involved in aircraft transactions must balance their client’s desire for privacy with robust due diligence screening procedures.

 

The information in this article is intended to highlight potential issues with aircraft ownership and operations and is therefore general in nature.  Please feel free to contact one of our experienced aviation attorneys directly to discuss your specific business/personal needs.

 

[1] Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed (LADD), Fed. Aviation Admin., https://www.faa.gov/pilots/ladd

[2] The FAA Civil Aviation Registry Online, Fed. Aviation Admin., https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cares

[3] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-20-164, Aviation: FAA Needs to Better Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Fraud and Abuse Risks in Aircraft Registration (2020)

[4] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, FinCEN Permanently Ends Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements for Millions of Small Business Owners (Aug. 11, 2026), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0603

[5] ENABLERS Act, H.R. 5525, 117th Cong. (2021). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5525

[6] ABA Issues Guidance on a Lawyer’s Diligence Under Rule 1.16, Am. Bar Ass’n (Sept. 2, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2024/09/aba-guidance-lawyers-diligence/.

[7] N.Y. Rules of Prof’l Conduct Rule 1.16 (“Declining, Modifying or Terminating an Engagement”) (amended eff. July 1, 2026); Wash. Rules of Pro. Conduct r. 1.16 (amended by Wash. Sup. Ct. Order No. 25700-A-1698, effective Sept. 1, 2026)