Do we really need a trust for asset protection ?

[Houdini]

I appreciate your contribution. Who are the specialist exactly ? Do you have ONE name of a company/person who is honest and gives tailored advice ?

Do they exists in this niche

"Trust for asset protection?" : https://lexpress.mu/node/406863 (this is what can happen when you put all your eggs in the same basket of a banana republic with corrupt institutions and politicians).
last days update: https://lexpress.mu/node/538979

It honestly feels like a fabricated article made just for the purpose, and it doesn’t seem to reflect the real world at all.

If you’ve got £3.3 million in a bank account and you’re setting up a trust in Mauritius, then being asked to transfer the money to that trust, the first thing I’d say is, 'Sure, that’s fine.' But first, I’d bring my family over, take a vacation, and then have a meeting where I could transfer the funds in person if I felt comfortable with the situation.

Setting up a trust in Mauritius over email and then transferring money via email? That just screams stupidity. You’re basically asking for every con artist and scammer to come out of the woodwork and embrace you.

I thought people were smarter than this, even in developing countries.

That being said, we already have plenty of topics about trusts here. They’re like dinosaurs from the past that have no place in today’s world anymore. The OECD, the U.S., and the EU have completely ruined this option. Maybe if you live in Somalia, you could still use something like that, but I’d rather bet my money on a bunker with 50 armed soldiers.

 

[celizo]

It honestly feels like a fabricated article made just for the purpose, and it doesn’t seem to reflect the real world at all.

It's not a "fabricated article", there are lots of articles about this case. In Mauritius, banks can use email for cash transfers or stocks trading remotely for instance. I'm not surprised it can happen.

 

[JustAnotherNomad]

I would like to, but I haven't been able to find a good alternative to the Trust that was understood back then.

Look into a Liechtenstein foundation. As far as I know, it's the only setup that works in Europe.

 

[bubbledouble]

Foundation is different than Trust that is why it works in Europe, but you may be right saying so.

 

[GPT]

The rule of thumb is that you use a foundation in civil law jurisdictions and a trust in common law jurisdictions.

Keep in mind that some common law jurisdictions recognise the trust. Lots of common law jurisdictions can work with a foundation as its an entity in itself. Google is your friend in this case, just google "does jurisdiction X work with a trust/foundation" will give you enough links to familiarise yourself.

Never forget that whatever concept you choose to also look at where the beneficiaries reside. If you have a trust setup and beneficiaries reside in a common law jurisdiction then it can lead to issues (legal, tax etc.). Be sure to discuss this with a lawyer familiar with the concepts and the jurisdictions involved.

 

[Brutus]

"Trust for asset protection?" : https://lexpress.mu/node/406863 (this is what can happen when you put all your eggs in the same basket of a banana republic with corrupt institutions and politicians).
last days update: https://lexpress.mu/node/538979

This looks like more of an issue with fraud/impersonation by a "hacker". Something similar often happens in the corporate world where company email accounts get compromised and then they try to redirect payments to fraudulent accounts or they send out fake invoices with fraudulent account details

 

[JackofAllTrades]

Insertion of a trust protector is the key to maintaining control and blocking the nominal trustee from dealing with the trust res.

 

[diro]

Insertion of a trust protector

how does it work and what is a "trust Protector" ?

 

[GPT]

In modern trusts a trust protector keeps an eye on the objectives of a trust.

Traditionally you have the “settlor”, “trustee”, “beneficiary” roles in a trust. Strict separation of those helps in avoiding full transparent treatment. The challenge then arises that you don’t own anything anymore and the trustees have ultimate powers only limited by the trust instrument.

Adding a protector to the traditional three roles means that there is an extra pair of eyes controlling the trustee. “As legal frameworks grow more intricate, a trust protector ensures the settlor’s intentions are upheld, adapting to unforeseen events or legal changes. They provide peace of mind by overseeing trustee actions without interfering in day-to-day operations.”

It goes too far to copy paste everything you can find about trust protectors and the above summarizes it pretty much. If you google “what is the role of a protector in a trust” you get enough information to occupy your for a couple of hours.

 

[bubbledouble]

Insertion of a trust protector is the key to maintaining control and blocking the nominal trustee from dealing with the trust res.

As long as you have other people managing your business, there will always be a theoretical risk that they could collude to cheat you. It all comes down to risk assessment and weighing that against the potential gains.

 

[JackofAllTrades]

As long as you have other people managing your business, there will always be a theoretical risk that they could collude to cheat you. It all comes down to risk assessment and weighing that against the potential gains.

Personally, I have a dislike of trustcos, they have a reputation for charging high fees and maybe worse. They seem to be a trap for the unwary since trustees are not limited to trustcos.

 

[bubbledouble]

Personally, I have a dislike of trustcos, they have a reputation for charging high fees and maybe worse. They seem to be a trap for the unwary since trustees are not limited to trustcos.

What structure would you suggest then? I don't understand your answer.

 

[JackofAllTrades]

What structure would you suggest then? I don't understand your answer.

Trust without a trust company as is common in the US

 

[GPT]

Trust without a trust company as is common in the US

For the trust in itself (its a basically a written contract) you dont need a trustco. Depending on the complexity you will however end up hiring people which eventually ends up in creating your own trustco, or what people in such a situation prefer, a family office

 

[JackofAllTrades]

For the trust in itself (its a basically a written contract) you dont need a trustco. Depending on the complexity you will however end up hiring people which eventually ends up in creating your own trustco, or what people in such a situation prefer, a family office

Correct, but giving up control to a trustco is often not a great idea.

 

[GPT]

Correct, but giving up control to a trustco is often not a great idea.

The issue with not giving away control is that the trust itself can be set aside. Also in the USA. To exercise as much control as possible a family office could be a solution. Via a FO council you have an oversight body. Effective control lies than at directors level in the FO. The trust itself can then not be treated transparent.

The above is extremely simplified. There is a lot more to it..