whats the point in having a trust for protection if the bank knows anyway who you are?

[MoralCapitalist]

As far as i understand the bank has to know the UBO anyway.

 

[Sols]

Because asset protection should not rely on secrecy. It should rely on the assets being protected against threats in a lawful manner, so that it can be presented before a court of law and the court finding that your assets remain untouchable.

 

[MoralCapitalist]

Thank you for your quick answer.
But in such a case that there is a court order against someone, can the court not freeze the funds until funds can be confiscated?

 

[Sols]

Well, yes, but then your asset protection has failed regardless of whether you are known to the bank or not. So the secrecy would be a non-factor. If a court finds that the assets shall be freezed, it should never be because of secrecy because secrecy cannot be relied upon.

Asset protection structures are tailored to the asset, the threat, and the initial asset holder. So it's hard to speak about asset protection in any general terms, since not everyone has the exact same assets and threats to protect the assets from.

If it is necessary to keep your name separate from the asset, that can be done by shifting it around a couple of times so that you no longer own it and the current owner didn't get it from you. That's different from secrecy.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Thank you for your quick answer.
But in such a case that there is a court order against someone, can the court not freeze the funds until funds can be confiscated?

Of course it can and it will. Then you might win the case after a few years and huge legal bills (if you can pay them while your money is frozen).
Or you might spend nothing, put your money in crypto and enjoy good returns.