Our valued sponsor

Own Nothing, but Control Everything – A Concept That Can Change Your Life

Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
Own Nothing, but Control Everything

John D. Rockefeller made an important statement once – Own nothing, but control everything. Coming from someone with incredible wealth, this aspect has been thoroughly analyzed overtime and has become a top rule for handling money.

What he meant is fairly simple to understand. If you do not own anything, it means it cannot be taken away from you. This is what asset protection truly means, and believe it or not, it can be done legally. Most people simply forget about this aspect, though.
1649055119002.png

John D. Rockefeller was born July 8, 1839, in Richford, New York, about midway between Binghamton and Ithaca.​
Back in the early 1990s, only a few people knew how asset protection truly works. With time, the popularity of this concept grew, so by the late 1990s, most millionaires had some clues about asset protection – it started spreading overnight.

The idea? What you do not own cannot be taken away from you – simple as that.

Own Nothing but Control Everything – A Few Examples


Here is how the industry works.


You and your partner have a new baby – Mary. You give Mary $25,000 for her college fund – just to help her get a good start in life. Later on, you end up in debt, and creditors come knocking on your door. Can a creditor get the money you gave to Mary?

No, they cannot. The money is a gift for Mary and is not a fraudulent convenient. At this point, Mary is the new owner, and since she is not a guarantor, she cannot be involved in the process. She will never be held accountable for your financial mistakes.

If the money is under Mary’s name, there is nothing to be worried about. Meanwhile, you can make various payments, trade with it, buy holidays, make a mortgage payment or perhaps start a business. You can do anything, despite the money not being owned by you.

Furthermore, you can make more transfers to entities in your asset protection trust without losing control.

Here is another example. You get a brand new Audi, and you take some friends out. You park it in front of their house and talk about it for a few minutes. They both work in the police, so they have some credibility in terms of law enforcement.

Now, imagine a homeless man walking by with a bag. Something sharp in that bag scratches your brand new car. You have some good witnesses, and you even have the homeless man not trying to run away. But then, what can you do?

He only has the clothes he is wearing, as well as whatever rubbish he has managed to find in that bag. Even if you take him to court, you will get nothing. This man owns nothing. He will not be arrested for it, and he has no physical address – you are only wasting your time and money.

This is pretty much the concept of own nothing, but control everything. Of course, you do not want to end up homeless. But then, there are legal procedures to ensure you can accumulate wealth without risking to lose it.

How the wealthy rely on trusts to preserve wealth

Some of the richest families or dynasties in the world own nothing, but they somehow seem to control lots of wealth. If you think about it for a second, why would you do that? That is actually the secret to long term wealth – the type of wealth achieved over generations.

Owning too much may not be an issue, but a small mistake can seriously damage your wealth. On the same note, even if you manage to control money affairs, one of your successors may not have the same business spirit and throw everything down the drain.

Whether you think about the Rockefeller family or perhaps the Rothschild family, such families control billions. Their wealth is simply impressive. Do they own anything? No. John D. Rockefeller was not joking when he said you should own nothing, but control everything.

The name Rothschild is synonymous with extravagant, old world wealth.​

This is how rich people ensure their wealth is not lost, but maintained and grown over multiple generations. Everything is owed to the people who created these dynasties and came up with the first steps in terms of wealth.

They were clever. They knew kids born in wealth might make terrible decisions. There are numerous temptations associated with money, and many of them are nothing but scandalous mistakes. This is why their wealth was placed in foundations and trust.

The best part about this concept is that no one actually owns the wealth. The ownership is confusing and vague – less likely to be affected by legal issues. Different trusts also have different rules regarding who can touch the wealth or how distributions are made.

A brief history of trusts

Trusts originally came to life in England. The Chancery Court gathered together a bunch of clever judges who decided that while some people may own property, someone else could benefit from it. It was unusual and confusing, but it was the base of what we see today.

The actual owner was referred to as a trustee. As for the beneficial user, they were known as the beneficiary. This law originated in the 12th century, and it persisted overtime – in fact, it was enhanced until it became what it is today.

Its popularity grew throughout the crusades. If a landowner had to leave the country to fight in such crusades, someone else was entrusted to manage the affairs while they were away. In return, the property would get back to the original owner.

Now, some trustees decided to go against the law, and after managing land for years, they decided they wanted to keep it. After all, it was their own work, and they actually deserved a part of what was built there.

The Lord Chancellor would then be petitioned for the so-called land return. Returning crusaders were always given the right of way. In other words, the trustee was supposed to return the land to the beneficiary when requested. This is how modern trust was created.

Modern uses for today’s trusts

These days, trusts are used with a similar, yet different purpose. Basically, their modern role is to preserve wealth. They are associated with families, rather than individuals. Simply put, assets achieved in one way or another are donated to the trust.

At that point, the donor no longer owns those assets legally, so they cannot be held responsible for them should any situations arise. Even as a beneficiary, there are certain rules associated with each trust out there.

For instance, you could come up with a trust for further generations. You can also set up a trust for charitable distributions on a regular basis. At that point, you can also control the trustees, so you decide for yourself when distributions are made.

You have full control of these assets, but from a legal point of view, you do not own them.

This is exactly what John D. Rockefeller meant when he said own nothing, but control everything.

When everything you have managed to gather overtime is held in a trust, the trust can lend you money and ensure you support your current lifestyle. You cannot be taxed on the respective money if you choose to pay a commercial interest rate.

No one can seize these assets if you end up in trouble with creditors.​

The same rule applies if you end up in an ugly divorce – your partner cannot seize anything.

Bank balances can get out of trouble, too, as they should not be reported based on FACTA or CRS rules. After all, they are not your assets. This is another secret wherefore rich people stay rich for multiple generations and pay little to nothing in tax.

Now, unlike most expectations, it is important to know that foundations and trusts are more than just some clever and legal ways to disguise who owns your assets. Sure, no one will know, but further strategies take things even further.

These things change the actual ownership in terms of legal matters. For example, you could have control over $1M in assets, without owning anything at all. You can live in a fancy mansion owned by a business that is owned and run by the trust – no one will be bothered.

The trust will also lend you money on a regular basis, so you can take care of all your expenses. You can travel by private jets instead of commercial airlines. You can live in the biggest house in your town and hang around like a millionaire – all these without owning anything.

At the same time, imagine your partner filing for divorce. Sadly for them, if your wealth is held in trust, they would not be able to get anything. They can hire the most experienced lawyers in the world – they cannot enter a trust.

Bottom line, trust will offer more than just privacy. It does not come with any accounting rules – no disclosure laws either. Nobody will really know what the trust owns. Disguising assets has never been easier, and the good news is everyone has access to such things.

Becoming judgment proof with a trust

Get your assets in offshore trust, and you will become immune to any court judgment. No lawyer, judge, or court will ever be able to steal anything from you – something that is quite common in today's society anyway.

More and more people hope for fat paychecks when they divorce. Then, if a company is large enough or an individual is rich, chances are someone out there will try to steal their money with some random lawsuits. These things happen on a daily basis.

It does pay off choosing the optimal jurisdiction if you decide on establishing a trust abroad. Sure, most people will not be aware of all these things, so they can still try. But as they hire lawyers, a professional will be able to check your assets – owning nothing means you can chase them away.

If you think about it, no one will pour a fortune into a law firm if the outcome is not certain.

Things can get even better if your trust is in a jurisdiction that is known to be hostile to creditors. Some creditors may go beyond the borders to try their luck, but certain countries out there have extremely strict rules against such things. Seeing such a country will put most people off.

Obviously, for such things to work, you need to ensure that visible assets are mortgaged with loans from a company that runs under the trust. This way, lawyers or creditors cannot seize assets in your original country either.

Good Jurisdictions to Establish Offshore Trusts

Here are some of the best jurisdictions chosen by those who want to hide wealth in trusts.

  • Cook Islands – known for having some of the strictest trust rules in the world, these semi independent islands can repel aggressive creditors with no issues at all. For maximum protection, assets should be in the trust for more than two years.
  • Panama – asset protection is fairly simple if you choose a foundation in Panama. The high level of confidentiality is not to be overlooked either. Fines for leaks are quite high and may even lead to prison, so no one really bothers with such things.

Now that you understand the concept of owning nothing but controlling everything, is it really worth it? The above-mentioned benefits make this structure ideal to ensure wealth is preserved, but there are also some potential problems you should be aware of.

Taxes associated with transparency

These days are different from the days when Rockefellers used to grab wealth like there was no tomorrow. These days, there are automatic exchanges that share information, so governments can get more details about your actual assets – even if they are stored in other countries.

If you are trying to avoid tax like wealthy families decades ago, it is less likely to happen today. Indeed, you will gain some protection, but you cannot avoid tax completely. Other countries have professional tax authorities too. Putting money in someone else’s name without reporting it could be an issue.

In the USA, you need to report accounts even if you only get a beneficial interest. If your signature has control over that money, it must be reported. Most other countries are not as strict, though, but the USA could be a real problem.

The idea that you could hide some money in an offshore account is not always viable. Many jurisdictions collaborate to prevent tax evasion. Indeed, if you pay your taxes and follow the rules, your protection is still in place.

Indeed, you will pay more today than what you had to pay decades ago.

But then, you can still benefit from asset protection in front of problematic lawsuits.

Defining asset protection

In theory, authorities cannot go after you if you do not own anything. If your name is not listed on an account, it is not yours. However, over the past few decades, there have been a few exceptions here and there.

Normally, no one can chase you for something that is not yours. But then, some judges have looked at the substance and circumstances, rather than the actual paperwork. A good lawyer can prevent all these things, though.

When putting people in charge of what you actually own, some judges may still link things to you. But these things are irrelevant if there is no major crime. Sure, if money comes from selling cocaine and can be linked to you, chances are you will get in trouble.

The general idea is fairly simple to understand. While you do gain some asset protection, not having anything in your name will still make your assets taxable. Avoiding tax is difficult, but as long as you pay what you owe, there should be no problems at all.

A few words about privacy

Privacy was one thing 30 years ago and a completely different thing today. While there are still plenty of tax havens to help optimize tax, the truth is you can no longer hide money – as in promoting tax evasion. This is a thing of the past.

More and more tax havens have now started complying with international laws. They are more transparent than ever. Indeed, they will share your details if needed, but you can still move your business operations to another country to pay 3% instead of 19%, for example.

This is perfectly legal.


On the other hand, hiding completely is almost impossible these days. Owning a company without anyone to know is hard, yet trust can make the information ambiguous. Some corporate registrars are open to the whole world – such as the one in the UK.

Technology does not help too much either. The whole world is interconnected now, so countries are open when it comes to business registrations. There are new rules to respect in tax havens too, yet you can still save a fortune.

Privacy is critical if you want to own nothing, but control everything. Privacy is still there in terms of the available information, but being completely anonymous is a thing of the past. If your goal is to avoid taxation, that is illegal.

Now, a trust can still hide who owns companies or the people behind the trust. But certain tax is still paid.

Potential operational issues

Operational issues can be avoided if you know how to handle your money or who to work with. For instance, dealing with high-quality institutions asks for a large budget, but it will also make your life easier in the long run.

This is one of those cases where having $100M is much easier than having $5M only.

Implementing the concept to own nothing, but control everything implies having structures. There is nothing wrong with that. But then, the more structures you run, the more complicated your venture will be – plus, expenses may add up.

Other than that, you will find banks that have specialized in trusts and similar structures. Affluent people will most likely go into the commercial category if they operate through a trust. There will be more paperwork and bureaucracy then.

Now, the point is to avoid getting involved with things you do not understand. Do your homework, research, read and become familiar with systems. If you think you can be one of those people you see in movies with 50 offshore companies with different names in the middle of nowhere, you are wrong.

This rule does not apply to trusts only, but to anything related to the offshore industry.

Once you dig deeper and get involved, you realize that there will be new ongoing expenses and further fees. As a general rule of thumb, the simpler your structure is, the better you will be. You need to keep things simple, so you can understand everything without any headaches.

Finally, if your concept of own nothing, but control everything is about creating luxurious lifestyles with fancy mansions and fast cars, you might fail – unless you already have millions. If you are new to this game, you might be disappointed by the outcome.

Instead, you need to do things bit by bit. Get in from scratch and grow from there while you still educate yourself. As you get more money, you will have more complications and so on. Doing things slowly can keep you on track without risking your hard earned money.

As a short final conclusion, the idea to own nothing, but control everything is definitely an appealing one. It used to work wonders decades ago, but things have changed a lot lately. It is not as easy as it used to be, yet running your assets through a trust can still bring in a plethora of advantages.

From protecting your assets and hiding identities to reducing tax, such things can still be done. But then, everything must be done within the law. If you hope to avoid tax completely by running a company in an exotic location, you are breaking the law, so it is out of the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.
oh we are reading the same stuff at the same time :D
here's the original doc about it
https://www.taxobservatory.eu/wp-co...ean-asset-Registry_EU-Tax_-WIL_March-2022.pdf
This file was deleted online but you can still use wayback to get it.
Somehow these reports always reveil interesting information.
and funny how they force the theory of wealth equality but in reality common folks aren't getting richer au contraire...
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fat...uidance-transparency-beneficial-ownership.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GPT and bonox
The setup I consider now is to get a Panama passport, get some property in Jersey, Switzerland and Panama, have the parent company in Switzerland and daughter company in Dubai.

Once setup, never be in any country for more than 6 months, that should work.
CH being the expensive one of the three. Dive into the small print to find out if it will work for you. CH of today is NOT the CH of a decade ago.

Speak to a specialist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alonzo
Although the article is quite informative it sort of idolizes the trust and makes it sound very easy. That is not the case. There are indeed a lot of trusts being set up out there but only a few have been challenged. Looking deep into case law ( mostly US, little UK and Indian case law exists) immediately you understand that the great majority of the trusts out would not stand a potential challenge as they would have been easily pierced and considered as sham trusts ending in disregarding them by courts for the benefit of a potential claimant. The original intention of the trust and its current manipulative forms that have appeared in the offshore industry have a major gap.
As a basic metric of the robustness of a trust you should look at the "reliquishment of control". Once a trust is set up and finalized the less effective control the settlor maintains over the trust assets and how they are treated the more robust the trust becomes against potential challenges.

Which jurisdiction one would choose to set up the trust is a relative question. This is a common law concept and as mentioned there is rather limited case law on which to rely. Each jurisdiction applies some little differences as to the rules for setting up the trust which usually affect taxation or some countries can be more suitable than others because of inherent difficulties in filing for a claim over a dismissal of a trust or registering and enforcing another jurisdiction's court decision. Other variables ( non exhaustive) which play an important role is whether a jurisdiction recognizes the concept of trusts; civil law jurisdictions do not recognize or understand the concept. This may be a two edge sword as a civil law court may disregard the trust arrangement altogether and look at the " owner " of the trust ( the settlor) or they may disregard the arrangement and its beneficiaries and look only to the legal title holder of the trust property ( the trustee(s) ) and render it unable to look any further. Additionally the situs (location ) of the trust assets is also important as they may under a local court be freezed on a limited scope of application of local laws. Disrespecting foreing laws may be more easy to do if the jurisdiction where the trust was set up has a weak judiciary system while an EU country or a country with strong international presense as a place of set up would stand more effective. Finally, complex trust set ups with two many variables create management difficulties for trustees , protectors and other involved persons which can result into internal disputes on trustee's duties and decisions made. It appears therefore better to keep a trust as simple and concise as possible while at the same time to be coherent and encompassing giving little room for misinterpetation or missapplication. Balancing all the above is not the easiest of tasks and personal circumstances of settlors and beneficiaries add a lot to that.
So next time someone tries to sell you a trust as if its "candy", please know that what you are buying is probably merely "candy".
I have personal experience of this. I had a Panamanian Foundation & Panamanian lawyers. When I was sued the Panamanian lawyers *literally* refused to answer my phone calls or make a statement that my UK lawyers could use in my defence. The judge said the Foundation was a "sham" and "the Defendant's creature" and ignored all the nice legal theories and held against me, and my agents, Maritime International, were about as much use as a rice-paper condom.
 
I have personal experience of this. I had a Panamanian Foundation & Panamanian lawyers. When I was sued the Panamanian lawyers *literally* refused to answer my phone calls or make a statement that my UK lawyers could use in my defence. The judge said the Foundation was a "sham" and "the Defendant's creature" and ignored all the nice legal theories and held against me, and my agents, Maritime International, were about as much use as a rice-paper condom.
I'm sorry to hear that.

At the same time, thanks for sharing. A lot of people can learn from this and do their homework which means speaking to more than one offshore provider / lawyer etc. Only when multiple parties say the same you can actually choose a party to do business with. Then the assignment agreement (or whatever name is being used) needs to be discussed, drawn up and signed. In this document it is essential to write down any and all things that and the respective responsibilities.

This is an industry with a lot of slick boys and girls that are in it for a quick buck. They have learned a trick which they apply without actually serving you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EliasIT
I'm sorry to hear that.

At the same time, thanks for sharing. A lot of people can learn from this and do their homework which means speaking to more than one offshore provider / lawyer etc. Only when multiple parties say the same you can actually choose a party to do business with. Then the assignment agreement (or whatever name is being used) needs to be discussed, drawn up and signed. In this document it is essential to write down any and all things that and the respective responsibilities.

This is an industry with a lot of slick boys and girls that are in it for a quick buck. They have learned a trick which they apply without actually serving you.
I mainly offer this as a war story that may help someone searching threads for info
 
I have personal experience of this. I had a Panamanian Foundation & Panamanian lawyers. When I was sued the Panamanian lawyers *literally* refused to answer my phone calls or make a statement that my UK lawyers could use in my defence. The judge said the Foundation was a "sham" and "the Defendant's creature" and ignored all the nice legal theories and held against me, and my agents, Maritime International, were about as much use as a rice-paper condom.
It is here that it is important to always consider which service provider one uses, and if one needs a larger setup where one knows that one is in a tricky situation, then one should visit the person to get a personal impression of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bountymounty
  • Wow
Reactions: bountymounty
I think it's a fantastic article, and when I read all this together with a bit of research on Google and other sources, it seems to be the only right way to handle one's assets if one has many of them.

But when I try to start somewhere, I also notice how difficult it is if you want to protect assets that are worth less than 1 million EURO or under 4 million EURO - is there anything that works for those kinds of sums?
 
But when I try to start somewhere, I also notice how difficult it is if you want to protect assets that are worth less than 1 million EURO or under 4 million EURO - is there anything that works for those kinds of sums?
Give them people you trust like your family or solid business partners.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GPT
I think it's a fantastic article, and when I read all this together with a bit of research on Google and other sources, it seems to be the only right way to handle one's assets if one has many of them.

But when I try to start somewhere, I also notice how difficult it is if you want to protect assets that are worth less than 1 million EURO or under 4 million EURO - is there anything that works for those kinds of sums?
There are certain levels you need to reach before things make sense from every aspect.

Going offshore? Less than 250k profit? Why bother. Just pay that amount of tax and don’t get into headache situations.

Less than 5M wealth? True asset protection isn’t for you. What you can look at is some sort of inheritance planning which already protects your assets.

I’ll go one step further, if you want an AP structure with less than 5M, your activities are likely in the grey area. Clean that up first before you enter into the world of true AP. If you don’t the AP is transparent anyways and won’t hold up.

The days are gone where structuring worked from a profit of 20k and up. Or from accumulated wealth of 500k. It’s possible but too expensive to make it worth it and work.

Offshore providers and lawyers won’t agree from a commercial point of view. Yet, most of them -deep down- know that currently this is true.


Just to give you an insight from one of the largest offshore providers worldwide; only roughly 10-15% of what they set up for clients actually functions as intended. The rest they collect annual fees on which are more expensive than what that solution should provide in benefits for the clients. These numbers are from 2010-2011 and are declining.
 
The rest they collect annual fees on which are more expensive than what that solution should provide in benefits for the clients. These numbers are from 2010-2011 and are declining.
okay when I start reading this sentence I thought waow, but now the figures are long time outdated and not valid at all after 13 years or more!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pomegranate and GPT
okay when I start reading this sentence I thought waow, but now the figures are long time outdated and not valid at all after 13 years or more!
True. They are declining. I don’t have up to date numbers, will see if I can get my hands on that.

Based on the developments since then I don’t expect improvement, at best in the same range.
 
True. They are declining. I don’t have up to date numbers, will see if I can get my hands on that.

Based on the developments since then I don’t expect improvement, at best in the same range.
okay understand, thank you. If you get more valid data or information about it feel free to post it here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GPT
I don’t know what it is with the OCT community, but I am impressed by everything you write about here and the knowledge the users in this community have. I have not seen this before; at least, I have not come across a site with as much knowledge as can be found for free and paid on this forum. It is truly unique.
I think the main work is done by @JohnLocke @Martin Everson @Sols and @Forester by deleting all spam and off topic within seconds. Without it, it would be a troll place like <removed> forum where all sane minds would walk away. Thank you guys!
 
I think the main work is done by @JohnLocke @Martin Everson @Sols and @Forester by deleting all spam and off topic within seconds. Without it, it would be a troll place like <removed> forum where all sane minds would walk away. Thank you guys!
You are welcome – and thank you for the credits. However, the forum content is created by you, users; so without your presence it would not work at all :)
 
I just spent a few hours reading this article and jotting down what I think I understood, to then try to draw my structure. Can anyone explain how a potential setup would look, maybe draw it or something?
 
Register now
You must login or register to view hidden content on this page.