Our valued sponsor

Own Nothing, but Control Everything – A Concept That Can Change Your Life

Own Nothing, but Control Everything

John D. Rockefeller made an important statement once – Own nothing, but control everything. Coming from someone with incredible wealth, this aspect has been thoroughly analyzed overtime and has become a top rule for handling money.

What he meant is fairly simple to understand. If you do not own anything, it means it cannot be taken away from you. This is what asset protection truly means, and believe it or not, it can be done legally. Most people simply forget about this aspect, though.
1649055119002.png

John D. Rockefeller was born July 8, 1839, in Richford, New York, about midway between Binghamton and Ithaca.​
Back in the early 1990s, only a few people knew how asset protection truly works. With time, the popularity of this concept grew, so by the late 1990s, most millionaires had some clues about asset protection – it started spreading overnight.

The idea? What you do not own cannot be taken away from you – simple as that.

Own Nothing but Control Everything – A Few Examples


Here is how the industry works.


You and your partner have a new baby – Mary. You give Mary $25,000 for her college fund – just to help her get a good start in life. Later on, you end up in debt, and creditors come knocking on your door. Can a creditor get the money you gave to Mary?

No, they cannot. The money is a gift for Mary and is not a fraudulent convenient. At this point, Mary is the new owner, and since she is not a guarantor, she cannot be involved in the process. She will never be held accountable for your financial mistakes.

If the money is under Mary’s name, there is nothing to be worried about. Meanwhile, you can make various payments, trade with it, buy holidays, make a mortgage payment or perhaps start a business. You can do anything, despite the money not being owned by you.

Furthermore, you can make more transfers to entities in your asset protection trust without losing control.

Here is another example. You get a brand new Audi, and you take some friends out. You park it in front of their house and talk about it for a few minutes. They both work in the police, so they have some credibility in terms of law enforcement.

Now, imagine a homeless man walking by with a bag. Something sharp in that bag scratches your brand new car. You have some good witnesses, and you even have the homeless man not trying to run away. But then, what can you do?

He only has the clothes he is wearing, as well as whatever rubbish he has managed to find in that bag. Even if you take him to court, you will get nothing. This man owns nothing. He will not be arrested for it, and he has no physical address – you are only wasting your time and money.

This is pretty much the concept of own nothing, but control everything. Of course, you do not want to end up homeless. But then, there are legal procedures to ensure you can accumulate wealth without risking to lose it.

How the wealthy rely on trusts to preserve wealth

Some of the richest families or dynasties in the world own nothing, but they somehow seem to control lots of wealth. If you think about it for a second, why would you do that? That is actually the secret to long term wealth – the type of wealth achieved over generations.

Owning too much may not be an issue, but a small mistake can seriously damage your wealth. On the same note, even if you manage to control money affairs, one of your successors may not have the same business spirit and throw everything down the drain.

Whether you think about the Rockefeller family or perhaps the Rothschild family, such families control billions. Their wealth is simply impressive. Do they own anything? No. John D. Rockefeller was not joking when he said you should own nothing, but control everything.

The name Rothschild is synonymous with extravagant, old world wealth.​

This is how rich people ensure their wealth is not lost, but maintained and grown over multiple generations. Everything is owed to the people who created these dynasties and came up with the first steps in terms of wealth.

They were clever. They knew kids born in wealth might make terrible decisions. There are numerous temptations associated with money, and many of them are nothing but scandalous mistakes. This is why their wealth was placed in foundations and trust.

The best part about this concept is that no one actually owns the wealth. The ownership is confusing and vague – less likely to be affected by legal issues. Different trusts also have different rules regarding who can touch the wealth or how distributions are made.

A brief history of trusts

Trusts originally came to life in England. The Chancery Court gathered together a bunch of clever judges who decided that while some people may own property, someone else could benefit from it. It was unusual and confusing, but it was the base of what we see today.

The actual owner was referred to as a trustee. As for the beneficial user, they were known as the beneficiary. This law originated in the 12th century, and it persisted overtime – in fact, it was enhanced until it became what it is today.

Its popularity grew throughout the crusades. If a landowner had to leave the country to fight in such crusades, someone else was entrusted to manage the affairs while they were away. In return, the property would get back to the original owner.

Now, some trustees decided to go against the law, and after managing land for years, they decided they wanted to keep it. After all, it was their own work, and they actually deserved a part of what was built there.

The Lord Chancellor would then be petitioned for the so-called land return. Returning crusaders were always given the right of way. In other words, the trustee was supposed to return the land to the beneficiary when requested. This is how modern trust was created.

Modern uses for today’s trusts

These days, trusts are used with a similar, yet different purpose. Basically, their modern role is to preserve wealth. They are associated with families, rather than individuals. Simply put, assets achieved in one way or another are donated to the trust.

At that point, the donor no longer owns those assets legally, so they cannot be held responsible for them should any situations arise. Even as a beneficiary, there are certain rules associated with each trust out there.

For instance, you could come up with a trust for further generations. You can also set up a trust for charitable distributions on a regular basis. At that point, you can also control the trustees, so you decide for yourself when distributions are made.

You have full control of these assets, but from a legal point of view, you do not own them.

This is exactly what John D. Rockefeller meant when he said own nothing, but control everything.

When everything you have managed to gather overtime is held in a trust, the trust can lend you money and ensure you support your current lifestyle. You cannot be taxed on the respective money if you choose to pay a commercial interest rate.

No one can seize these assets if you end up in trouble with creditors.​

The same rule applies if you end up in an ugly divorce – your partner cannot seize anything.

Bank balances can get out of trouble, too, as they should not be reported based on FACTA or CRS rules. After all, they are not your assets. This is another secret wherefore rich people stay rich for multiple generations and pay little to nothing in tax.

Now, unlike most expectations, it is important to know that foundations and trusts are more than just some clever and legal ways to disguise who owns your assets. Sure, no one will know, but further strategies take things even further.

These things change the actual ownership in terms of legal matters. For example, you could have control over $1M in assets, without owning anything at all. You can live in a fancy mansion owned by a business that is owned and run by the trust – no one will be bothered.

The trust will also lend you money on a regular basis, so you can take care of all your expenses. You can travel by private jets instead of commercial airlines. You can live in the biggest house in your town and hang around like a millionaire – all these without owning anything.

At the same time, imagine your partner filing for divorce. Sadly for them, if your wealth is held in trust, they would not be able to get anything. They can hire the most experienced lawyers in the world – they cannot enter a trust.

Bottom line, trust will offer more than just privacy. It does not come with any accounting rules – no disclosure laws either. Nobody will really know what the trust owns. Disguising assets has never been easier, and the good news is everyone has access to such things.

Becoming judgment proof with a trust

Get your assets in offshore trust, and you will become immune to any court judgment. No lawyer, judge, or court will ever be able to steal anything from you – something that is quite common in today's society anyway.

More and more people hope for fat paychecks when they divorce. Then, if a company is large enough or an individual is rich, chances are someone out there will try to steal their money with some random lawsuits. These things happen on a daily basis.

It does pay off choosing the optimal jurisdiction if you decide on establishing a trust abroad. Sure, most people will not be aware of all these things, so they can still try. But as they hire lawyers, a professional will be able to check your assets – owning nothing means you can chase them away.

If you think about it, no one will pour a fortune into a law firm if the outcome is not certain.

Things can get even better if your trust is in a jurisdiction that is known to be hostile to creditors. Some creditors may go beyond the borders to try their luck, but certain countries out there have extremely strict rules against such things. Seeing such a country will put most people off.

Obviously, for such things to work, you need to ensure that visible assets are mortgaged with loans from a company that runs under the trust. This way, lawyers or creditors cannot seize assets in your original country either.

Good Jurisdictions to Establish Offshore Trusts

Here are some of the best jurisdictions chosen by those who want to hide wealth in trusts.

  • Cook Islands – known for having some of the strictest trust rules in the world, these semi independent islands can repel aggressive creditors with no issues at all. For maximum protection, assets should be in the trust for more than two years.
  • Panama – asset protection is fairly simple if you choose a foundation in Panama. The high level of confidentiality is not to be overlooked either. Fines for leaks are quite high and may even lead to prison, so no one really bothers with such things.

Now that you understand the concept of owning nothing but controlling everything, is it really worth it? The above-mentioned benefits make this structure ideal to ensure wealth is preserved, but there are also some potential problems you should be aware of.

Taxes associated with transparency

These days are different from the days when Rockefellers used to grab wealth like there was no tomorrow. These days, there are automatic exchanges that share information, so governments can get more details about your actual assets – even if they are stored in other countries.

If you are trying to avoid tax like wealthy families decades ago, it is less likely to happen today. Indeed, you will gain some protection, but you cannot avoid tax completely. Other countries have professional tax authorities too. Putting money in someone else’s name without reporting it could be an issue.

In the USA, you need to report accounts even if you only get a beneficial interest. If your signature has control over that money, it must be reported. Most other countries are not as strict, though, but the USA could be a real problem.

The idea that you could hide some money in an offshore account is not always viable. Many jurisdictions collaborate to prevent tax evasion. Indeed, if you pay your taxes and follow the rules, your protection is still in place.

Indeed, you will pay more today than what you had to pay decades ago.

But then, you can still benefit from asset protection in front of problematic lawsuits.

Defining asset protection

In theory, authorities cannot go after you if you do not own anything. If your name is not listed on an account, it is not yours. However, over the past few decades, there have been a few exceptions here and there.

Normally, no one can chase you for something that is not yours. But then, some judges have looked at the substance and circumstances, rather than the actual paperwork. A good lawyer can prevent all these things, though.

When putting people in charge of what you actually own, some judges may still link things to you. But these things are irrelevant if there is no major crime. Sure, if money comes from selling cocaine and can be linked to you, chances are you will get in trouble.

The general idea is fairly simple to understand. While you do gain some asset protection, not having anything in your name will still make your assets taxable. Avoiding tax is difficult, but as long as you pay what you owe, there should be no problems at all.

A few words about privacy

Privacy was one thing 30 years ago and a completely different thing today. While there are still plenty of tax havens to help optimize tax, the truth is you can no longer hide money – as in promoting tax evasion. This is a thing of the past.

More and more tax havens have now started complying with international laws. They are more transparent than ever. Indeed, they will share your details if needed, but you can still move your business operations to another country to pay 3% instead of 19%, for example.

This is perfectly legal.


On the other hand, hiding completely is almost impossible these days. Owning a company without anyone to know is hard, yet trust can make the information ambiguous. Some corporate registrars are open to the whole world – such as the one in the UK.

Technology does not help too much either. The whole world is interconnected now, so countries are open when it comes to business registrations. There are new rules to respect in tax havens too, yet you can still save a fortune.

Privacy is critical if you want to own nothing, but control everything. Privacy is still there in terms of the available information, but being completely anonymous is a thing of the past. If your goal is to avoid taxation, that is illegal.

Now, a trust can still hide who owns companies or the people behind the trust. But certain tax is still paid.

Potential operational issues

Operational issues can be avoided if you know how to handle your money or who to work with. For instance, dealing with high-quality institutions asks for a large budget, but it will also make your life easier in the long run.

This is one of those cases where having $100M is much easier than having $5M only.

Implementing the concept to own nothing, but control everything implies having structures. There is nothing wrong with that. But then, the more structures you run, the more complicated your venture will be – plus, expenses may add up.

Other than that, you will find banks that have specialized in trusts and similar structures. Affluent people will most likely go into the commercial category if they operate through a trust. There will be more paperwork and bureaucracy then.

Now, the point is to avoid getting involved with things you do not understand. Do your homework, research, read and become familiar with systems. If you think you can be one of those people you see in movies with 50 offshore companies with different names in the middle of nowhere, you are wrong.

This rule does not apply to trusts only, but to anything related to the offshore industry.

Once you dig deeper and get involved, you realize that there will be new ongoing expenses and further fees. As a general rule of thumb, the simpler your structure is, the better you will be. You need to keep things simple, so you can understand everything without any headaches.

Finally, if your concept of own nothing, but control everything is about creating luxurious lifestyles with fancy mansions and fast cars, you might fail – unless you already have millions. If you are new to this game, you might be disappointed by the outcome.

Instead, you need to do things bit by bit. Get in from scratch and grow from there while you still educate yourself. As you get more money, you will have more complications and so on. Doing things slowly can keep you on track without risking your hard earned money.

As a short final conclusion, the idea to own nothing, but control everything is definitely an appealing one. It used to work wonders decades ago, but things have changed a lot lately. It is not as easy as it used to be, yet running your assets through a trust can still bring in a plethora of advantages.

From protecting your assets and hiding identities to reducing tax, such things can still be done. But then, everything must be done within the law. If you hope to avoid tax completely by running a company in an exotic location, you are breaking the law, so it is out of the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wait, do you mean they want to tax the wealthy with up to 50% from money that already has been taxed once before and is just sitting on their accounts ?
 
FYI
A regulatory filing on Monday showed that Musk owns 73.5 million Twitter shares, which are held by the Elon Musk Revocable Trust, of which he is the sole trustee.
Elon musk also using Revocable trust to buy stake in twitter.
You can google search for more information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: achab
Reading this again, I noticed this is all about Foundations and not a TRUST
That's why I say get out of EU while you still can.

EU never let a crisis go to waste. And who is gonna argue against tracking Russian Oligarchs assets. But then you got to ask yourself how are they gonna know who is wealthy individual and who is not without adding everyone to an EU register firstly? A baker in Germany could be UBO to half of Romanian real estate without checking.....lol conf/(%.


--- quote start

“The feasibility study is in no way an indication of any plan to establish an EU-wide property register,” a Commission spokesperson told EURACTIV, adding that such a register did not feature in the Commission’s package of legislative proposals to combat money laundering.

Neef argued that a European asset registry would not only help to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs effectively.

“It would solve so many problems beyond just sanctioning individuals, for example, tax evasion and money laundering,” she said.


---- quote end


GLOBAL REGULATION: Researchers call for EU Asset Registry to better implement sanctions.​

https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2022...asset-registry-to-better-implement-sanctions/
Reading this again, I noticed this is all about Foundations and not a TRUST
 
okay, if I read the below right from the links above, this is all about EU and EU only, means, countries like Switzerland, UK, Andorra, Lichtenstein and the rest of the 19 countries at the moment are excluded from all this crap.

What's your thought's in regards to establish yourself including a company and trust in such non EU countries, are we back on track again in regards what the above article is all about - own nothing, but control everything! ?
A Task Force for Asset Ownership could be set up to collect information on hidden wealth in a unified structure in the EU. The task force will collect, crosscheck and analyse all available information on wealth and assets held in EU Member States by wealthy individuals (above a given threshold). To utilise information in the Member States, the task force can be mandated by EU leaders and supervised by the Eurogroup. Its form can follow that of the Task Force for Coordinated Action — a special working group of the Eurogroup that has coordinated the setup of even more ambitious EU structures such as the Banking Union and the European Stability Mechanism
 
Meanwhile the guy on state benefits that ran him over is still at 0$ as he was his whole life, and he's "free": everything in his whole life has been provided by the state (lawyers, house, bills, food etc).
He caused the damage, but it was all covered by taxpayers money.
He's still living as before, my friends life is fucked.
I'm sorry to hear that, is there no chance to recover from all of this?
 
Channel islands like Jersey or Guernsey would be my first choice. Then you got Caribbean with Cayman and Bahamas and Africa with Seychelles and Mauritius etc.
I wouldn't rely on the Seychelles for anything anymore. Ever since they just handover files to the first the best that asks nicely they lost the privilege of being a proper offshore jurisdiction. The handing over of records happened already in 2016-2017.

All in all I completely agree with the theory behind the concept.

In reality however it doesn't always work like this anymore. Also not when looking at the jurisdictions which are considered good. Mainly this comes from treating every setup transparent. For as long as governments started to implement this the structures used for most people with wealth below 5M didn't work how they were intended anymore.

To setup something bulletproof (for the next 5-10 years after which its likely time to revise some if not all elements) you need and the assets and the knowledgeable trust company / lawyer etc. Most of these parties (un)fortunately can only be found via personal introductions.
 
Last edited:
That's why I say get out of EU while you still can.

EU never let a crisis go to waste. And who is gonna argue against tracking Russian Oligarchs assets. But then you got to ask yourself how are they gonna know who is wealthy individual and who is not without adding everyone to an EU register firstly? A baker in Germany could be UBO to half of Romanian real estate without checking.....lol conf/(%.


--- quote start

“The feasibility study is in no way an indication of any plan to establish an EU-wide property register,” a Commission spokesperson told EURACTIV, adding that such a register did not feature in the Commission’s package of legislative proposals to combat money laundering.

Neef argued that a European asset registry would not only help to impose sanctions on Russian oligarchs effectively.

“It would solve so many problems beyond just sanctioning individuals, for example, tax evasion and money laundering,” she said.


---- quote end


GLOBAL REGULATION: Researchers call for EU Asset Registry to better implement sanctions.​

https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2022...asset-registry-to-better-implement-sanctions/
So messed up. Soon you will have to register EVERYTHING inside an EU-wide database... Literally nothing will be private anymore, your house passed through generations etc. everything in the eyes of the EU.... Literally impossible to be off the grid soon..
 
So messed up. Soon you will have to register EVERYTHING inside an EU-wide database... Literally nothing will be private anymore, your house passed through generations etc. everything in the eyes of the EU.... Literally impossible to be off the grid soon..

Exactly. Registering all your assets just makes it easy for a government to confiscate/freeze them. History has taught us governments cannot always be trusted sadly.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...their-wealthmaking-it-easier-steal-180968894/
 
I'm waiting for someone with inside knowledge to explain at what level one will consider a Trust or even Foundation setup, and where would they do that?

Years ago I setup a Trust in Cyprus, back than, it was pretty good in protecting my identity and assets, but I gave up the trust after some years.

@CyprusBusiness @CyprusLawyer101 @CyprusLaw do you guys have any idea how you could setup something to protect a wealth of only a million euro ? Cyprus is part of the EU and may have streamlined the laws?

Although the article is quite informative it sort of idolizes the trust and makes it sound very easy. That is not the case. There are indeed a lot of trusts being set up out there but only a few have been challenged. Looking deep into case law ( mostly US, little UK and Indian case law exists) immediately you understand that the great majority of the trusts out would not stand a potential challenge as they would have been easily pierced and considered as sham trusts ending in disregarding them by courts for the benefit of a potential claimant. The original intention of the trust and its current manipulative forms that have appeared in the offshore industry have a major gap.
As a basic metric of the robustness of a trust you should look at the "reliquishment of control". Once a trust is set up and finalized the less effective control the settlor maintains over the trust assets and how they are treated the more robust the trust becomes against potential challenges.

Which jurisdiction one would choose to set up the trust is a relative question. This is a common law concept and as mentioned there is rather limited case law on which to rely. Each jurisdiction applies some little differences as to the rules for setting up the trust which usually affect taxation or some countries can be more suitable than others because of inherent difficulties in filing for a claim over a dismissal of a trust or registering and enforcing another jurisdiction's court decision. Other variables ( non exhaustive) which play an important role is whether a jurisdiction recognizes the concept of trusts; civil law jurisdictions do not recognize or understand the concept. This may be a two edge sword as a civil law court may disregard the trust arrangement altogether and look at the " owner " of the trust ( the settlor) or they may disregard the arrangement and its beneficiaries and look only to the legal title holder of the trust property ( the trustee(s) ) and render it unable to look any further. Additionally the situs (location ) of the trust assets is also important as they may under a local court be freezed on a limited scope of application of local laws. Disrespecting foreing laws may be more easy to do if the jurisdiction where the trust was set up has a weak judiciary system while an EU country or a country with strong international presense as a place of set up would stand more effective. Finally, complex trust set ups with two many variables create management difficulties for trustees , protectors and other involved persons which can result into internal disputes on trustee's duties and decisions made. It appears therefore better to keep a trust as simple and concise as possible while at the same time to be coherent and encompassing giving little room for misinterpetation or missapplication. Balancing all the above is not the easiest of tasks and personal circumstances of settlors and beneficiaries add a lot to that.
So next time someone tries to sell you a trust as if its "candy", please know that what you are buying is probably merely "candy".
 
Although the article is quite informative it sort of idolizes the trust and makes it sound very easy. That is not the case. There are indeed a lot of trusts being set up out there but only a few have been challenged. Looking deep into case law ( mostly US, little UK and Indian case law exists) immediately you understand that the great majority of the trusts out would not stand a potential challenge as they would have been easily pierced and considered as sham trusts ending in disregarding them by courts for the benefit of a potential claimant. The original intention of the trust and its current manipulative forms that have appeared in the offshore industry have a major gap.
As a basic metric of the robustness of a trust you should look at the "reliquishment of control". Once a trust is set up and finalized the less effective control the settlor maintains over the trust assets and how they are treated the more robust the trust becomes against potential challenges.

Which jurisdiction one would choose to set up the trust is a relative question. This is a common law concept and as mentioned there is rather limited case law on which to rely. Each jurisdiction applies some little differences as to the rules for setting up the trust which usually affect taxation or some countries can be more suitable than others because of inherent difficulties in filing for a claim over a dismissal of a trust or registering and enforcing another jurisdiction's court decision. Other variables ( non exhaustive) which play an important role is whether a jurisdiction recognizes the concept of trusts; civil law jurisdictions do not recognize or understand the concept. This may be a two edge sword as a civil law court may disregard the trust arrangement altogether and look at the " owner " of the trust ( the settlor) or they may disregard the arrangement and its beneficiaries and look only to the legal title holder of the trust property ( the trustee(s) ) and render it unable to look any further. Additionally the situs (location ) of the trust assets is also important as they may under a local court be freezed on a limited scope of application of local laws. Disrespecting foreing laws may be more easy to do if the jurisdiction where the trust was set up has a weak judiciary system while an EU country or a country with strong international presense as a place of set up would stand more effective. Finally, complex trust set ups with two many variables create management difficulties for trustees , protectors and other involved persons which can result into internal disputes on trustee's duties and decisions made. It appears therefore better to keep a trust as simple and concise as possible while at the same time to be coherent and encompassing giving little room for misinterpetation or missapplication. Balancing all the above is not the easiest of tasks and personal circumstances of settlors and beneficiaries add a lot to that.
So next time someone tries to sell you a trust as if its "candy", please know that what you are buying is probably merely "candy".
What do you think about Nevis and Cook Island trusts? I hear a lot about them in Asset Protection where the trust owns an LLC and that LLC holds all of the money/assets etc, and the UBO is appointed as a manager and if the assets need to be protected, the law firm steps in and takes control and becomes the manager until the situation is settled. I've heard that it's tried and tested, but I'm still kind of skeptical. I'd definitely like to set up some trusts in the future, as I do think they have value as instruments, but I'm not so sure as to how "bulletproof" they really are..
 
  • Like
Reactions: oversea
What do you think about Nevis and Cook Island trusts? I hear a lot about them in Asset Protection where the trust owns an LLC and that LLC holds all of the money/assets etc, and the UBO is appointed as a manager and if the assets need to be protected, the law firm steps in and takes control and becomes the manager until the situation is settled. I've heard that it's tried and tested, but I'm still kind of skeptical. I'd definitely like to set up some trusts in the future, as I do think they have value as instruments, but I'm not so sure as to how "bulletproof" they really are..
I haven't heard of this arrangement before but it seems the settlor still maintains control. Obviously the overall set up should be looked at but from what you describe its like the settlor hides behinds his own finger. Do you have some link I can look into in more detail?
 
I haven't heard of this arrangement before but it seems the settlor still maintains control. Obviously the overall set up should be looked at but from what you describe its like the settlor hides behinds his own finger. Do you have some link I can look into in more detail?
Sure, here you go: How To Set Up a Cook Islands Trust
 
Thanks. I ve looked into it. Basically what they are proposing by having the settlor as manager of the LLC and maintaining control, signatory powers etc. ( it says it clearly in the article), is exactly opposite to what a trust should be. The text of the trust document should be looked at of course to identify what are the powers reserved by the settlor as well as what powers he maintains on the company level. But in general this is not a solid trust structure by itself.
Haowever, they seem to rely its effectivness on what they present as a fact that a foreign judgment cannot be enforced on the local trustees. This is something that obviously needs to be confirmed before going ahead as well as whether maybe a claim could be filed directly locally or whether any mechanism exists allowing for a foreign judgments to first be registered locally and then enforced ( there are international bilateral and multilateral agreements allowing for this, as well as local laws in some countries - I do not know rhe extent to which the Cook Islands abides to any of this )
So this arrangement may provide some protection , not so on the basis of being a robust trust , but rather on the basis of it being difficult to enforce a claim against it based on restrictive local laws. So it might work in some instances especially if the bank account or situs of the trust asset is in the same country, but it could also end up being quite problematic in other circumstances. Make sure to check things thoroughly before going ahead with such arrangements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GPT
Thanks. I ve looked into it. Basically what they are proposing by having the settlor as manager of the LLC and maintaining control, signatory powers etc. ( it says it clearly in the article), is exactly opposite to what a trust should be. The text of the trust document should be looked at of course to identify what are the powers reserved by the settlor as well as what powers he maintains on the company level. But in general this is not a solid trust structure by itself.
Haowever, they seem to rely its effectivness on what they present as a fact that a foreign judgment cannot be enforced on the local trustees. This is something that obviously needs to be confirmed before going ahead as well as whether maybe a claim could be filed directly locally or whether any mechanism exists allowing for a foreign judgments to first be registered locally and then enforced ( there are international bilateral and multilateral agreements allowing for this, as well as local laws in some countries - I do not know rhe extent to which the Cook Islands abides to any of this )
So this arrangement may provide some protection , not so on the basis of being a robust trust , but rather on the basis of it being difficult to enforce a claim against it based on restrictive local laws. So it might work in some instances especially if the bank account or situs of the trust asset is in the same country, but it could also end up being quite problematic in other circumstances. Make sure to check things thoroughly before going ahead with such arrangements.
Yeah, it seems like it could be good if you hold all assets offshore, but I wouldn't count on having domestic real estate etc. being protected in the same degree. Pretty interesting though. I did email them once and the prices were quite steep, I think it was around 22,000$ for the trust and 5,000$ for the LLC and transferring it to the Trust and bank account opening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyprusLawyer101
Yeah, it seems like it could be good if you hold all assets offshore, but I wouldn't count on having domestic real estate etc. being protected in the same degree. Pretty interesting though. I did email them once and the prices were quite steep, I think it was around 22,000$ for the trust and 5,000$ for the LLC and transferring it to the Trust and bank account opening.
Thanks for the feedback. If you ever consider a trust set up, I ll be glad to help, I am actually getting excited with these things :)))
 
  • Like
Reactions: KDX