How to let my offshore company look like it isn't mine?

[bothe]

My situation is the following


I live in Europe in a high taxed country and I want to avoid to pay tax from my business earnings. For that reason Im looking into a offshore company setup where Im able to avoid my name to appear anywhere and also where it is almost impossible to proof that the company is mine? Can this be done?

 

[Zqq]

You can use nominee directors and shareholders, but the provider of the nominees will still have your identity on file. The only way around that is to supply false identification documents, which isn't something I'd recommend.


If you have money to spend, you can set up a structure that includes a range of companies and trusts that own one another. You would also need to use nominee signatories on the bank accounts to make sure your name isn't on the account details.


Or, lastly, only deal with jurisdictions that do not have tax treaties with the country where you live. Requests for information will go to the garbage bin, unless it's something very serious, like terrorism, trafficking, or narcotics.

 

[cole]

How can nominee director and shareholder make sure it is not my company?

 

[Zqq]

Nominees act as director(s) and shareholder(s) of your company, so that your name is nowhere in the company documents. Some providers also offer bank account signatory nominees, to keep your name away even from bank records.


Needless to say, this comes with some inherent risks. One should be extremely cautious when choosing nominees, especially bank account nominees.

 

[bothe]

I don't mind if the CSP has my name etc. on file I just don't want it to be released to anyone if they send a simple reuqest. So important to me is how safe are my data with the CSP if I choose nominees?

 

[Zqq]

If your nominees are lawyers, you have attorney-client privileges. This implies very strict privacy in almost all jurisdictions and a court order is required to compel the lawyers to release information.

 

[hemma]

the CSP will have your name on file as the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO)only... but if you will have a bank account then details of the UBO will be given ... so once these are given to the bank no one will know if the bank will give out... also with the CSP nowadays the financial Intelligent Unit (FIU) have rights in getting info (stated in laws) so one cannot say that there is 100% anonimity...

 

[JohnLocke]

If your nominees are lawyers, you have attorney-client privileges. This implies very strict privacy in almost all jurisdictions and a court order is required to compel the lawyers to release information.

Second that... your privacy will then be protected by local law regulations.

 

[dwilson]

At the end of the day, the beneficial owner must be recorded and this information is normally included in a standard information request by the FIU and/or the Regulator. The responsible way to handle your situation is to seek a licensed tax adviser and get guidance on how best to reduce your tax burden instead of searching for ways to hide your identity. Going the later route is a great way to increase the number of sleepless nights that you have in the future... :coffe:

 

[Zqq]

At the end of the day, the beneficial owner must be recorded and this information is normally included in a standard information request by the FIU and/or the Regulator.

It may be on the requests, but requests from FIUs are, as far as I am aware, typically not sufficient to break the attorney-client privilege.

 

[dwilson]

It is a requirement in all AML regulations to disclose the identity of the beneficial owners. This is a key principle of the FATF 40 Recommendations used to combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. In recent years, many legislators have "expanded" the reach of AML legislation beyond financial institutions to include attorneys, accountants and other key non-financial business. Although it is controversial, this also includes nullifying attorney-client privileges. All new company formations must disclose the identity of the beneficial owner to the registered agent in every jurisdiction across the world. In fact, these provisions are also retroactive and are the number one reason for the increase in mental instability in compliance professionals around the world! :whistle: In such an arrangement whereby a client is exempt from disclosing this information initially, it must be produced upon request by the RA.


I know this having worked in the industry as a Compliance Manager with licensed Registered Agents. I have personally dealt with FIU and tax information exchange agreement requests. Having a nominee director or shareholder is one thing, but disclosing the beneficial owner of a company is another.

 

[Zqq]

That is certainly both interesting and new information to me. If this is indeed true, it makes nominees considerably less useful.

 

[dwilson]

I think that the modern day understanding of a nominee appointee is a bit of a misnomer! There is a lot of propaganda advertising in the industry that contributes to consumer misconception. My client consultations normally start by re-educating clients and then setting realistic expectations. If consumers are using nominee services as a way of "concealing" beneficial ownership from the tax man or other authorities you are potentially laundering funds. This is NOT to be taken lightly.


Hiding income is not a legitimate tax reduction strategy (most likely tax evasion) and constitutes a predicate offence to money laundering. Both offences carry significant financial levies and prison sentences.

 

[prouvl]

So you say because some appoints nominees he is laundering money? How comes?

 

[prouvl]

It is a requirement in all AML regulations to disclose the identity of the beneficial owners. This is a key principle of the FATF 40 Recommendations used to combat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. In recent years, many legislators have "expanded" the reach of AML legislation beyond financial institutions to include attorneys, accountants and other key non-financial business. Although it is controversial, this also includes nullifying attorney-client privileges. All new company formations must disclose the identity of the beneficial owner to the registered agent in every jurisdiction across the world. In fact, these provisions are also retroactive and are the number one reason for the increase in mental instability in compliance professionals around the world! :whistle: In such an arrangement whereby a client is exempt from disclosing this information initially, it must be produced upon request by the RA.
I know this having worked in the industry as a Compliance Manager with licensed Registered Agents. I have personally dealt with FIU and tax information exchange agreement requests. Having a nominee director or shareholder is one thing, but disclosing the beneficial owner of a company is another.

Well according to the thread invalid1c/forum/f5/testing-money-launderers-terrorist-financiers-access-shell-companies-19109/ there are plenty of CSP's allowing to form a company without the DD

 

[dwilson]

@prouvl - I said that if you appoint a nominee shareholder to hide the beneficial owner of the company this is an issue! The purpose of KYC is to identify the beneficial owner of financial products in an attempt to fight Money Laundering ("ML"). ML is a process that seeks to effectively convert illicit funds/ assets and reinvent it as legitimate funds. If your solution is not tax compliant, then this is considered illicit funds and if you're not disclosing your identity and using a nominee appointee as a "dummy" beneficial owner, then you're pretty much laundering!

 

[clemens]

@prouvl - I said that if you appoint a nominee shareholder to hide the beneficial owner of the company this is an issue! The purpose of KYC is to identify the beneficial owner of financial products in an attempt to fight Money Laundering ("ML"). ML is a process that seeks to effectively convert illicit funds/ assets and reinvent it as legitimate funds. If your solution is not tax compliant, then this is considered illicit funds and if you're not disclosing your identity and using a nominee appointee as a "dummy" beneficial owner, then you're pretty much laundering!

It is always a pleasure to come back here and find trolls going crazy on this forum without the Admin doing something. I'm so pleased to announce that what dwilson try to explain is pure BS.


You can appoint nominee's i.e. director and shareholder for many reasons and the vast majority do it because they want privacy and not only with the objective to launder money or tax evasion. Also you can setup a legit offshore company with nominees in order to proof the company to be managed and controlled abroad so the local tax office will accept it. Try proving me wrong dwilson! I have several setups and never had a single issue, the tax office in my country knows my company and knows my nominees and they are just fine with it.


You mentioned it already, you re-educate people! LoL I hope you can do better than this. What you are doing is manipulating the truth.

 

[dwilson]

@jpay - Obviously reading is not your strong point! :doh: My comment was related to using an appointee as a dummy beneficial owner. Specifically - I am addressing folks that portray a third party as a beneficial owner! Secondly, just because your set up works with your local tax authorities doesn't mean that it will work for others. People should seek assistance from a licensed tax adviser in their own country prior to engaging in offshore business! :coffe:

 

[clemens]

I can read the context of your post which leads anyone reading it to believe thata one will be assosiated with ML and tax evasion if they appoint nominees which is not true.


My setup works great in Europe with a Cyprus company and as well with a Belize and Seychelles company all companies have nominees and all of them are known to the tax authority and didn't had any issues that couldn't be sorted out quickly. However, to consult a local tax adviser may do no harm and is advisable.

 

[hemma]

if i may add... CSPs should not be forming company without DD/KYC.... it is a breach of the law.. as all CSP should have DD in file and should be doing further checks on each individual/corporate they do business with.... in the end if as the CSP you are not complying then you will not be in existence for long time and soon your client will have to search for a new agent to transfer their companies... (the CSP licence will be either revoke or suspend)