Wake up! These people are sitting in state institutions, banks and big corporations. They are the state.It's pretty obvious that drug lords, the mafia, and hardcore criminals
Wake up! These people are sitting in state institutions, banks and big corporations. They are the state.It's pretty obvious that drug lords, the mafia, and hardcore criminals
Yes, the absurd or obviously non-viable scenarios are not helpful. The world is not divided into drug kingpins and Mr by the books only.Are we really at that level now? It's pretty obvious that drug lords, the mafia, and hardcore criminals have their own ways of protection and probably aren't moving their assets into a trust or a fund in Germany.
Have you read my post? "I would expect that there will be many levels." And then, there were two extreme cases. Anything in between is in between.Yes, the absurd or obviously non-viable scenarios are not helpful. The world is not divided into drug kingpins and Mr by the books only.
I just want to understand whether these structures are a placebo or a real thing. They are a pain in the a*s to set up, manage, operate and explain to others. If at the end of the day it's all for nothing, I wouldn't bother.
You have already answered your question!these structures are a placebo
100% every time! No exceptions!Wake up! These people are sitting in state institutions, banks and big corporations. They are the state.
Why would you say a UBO is not a legal figure?Law theory is one thing, what happens in court is a whole different story.
Long story short, if you really want to protect your assets, choose other solutions (and check the Mentor Gold Group)
UBO is not a legal figure
Because it doesn’t exist in any law and established legal principles. It’s common definition even carries contradictions with existing law.Why would you say a UBO is not a legal figure?
Just a tiny correction – at least in some EU countries there exists a law defining what is UBO and how it should be handled (I even think that there is some EU/SSR/ directive concerning this). Yet I agree that these laws have not much common with established legal principles. (Just for fun: A city has a bank account with a certain bank. The bank insists on filling the UBO of a city in its records /witnessed/.)Because it doesn’t exist in any law and established legal principles.
You mean the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2018/843) ?Just a tiny correction – at least in some EU countries there exists a law defining what is UBO and how it should be handled (I even think that there is some EU/SSR/ directive concerning this). Yet I agree that these laws have not much common with established legal principles. (Just for fun: A city has a bank account with a certain bank. The bank insists on filling the UBO of a city in its records /witnessed/.)
That’s yet another expression of the stupidity of the EU.You mean the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2018/843) ?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32018L0843
Yeah, it's probably this one. There is also some from 2015, IIRC. But frankly, I have not bothered to read thoroughly. 32 pages of BS.You mean the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2018/843) ?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32018L0843
Yeah that's this one : Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (Text with EEA relevance)Yeah, it's probably this one. There is also some from 2015, IIRC. But frankly, I have not bothered to read thoroughly. 32 pages of BS.
At least there is a place to get free toilet paper that I can then use elsewhere.
A picture says more than a thousands wordsThat’s yet another expression of the stupidity of the EU.
Simple explanation of the EU:
View attachment 7972
I wonder where they will put the s**t in the EU when toilets are closed. Time to buy higher boots for your politicians in other to walk through the duty streets.A picture says more than a thousands words
Because it doesn’t exist in any law and established legal principles. It’s common definition even carries contradictions with existing law.
It can work until it works. That nominee must be a very good friend, even better if imaginary.Then what's preventing someone from creating a position of a UBO same as we do with directors or nominees? It can just be a nominee with a different title right