Our valued sponsor

Offshore banking in Guatemala, possible? which bank?

peter said:
Another scenario would be to only use the bank account to which the nominee "may have" access to as an kind of intermediate account.
If you are going to use the anonymous account as only an intermediate account, then where are you going to send the money to? Sooner or later it has to end up in an account with your name on it.


And the transfer to that account is the dangerous one!!!!! Especially if the transfer has come from a tax haven.
 
Sorry to disturb your conversation Guys, but this thread is going off topic, please open another thread to discuss further or let me know and I will create one for you:bt:


Thank you.
 
hugger said:
Again, the Signatory to the account (the Nominee) is legally in a far superior position to you. The bank will act on the instructions of the Nominee.
Whoever said the bank will do a private contract is blowing smoke or was defrauded.


The only time banks will give the "appearances" of doing private 'side' arrangements is when you come in offering 8 digits or more. Which is stupid because you would not want to put all eggs in one basket. So unless 8 digits is only a couple of eggs for you, if anyone offers such an arrangement, go the other direction, fast.
 
hugger said:
If you are going to use the anonymous account as only an intermediate account, then where are you going to send the money to? Sooner or later it has to end up in an account with your name on it.
And the transfer to that account is the dangerous one!!!!! Especially if the transfer has come from a tax haven.
hugger said:
Sooner or later it has to end up in an account with your name on it.
And the transfer to that account is the dangerous one!!!!! Especially if the transfer has come from a tax haven.
This has too many errors. First any accounts which have your name on it only have your name as signatory. There is nothing illegal about this. This is the Law of Capacities. People waste too much time in ignorance chasing after alternative ID's and nominees as signatory. Second, an offshore solution never ever ever ends in a personal account. When one creates these structures you no longer own the assets. The entity does. A person is a corporation just as a person is You. It is possible to have a person that is not an individual as a signatory. The person that is the corporation owns the monies/assets and You, an authorized agent, merely manages the corporation. The inability to relinquish 'ownership' of monies is everyone's downfall that doesnt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
hugger said:
Sooner or later it has to end up in an account with your name on it.
And the transfer to that account is the dangerous one!!!!! Especially if the transfer has come from a tax haven.
hugger said:
Sooner or later it has to end up in an account with your name on it.
And the transfer to that account is the dangerous one!!!!! Especially if the transfer has come from a tax haven.
This has too many errors. First any accounts which have your name on it only have your name as signatory. There is nothing illegal about this. This is the Law of Capacities. People waste too much time in ignorance chasing after alternative ID's and nominees as signatory. Second, an offshore solution never ever ever ends in a personal account. When one creates these structures you no longer own the assets. The entity does. A person is a corporation just as a person is You. It is possible to have a person that is not an individual as a signatory. The person that is the corporation owns the monies/assets and You, an authorized agent, merely manages the corporation. The inability to relinquish 'ownership' of monies is everyone's downfall that doesnt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe