Our valued sponsor

BVI company setup as holding!

The US banks can report you under CRS as well, those that are pert of the CRS. That is why I would recommend to double check that.
I am not saying that you own LLC, I am saying that the Nevis asset protection laws would not apply to the US LLC. And if you are indicated yourself as the owner if the LLC in the bank, you are completely exposed to any attacks and do not benefit from any asset protection.
What you're saying doesn't make sense. Nevis asset protection laws here are only relevant to the extent the trust gets sued. The LLC can get sued, of course, but it's not yours. If the trust gets sued and has been set up correctly, you won't be considered to be the UBO and Nevis laws will protect you.

With regards to US banks reporting US LLCs UBOs for CRS, I have never seen that because US banks do not report CRS. If you use US banks in other jurisdictions, they might, but that's not what we're talking about here.
 
What you're saying doesn't make sense. Nevis asset protection laws here are only relevant to the extent the trust gets sued. The LLC can get sued, of course, but it's not yours. If the trust gets sued and has been set up correctly, you won't be considered to be the UBO and Nevis laws will protect you.

With regards to US banks reporting US LLCs UBOs for CRS, I have never seen that because US banks do not report CRS. If you use US banks in other jurisdictions, they might, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Well, previously you mentioned that to the bank you submit your information as the UBO of LLC. What I am trying to say is that in case of a proceeding against US LLC your funds in the bank would be either:

1. Blocked by the bank for submission of misleading information regarding UBO
2. Freezed by the court order and will be subject to the creditor' s lawsuit just like your own money.

What is the point of establishing such a structure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: alley
The most robust structure I’ve come across lately for privacy, asset protection, and international flexibility goes like this:

You set up a US single-member LLC and open bank accounts under it. Then, you assign the ownership (via a private assignment document, which can technically be backdated if needed) to a Nevis trust. Happy to dive deeper into how to manage the trust , whether with professional trustees or a PTC, and how to structure settlor/trustee roles , but that’s a separate conversation.

The US LLC, now owned by the trust, holds a stake in a holding company incorporated in a jurisdiction with strong double tax treaties, solid banking access, and clean optics , ideally the UK, Cyprus, or Malta, especially if you’re focused on Europe.

The UK is particularly attractive, as it doesn’t impose minimum holding periods or ownership thresholds to access treaty benefits. In the UK PSC register, you simply list the US LLC as the shareholder, and in many cases no individual beneficial owner needs to be disclosed , worst-case scenario, disclosure defaults to the trustees of the Nevis trust.

It’s worth remembering that the US does not participate in CRS, making it, technically, one of the last top-tier jurisdictions (if not the last one) that functions as a tax haven. If you ever need to buy US securities or generate effectively connected income (ECI), I’d recommend setting up a separate US LLC under the holding company described above, and using the original US LLC purely as a pass-through for privacy.
Very well described, we should open a new thread about the trust part and link it to this thread. I'm looking into the US LLC and the docs as you suggested, just need to figure some technical stuff out first.
 
Well, previously you mentioned that to the bank you submit your information as the UBO of LLC. What I am trying to say is that in case of a proceeding against US LLC your funds in the bank would be either:

1. Blocked by the bank for submission of misleading information regarding UBO
2. Freezed by the court order and will be subject to the creditor' s lawsuit just like your own money.

What is the point of establishing such a structure?
1. You are not giving any misleading information regarding UBO. When you open the account, you're the owner. There is no federal statute that forces an LLC’s owners to run to the bank the moment membership interests change. Moreover, after FinCEN’s interim-final rule of 26 March 2025, domestic LLCs (those formed under U.S. state law) no longer file Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports, even if all members are non-U.S. persons.

2. If a court were ever to issue an order against you personally (a very remote scenario, because the LLC’s updated ownership will trigger that the LLC is unlikely to surface in discovery), the Trust, as the new owner, can immediately move to dismiss (a motion that would almost certainly be granted). A declaration by the Trust that you no longer hold any ownership interest should render the order ineffective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoNewToAllShit
1. You are not giving any misleading information regarding UBO. When you open the account, you're the owner. There is no federal statute that forces an LLC’s owners to run to the bank the moment membership interests change. Moreover, after FinCEN’s interim-final rule of 26 March 2025, domestic LLCs (those formed under U.S. state law) no longer file Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports, even if all members are non-U.S. persons.

2. If a court were ever to issue an order against you personally (a very remote scenario, because the LLC’s updated ownership will trigger that the LLC is unlikely to surface in discovery), the Trust, as the new owner, can immediately move to dismiss (a motion that would almost certainly be granted). A declaration by the Trust that you no longer hold any ownership interest should render the order ineffective.
make sense...
 
1. You are not giving any misleading information regarding UBO. When you open the account, you're the owner. There is no federal statute that forces an LLC’s owners to run to the bank the moment membership interests change. Moreover, after FinCEN’s interim-final rule of 26 March 2025, domestic LLCs (those formed under U.S. state law) no longer file Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports, even if all members are non-U.S. persons.

2. If a court were ever to issue an order against you personally (a very remote scenario, because the LLC’s updated ownership will trigger that the LLC is unlikely to surface in discovery), the Trust, as the new owner, can immediately move to dismiss (a motion that would almost certainly be granted). A declaration by the Trust that you no longer hold any ownership interest should render the order ineffective.
Nah. It’s in the terms of service of almost every bank globally, that you must keep them informed of any changes to UBO.

That’s a completely standard thing.

And, by the way, any lawyer/liquidator/3rd party who is motivated enough to pursue you would have a fairly easy time punching holes in this set up

In many cases it’s simpler and stronger to have separate entities (not owning each other) in separate jurisdictions all having slightly different functions and owning different assets + using nominees - much harder for a 3rd party to track down where everything is and which entity owns what
 
Assuming what you’re saying is correct (which I don’t believe it is), with the banks I work with, I’ve never seen any explicit wording requiring clients to “inform us of any UBO change.” In practice, banks typically detect such changes during periodic KYC refreshes or account activity reviews, not immediately. Given that the current structure involves a trust, and the definition of who qualifies as UBO in a trust is inherently flexible, you’re clearly relying on that ambiguity. So I respectfully disagree.

As for your comment that “any lawyer/liquidator/third party who is motivated enough to pursue you would have a fairly easy time punching holes in this setup,” I also disagree, for a variety of reasons. Structures like this are specifically designed to be litigation-proof, and when properly implemented and maintained, they offer a high degree of legal resilience. That’s precisely their purpose.
 
Assuming what you’re saying is correct (which I don’t believe it is), with the banks I work with, I’ve never seen any explicit wording requiring clients to “inform us of any UBO change.” In practice, banks typically detect such changes during periodic KYC refreshes or account activity reviews, not immediately. Given that the current structure involves a trust, and the definition of who qualifies as UBO in a trust is inherently flexible, you’re clearly relying on that ambiguity. So I respectfully disagree.

As for your comment that “any lawyer/liquidator/third party who is motivated enough to pursue you would have a fairly easy time punching holes in this setup,” I also disagree, for a variety of reasons. Structures like this are specifically designed to be litigation-proof, and when properly implemented and maintained, they offer a high degree of legal resilience. That’s precisely their purpose.
The powers afforded to liquidators and courts nowadays are so strong that the best strategy is to make assets “hard to find” not “hard to attack” legally

If they can repossess billionaires assets with consummate ease, trust me, a little Nevis trust with a few hundred k in it is child’s play

“piercing the corporate veil” Google it and you’ll see how advanced it has become

Also, once a legal challenge comes in, the legal fees to defend yourself/the structure in these complex areas of the law can get so expensive so quickly that it almost defeats the purpose in the beginning

I would reiterate, don’t connect entities, have multiple entities in different parts of the world, reduce the attack vector

Think about it logically, if someone is pursuing you, or planning to, and they see that your company is owned by another entity, like a trust. Do you really think that will stop them in their tracks?

Much better if they just sue that company that they’ve found, find out it has very little in the way of assets, meanwhile you are still trading through different companies in different jurisdictions

I agree with you that the banking issue is probably not a major concern “in practice” but i do think it’s an unnecessary complication to add into the mix
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: alley
With respect, I’ve handled these scenarios firsthand. Let’s keep the thread focused rather than turning it into a debate.
I think debating over the validity of a structure is about focused as it could be.

If you have handled the scenarios first hand, with respect, you wouldn’t be asking the questions you are asking, would you?

I think you need to deal in practicality rather than chasing shiny objects

If you just want everyone to agree with you, what’s the point in that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: alley
Nah. It’s in the terms of service of almost every bank globally, that you must keep them informed of any changes to UBO.

That’s a completely standard thing.
seems like an easy thing for you to cite
The powers afforded to liquidators and courts nowadays are so strong that the best strategy is to make assets “hard to find” not “hard to attack” legally

If they can repossess billionaires assets with consummate ease, trust me, a little Nevis trust with a few hundred k in it is child’s play

“piercing the corporate veil” Google it and you’ll see how advanced it has become
vague ramblings
 
seems like an easy thing for you to cite

Are you honestly disputing that banks have it as part of their standard terms and conditions that they need to be kept informed of changes to the UBO?

Are you joking? You think banks are just happy for UBO's to change without them being informed? I am speechless if so.

And with regards to "vague ramblings" I don't see how a comment like that can serve anyone. It's a well established fact that the insolvency regimes in major developed countries allow court appointed liquidators/insolvency administrators to get behind structures.

Simply claiming "oh but a holding company owns this and you can't touch the holding company" is so very naive.

You can call it "vague ramblings" but if you actually go to google and do a bit of searching you will see many cases across the globe where structures like this have been penetrated

And, what do you bring to the table in terms of feedback? I'm trying to give the OP something to think about which, whether he likes what I have to say or not, is a damn sight more than you're contributing
 
Are you honestly disputing that banks have it as part of their standard terms and conditions that they need to be kept informed of changes to the UBO?
no im saying what i said, its an easy thing for you to cite & be done with, but for whatever reason you dont.
but if you actually go to google and do a bit of searching you will see many cases across the globe where structures like this have been penetrated
seems like an easy thing for you to cite.
It's a well established fact that the insolvency regimes in major developed countries allow court appointed liquidators/insolvency administrators to get behind structures.
vague ramblings.
 
no im saying what i said, its an easy thing for you to cite & be done with, but for whatever reason you dont.

seems like an easy thing for you to cite.

vague ramblings.
Put your apparent task of criticising me to one side for a minute: you're not helping the OP

I'll make this as concise as I possibly can.

Piercing the corporate veil is easier than ever, and supported by judiciaries in many countries.

With that in mind, my position is that if your goal is asset protection/privacy, it is worth considering having several unconnected entities, rather than chaining them.

Have you got anything to add or are you just here to troll me?
 
Put your apparent task of criticising me
try to not take it so personal okay
Piercing the corporate veil is easier than ever
again, totally vague, unfalsifiable statement
With that in mind, my position is that if your goal is asset protection/privacy, it is worth considering having several unconnected entities, rather than chaining them.
worth considering? sure.
any better? i don't really see how, if you are personally liable (for something?) you're still going to have to come up off those assets for the amount liable, unconnected or not