Where to opn anonymous offshore company with bank account offshore?

[zack]

Need to know where to open anonymous offshore company and bank account? Does bearer shares help for maximum anonymity ot is it not that good? Where to go for a anonymous bank card for my withdrawal?

 

[Zqq]

There is no such thing as anonymous bank accounts and companies can, increasingly, no longer be anonymous.


For bank account, you can get what is called a nominee signatory to act as the signatory on the bank account. Additionally, you can use nominees to act as directors and/or shareholders of your company. If you do this, make sure that you use nominees that you trust as they effectively own the company and all of its assets.


I would stay away from bearer shares, if you want to trade with the company and not just hold assets. Many the banks that normally accept high-risk (offshore) structures shy away from companies with bearer shares; except maybe when the bearer shares are with a registered custodian.


Instead of going for anonymity, I would suggest that you read up on treaties between your country and offshore jurisdictions to find jurisdictions where your privacy is protected.

 

[dwilson]

Hello rpcs! I think what your focus should be is finding a solution that matches your budget and provides the greatest level of confidentiality and privacy. Understanding how most offshore jurisdictions work might give you a clearer understanding of what additional add-ons you need if any.i.e. nominee appointees and/ or a trust holding the shares.


In addition, if your other concern is reducing your current tax liabilities, you should ideally consult with a tax adviser prior to going any further. Bearer shares are useful, however, most jurisdictions now require the shares to be held by an authorized custodian that also records the name of the beneficial owner.


Have you tried chatting with an offshore consultant?

 

[zack]

I would stay away from bearer shares, if you want to trade with the company and not just hold assets. Many the banks that normally accept high-risk (offshore) structures shy away from companies with bearer shares; except maybe when the bearer shares are with a registered custodian.

Why do they require it? What would be the point to have bearer shares then?

 

[zack]

Have you tried chatting with an offshore consultant?

Yes I'm in touch with one already but still looking for second opinion and solution.

 

[Zqq]

Why do they require it? What would be the point to have bearer shares then?

Banks need to be able to identify the UBO (ultimate beneficial owner) of a company or other entity. The UBO of a company with bearer shares cannot be easily and quickly verified, unless they are with a custodian.


Bearer shares are largely a thing of the past. For example, Panama is in discussions about removing them.

 

[georgegt]

Another solution is that you can appoint some people as shareholders and put you as sole administrator. This means you are the administrator of the corporation, but NOT a shareholder or owner. You will have full control of the your off-shore company. You can do this in Guatemala. I have done some structures like this for people who want to protect their assets. In Guatemala, if you are just the sole administrator of a company does not mean you really own it, since the shareholders are the real owners. So if you are interested in contact me.

 

[hugger]

Another solution is that you can appoint some people as shareholders and put you as sole administrator. This means you are the administrator of the corporation, but NOT a shareholder or owner. You will have full control of the your off-shore company. You can do this in Guatemala. I have done some structures like this for people who want to protect their assets. In Guatemala, if you are just the sole administrator of a company does not mean you really own it, since the shareholders are the real owners. So if you are interested in contact me.

Are you really suggesting this as a realistic option for people here?


"This means you are the administrator of the corporation, but NOT a shareholder or owner..... In Guatemala, if you are just the sole administrator of a company does not mean you really own it, since the shareholders are the real owners"

 

[georgegt]

Do you live in Guatemala or do you know the Guatemalan laws?


If I am telling him that this is a solution in this country then it is. If you have a better idea or solution please share it with us.

 

[hugger]

Do you live in Guatemala or do you know the Guatemalan laws?
If I am telling him that this is a solution in this country then it is. If you have a better idea or solution please share it with us.

What you are suggesting is that you (or one of your associates) would act as Shareholders and Directors but would appoint him as an administrator for his company.


But, "In Guatemala, if you are just the sole administrator of a company does not mean you really own it, since the shareholders are the real owners. "


So, in fact YOU or your associates would be the real owners of the company (and by implication, also the owners of the Bank accounts) !!


I may not live in Guatemala or know every Guatemalan law, but I can see an incredibly bad business structure when I see one.

 

[hugger]

For bank account, you can get what is called a nominee signatory to act as the signatory on the bank account. Additionally, you can use nominees to act as directors and/or shareholders of your company. If you do this, make sure that you use nominees that you trust as they effectively own the company and all of its assets.

Exactly true

 

[georgegt]

What you are suggesting is that you (or one of your associates) would act as Shareholders and Directors but would appoint him as an administrator for his company.
But, "In Guatemala, if you are just the sole administrator of a company does not mean you really own it, since the shareholders are the real owners. "


So, in fact YOU or your associates would be the real owners of the company (and by implication, also the owners of the Bank accounts) !!


I may not live in Guatemala or know every Guatemalan law, but I can see an incredibly bad business structure when I see one.

As I have mentioned in so many posts before this one, it is not safe to use nominee shareholders, but for real life purposes and what he is asking this is a good solution, if you think this is not a good business structure, please feel free to let us all know what you offer. I also want to learn if you have a good structure.

 

[dwilson]

I always find it interesting to hear different perspectives on the risks of nominee shareholder services and how the arrangement actually works. Though I cannot comment on all CSP practices I will share my experiences!


A beneficial owner of a company does not have to be a shareholder. Beneficial ownership represents true ownership of a corporate entity! This is the reason that AML legislation around the world now requires the identification of all beneficial owner(s) of each company - in addition to each director and shareholder! Nominee services like any other financial product or services carries with it inherent risk! It is possible to manage risk effectively by clearly reviewing potential vulnerabilities and addressing them accordingly...


In addition - shareholders need not have access to a company's bank account! Conversely - beneficial owners need not have access to a corporate bank account! Consider this... if I purchase shares for a publicly traded company - perhaps Microsoft, I now hold a stake in that company effectively making me a shareholder. That certainly does not give me rights or access to the company account!


Folks - instead of puttering around making nonsensical assertions try speaking with a professional! :coffe:

 

[hugger]

As I have mentioned in so many posts before this one, it is not safe to use nominee shareholders, but for real life purposes and what he is asking this is a good solution, ....

I disagree. What you have proposed is NOT a good solution for him.


The shareholder /nominee director of a company own and control the company under ALL Company law in EVERY country.


If you have a Nominee Director / Shareholder of your company then the banks will INSIST on him being a signatory to the account.


If the nominee director / shareholder is a signatory to the bank account (which EVERY bank will insist on), then he has access to all of your funds in the account. It is impossible to open a bank account in a company name anywhere in the world without the Directors being a signatory (under Anti-Money Laundering legislation).


What you have proposed to the Original Poster ( that you or one of your associates would act as Shareholders and Directors but would appoint him as an administrator for his company ) means that in fact YOU or your associates would be the real owners of the company (and by implication, also the owners of the Bank accounts) !!

 

[georgegt]

I disagree. What you have proposed is NOT a good solution for him.
The shareholder /nominee director of a company own and control the company under ALL Company law in EVERY country.


If you have a Nominee Director / Shareholder of your company then the banks will INSIST on him being a signatory to the account.


If the nominee director / shareholder is a signatory to the bank account (which EVERY bank will insist on), then he has access to all of your funds in the account. It is impossible to open a bank account in a company name anywhere in the world without the Directors being a signatory (under Anti-Money Laundering legislation).


What you have proposed to the Original Poster ( that you or one of your associates would act as Shareholders and Directors but would appoint him as an administrator for his company ) means that in fact YOU or your associates would be the real owners of the company (and by implication, also the owners of the Bank accounts) !!

Again, if you have a better structure then share it. Do what dwilson did, he wrote down a good structure. This is a forum to give ideas, of course you can write down that you disagree and say this and that, but if you are going to do it, then please share with us your offshore expertise and write down a good structure. I invite you to do it.

 

[JohnLocke]

Again, if you have a better structure then share it. Do what dwilson did, he wrote down a good structure. This is a forum to give ideas, of course you can write down that you disagree and say this and that, but if you are going to do it, then please share with us your offshore expertise and write down a good structure. I invite you to do it.

I must agree with georgegt, this is a discussion board and if a comment shall make sense to anyone then it should be clear what the message is and not contain vague information which indirectly try to lead people want to contact you.

 

[Pathfinder]

Again, if you have a better structure then share it. Do what dwilson did, he wrote down a good structure. This is a forum to give ideas, of course you can write down that you disagree and say this and that, but if you are going to do it, then please share with us your offshore expertise and write down a good structure. I invite you to do it.

I stumbled across this blog purely by accident and I found some of the comments and advice quite interesting , so I would like to throw my two cents if I may.


All the advice given seems pretty solid and each have their merits, with one exception being bearer shares.


1st) Creating and employing an off shore corporate structure only makes sense if you are starting an open ended investment collective scheme fund i.e. a hedge fund, a fund of funds or a private equity fund where you will have investors from all over the world and there will be a myriad of tax issues for each investor if you were registered onshore , so an off-shore set-up deals with any double taxation issue when investors from a multiple of nationalities buy assets class shares of your fund.


2nd) The second reason to create an off-shore structure is because your EBITDA is being generated from a jurisdiction outside of your current residence or citizenship. Example you own or invested in an manufacturing company of goods in Chile and they sell the goods to Asian countries only. The off-shore set up works for you as with the fund example double taxation can and should be avoided as you are not generating any profits or manufacturing any commercial goods in the country of your residence so an off- shore structure will adequately deal with taxation as onshore government tax treaties do not.


3rd). The last reason to create an off-shore structure is for asset protection and I mean if you have real assets to protect. If you are fortunate enough to have acquired sizable assets that need protection from law suits and other greedy sticky finger individuals and government entities then hey having and off-shore structure is self explanatory.


In regards to bearer shares yes they are pretty much obsolete and all governments are requiring that they are held by a registered agent but the reason is because of legal challenges against the companies that they represent it has to do with the court systems. I have used bearer shares with no problem at all some registered some not registered opening up bank accounts in Europe money talks and BS walks. EIther you have real risk disposable capital or you do not.


I have never in all my years seen or heard of a bank turning down deposits or bank accounts because they have bearer shares or companies not wanting to trade with a bearer sharer company that is as insane as someone telling me if US taxes go up on corporations in 2013 I will take my business elsewhere, no true businessman issues such extreme ultimatums , neither do banks.


There has been a considerable increase in lawsuits and criminal prosecutions of off-shore companies with bearer shares and the jurisdiction are torn between the law and the issuance of bearer shares. You have to identify the owner of a company in court proceedings against any company. The Liechtenstein tax case of 2008 involving LGT illustrated the difficulty that government authorities had in prosecuting companies that they could not identify that were bearer share companies with huge bank accounts in LGT that is how LGT and Liechtenstein skated on the 2008 tax case and UBS and Switzerland landed squarely in the cross hairs of regulators and tax prosecutors because UBS was the largest custodial holder of debt to LGT and UBS could not hide behind secrecy they are to global and too big.


Bearer shares offer no more privacy than registered shares nowadays , they are just easier to liquidate than registered shares , all you have to do is be compliant with the bank of deposits AML regulations and you can move bearer shares in the middle of the night into another jurisdiction and be paid , minus the heavy fees most private banks will hit you with in order to do the transaction.