Most reputable jurisdiction foundation or company with anonymous directors&owners? 2020 (non-US)

[biz1]

Hi,

There are some jurisdictions like Cook Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, British Virgin Islands, etc. that don't publish who directors of an entity are (foundation and company).

I am thinking I probably missed both some offers out there, and maybe I missed some ways private information is published (e.g. UBO registry).

Also I may be unaware of perceived reputation with some jurisdictions e.g. someone told me Cook Islands has bad reputation. Is that correct?

What is your view of which are the most reputable jurisdictions where incorporating a foundation, company or other legal person, in such a way that directors/managers and owers it not public?

(This should *not* involve fiduciary services, so Liechtenstein is disqualified.)

Thanks!

 

[biz1]

Clarifications: Anonymity is with respect to public records. This entity will not trade and so its tax rate does not need to be low.

 

[Sols]

What's wrong with fiduciaries? Just make sure you work a reputable, regulated fiduciary and understand your rights and risks. With fiduciaries providing directors and/or shareholders, you can avoid public disclosure in Cyprus, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Luxembourg, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and so on, although in some cases you will have private disclosure to the government.

If you want secretive jurisdictions that don't publish directors or shareholders and you want them to be reputable, I don't think there are any options.

Whether Cook Islands has a bad reputation depends on context and whom you ask. It doesn't have nearly the terrible reputation Belize and Seychelles have, but has pretty much the exact same features that make those two irreputable. The difference stems from popularity (largely driven by cost and marketing) and a tougher degree of KYC by service providers.

If we lower the bar from in broad strokes reputable to in broad strokes quasi-reputable, I'd consider Mauritius, Caymans, UAE, and Labuan as well.

But if your structure relies on secrecy (without fiduciaries), it's a race against the clock. Like it or not, but we're moving towards a more transparent future.

 

[burden]

From your list it looks like Switzerland and Lichtenstein has the best reputation, if it is possible to hide your identity so it want get known to anyone, it's just a big +

 

[biz1]

Sols, thank you for sharing your thoughts! Here brief followup and some question to you:

* Caymans:
Maybe your suggestion of Caymans makes sense. I read through Cayman's BEPS requirements e.g. here https://www.ditc.ky/wp-content/uploads/Economic_Substance_-_Guidance_-_v3.0190713.pdf , Cayman Islands Update Economic Substance Guidance Notes v3.0 Issued and if the Cayman entity doesn't have any income then it will mostly fill out "nil returns" and it appears to me BEPS is not a limit or headache. Also a Cayman entity being a director, doesn't count neither as "headquarters business" (nor "holding business") as it would entail renting out senior management, taking risk or holding equity, neither of which is the case.

About Cayman's privacy of management, I get mixed inputs - this article says directors are public Cayman Islands public can now inspect lists of company directors for KYD50 fee | STEP , but this page says foundations directors are not public, Cayman Islands Foundation Company / FC Formation and Benefits . How is it?

* To your quasi-reputable list, does any more jurisdiction belong?


* No fiduciaries: I prefer not to hire fiduciaries, because they need trust, and also tend to cost >10,000€/year, so this makes your list "Cyprus, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Singapore, Luxembourg, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and so on" not work. (Further, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Singapore have local director requirements that make them impractical.)

* A Ltd and B Ltd directors in each other?: One thing that can have the same effect as anonymous directors, would that be to have two entities (A Ltd. and B Ltd., or A Foundation and B Foundation) that are directors in each other, and the company is operated through a power of attorney and optional shareholder intervention? If that works then.. only public filings and an UBO registry would possibly leak information publicly. In which jurisdictions does this work?

* Where is BVI and Bermuda on your reputability map?

* In what context does Cook Islands look bad, and in what context does it look good?

* How "terrible" is Seychelles' and Belize's reputation really?

* You said "The difference stems from popularity (largely driven by cost and marketing) and a tougher degree of KYC by service providers.", what did you mean, you mean Cayman/Dubai/Mauritius/Labuan do better KYC than Cook Islands/Seychelles/Belize?

 

[biz1]

> But if your structure relies on secrecy (without fiduciaries), it's a race against the clock. Like it or not, but we're moving towards a more transparent future.

Are you aware of any further steps to kill privacy in company/foundation regulations currently?

 

[Sols]

* To your quasi-reputable list, does any more jurisdiction belong?

Not that I can think of, without fiduciaries.

* A Ltd and B Ltd directors in each other?: One thing that can have the same effect as anonymous directors, would that be to have two entities (A Ltd. and B Ltd., or A Foundation and B Foundation) that are directors in each other, and the company is operated through a power of attorney and optional shareholder intervention? If that works then.. only public filings and an UBO registry would possibly leak information publicly. In which jurisdictions does this work?

That still doesn't solve the problem. If you have a Cypriot company with Belize IBC as shareholder and Seychelles IBC as director, the reputability shift from the Cypriot company to the Belize or Seychelles company. It's the weakest (worst) link in the chain that counts.

* Where is BVI and Bermuda on your reputability map?

BVI is well understood by banks and financial institutions when it's used as a holding company. When it's used as a trading company, it doesn't look so good anymore. Same with Bermuda, although it's far, far less popular than BVI.

* In what context does Cook Islands look bad, and in what context does it look good?

Cook Islands are known mostly for asset protection and wealth management/planning structures involving the well-known Cook Islands trust law. Cook Island companies are rarely used on their own outside of that setting.

* How "terrible" is Seychelles' and Belize's reputation really?

Really.

* You said "The difference stems from popularity (largely driven by cost and marketing) and a tougher degree of KYC by service providers.", what did you mean, you mean Cayman/Dubai/Mauritius/Labuan do better KYC than Cook Islands/Seychelles/Belize?

By and large but not always, service providers in Cayman Islands, Mauritius, and Labuan do more in-depth KYC than their counterparts in for example Seychelles and Belize. This combined with higher costs (which weeds out a lot of less serious actors) has helped the former jurisdictions to maintain a better reputation than the latter.

> But if your structure relies on secrecy (without fiduciaries), it's a race against the clock. Like it or not, but we're moving towards a more transparent future.

Are you aware of any further steps to kill privacy in company/foundation regulations currently?

Just look at the global trends. Secrecy is dying. UBO registers are here and spreading across the world. Give it 5–10 years, and the only difference is going to be to what degree information is made public. We are seeing different incarnations now, ranging from completely public to only available to some parts of the government and law enforcement.

 

[happyjohn]

Just look at the global trends. Secrecy is dying. UBO registers are here and spreading across the world. Give it 5–10 years, and the only difference is going to be to what degree information is made public. We are seeing different incarnations now, ranging from completely public to only available to some parts of the government and law enforcement.

yes it is a boring development it is taking place there.

 

[biz1]

@happyjohn , development is taking place where?

Do Caymans and Mauritius have public UBO and directors registers, any more open register?

 

[JohnLocke]

I wonder if the time is over where you can pay a turst to administrate all your entities so your name and identity stay totally out of business.

I know that it was possible in the past. There was a Cyprus Trust that could be paid to setup new entities owned by the Trust, they were able to open bank accounts etc. for the entities they setup.

 

[biz1]

The normal routes of public disclosure of directors and owners, are company registry excerpts and UBO directories, that's all right?

A legal process could potentially also show this but I guess rather not. (Of course hidden to the public tax agencies and governments can share information, however that is not public.)

 

[sonato]

The normal routes of public disclosure of directors and owners, are company registry excerpts and UBO directories, that's all right?

A legal process could potentially also show this but I guess rather not. (Of course hidden to the public tax agencies and governments can share information, however that is not public.)

how would that help you avoid to get cough by the tax man?

After almost two months how is it going with your structure did you get any further or you still hunting something that won't be possible to setup?

 

[clemens]

A legal process could potentially also show this but I guess rather not. (Of course hidden to the public tax agencies and governments can share information, however that is not public.)

if you are still around I hope you could elaborate on this part?!

Clarifications: Anonymity is with respect to public records. This entity will not trade and so its tax rate does not need to be low.

how is it going with your setup. 2 years later?

 

[CoinMaster]

> But if your structure relies on secrecy (without fiduciaries), it's a race against the clock. Like it or not, but we're moving towards a more transparent future.

Are you aware of any further steps to kill privacy in company/foundation regulations currently?

Sadly I can only agree with you. It's the world moving towards transparency like it or not. You need to be really clever to avoid taxes and work on your privacy.

 

[cuno]

Sadly I can only agree with you. It's the world moving towards transparency like it or not. You need to be really clever to avoid taxes and work on your privacy.

It's about constantly adapting and trying to keep up with the changes happening in the world. Personally, I think it has been tough, and I've seen how difficult it has become for middle-class people to save on taxes without simply taking the consequence and moving out of the country where you're being heavily taxed.