BVI company setup as holding!

[alpakiwi]

What you're saying doesn't⁣ make sense. Nevis asset protection laws here are only relevant to the extent the trust⁢ gets sued. The LLC can get sued, of course, but it's not yours. If the︀ trust gets sued and has been set up correctly, you won't be considered to be︁ the UBO and Nevis laws will protect you.

With regards to US banks reporting US︂ LLCs UBOs for CRS, I have never seen that because US banks do not report︃ CRS. If you use US banks in other jurisdictions, they might, but that's not what︄ we're talking about here.

 

[alpakiwi]

Depends on how much money you have, but yes, its complicated.

 

[Offshr]

Well, previously⁢ you mentioned that to the bank you submit your information as the UBO of LLC.︀ What I am trying to say is that in case of a proceeding against US︁ LLC your funds in the bank would be either:

1. Blocked by the bank for︂ submission of misleading information regarding UBO
2. Freezed by the court order and will be︃ subject to the creditor' s lawsuit just like your own money.

What is the point︄ of establishing such a structure?

 

[alley]

you made a very good point there @Offshr - I can't see that a Trust‌ can protect you from that unless you move the funds regularly to the Trust.

 

[brianK]

Very well described, we should open a new thread about the trust︋ part and link it to this thread. I'm looking into the US LLC and the︌ docs as you suggested, just need to figure some technical stuff out first.

 

[alpakiwi]

1. You are⁢ not giving any misleading information regarding UBO. When you open the account, you're the owner.︀ There is no federal statute that forces an LLC’s owners to run to the bank︁ the moment membership interests change. Moreover, after FinCEN’s interim-final rule of 26 March 2025, domestic︂ LLCs (those formed under U.S. state law) no longer file Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports,︃ even if all members are non-U.S. persons.

2. If a court were ever to issue︄ an order against you personally (a very remote scenario, because the LLC’s updated ownership will︅ trigger that the LLC is unlikely to surface in discovery), the Trust, as the new︆ owner, can immediately move to dismiss (a motion that would almost certainly be granted). A︇ declaration by the Trust that you no longer hold any ownership interest should render the︈ order ineffective.

 

[SoNewToAllShit]

make sense...

 

[Eurocash]

Nah. It’s in the terms︃ of service of almost every bank globally, that you must keep them informed of any︄ changes to UBO.

That’s a completely standard thing.

And, by the way, any lawyer/liquidator/3rd party︅ who is motivated enough to pursue you would have a fairly easy time punching holes︆ in this set up

In many cases it’s simpler and stronger to have separate entities︇ (not owning each other) in separate jurisdictions all having slightly different functions and owning different︈ assets + using nominees - much harder for a 3rd party to track down where︉ everything is and which entity owns what

 

[alpakiwi]

Assuming what you’re saying is correct (which I don’t believe it is), with the banks‌ I work with, I’ve never seen any explicit wording requiring clients to “inform us of‍ any UBO change.” In practice, banks typically detect such changes during periodic KYC refreshes or⁠ account activity reviews, not immediately. Given that the current structure involves a trust, and the⁤ definition of who qualifies as UBO in a trust is inherently flexible, you’re clearly relying⁣ on that ambiguity. So I respectfully disagree.

As for your comment that “any lawyer/liquidator/third party⁢ who is motivated enough to pursue you would have a fairly easy time punching holes︀ in this setup,” I also disagree, for a variety of reasons. Structures like this are︁ specifically designed to be litigation-proof, and when properly implemented and maintained, they offer a high︂ degree of legal resilience. That’s precisely their purpose.

 

[Eurocash]

The powers︃ afforded to liquidators and courts nowadays are so strong that the best strategy is to︄ make assets “hard to find” not “hard to attack” legally

If they can repossess billionaires︅ assets with consummate ease, trust me, a little Nevis trust with a few hundred k︆ in it is child’s play

“piercing the corporate veil” Google it and you’ll see how︇ advanced it has become

Also, once a legal challenge comes in, the legal fees to︈ defend yourself/the structure in these complex areas of the law can get so expensive so︉ quickly that it almost defeats the purpose in the beginning

I would reiterate, don’t connect︊ entities, have multiple entities in different parts of the world, reduce the attack vector

Think about it logically, if someone is pursuing you, or planning to, and they see that︋ your company is owned by another entity, like a trust. Do you really think that︌ will stop them in their tracks?

Much better if they just sue that company that︍ they’ve found, find out it has very little in the way of assets, meanwhile you︎ are still trading through different companies in different jurisdictions

I agree with you that the️ banking issue is probably not a major concern “in practice” but i do think it’s‌ an unnecessary complication to add into the mix

 

[alpakiwi]

With respect, I’ve handled these scenarios firsthand. Let’s keep the thread focused rather than turning‌ it into a debate.

 

[Eurocash]

I think debating over the validity‍ of a structure is about focused as it could be.

If you have handled the⁠ scenarios first hand, with respect, you wouldn’t be asking the questions you are asking, would⁤ you?

I think you need to deal in practicality rather than chasing shiny objects

If you just want everyone to agree with you, what’s the point in that?

 

[drysponge]

seems like an easy thing for you to cite
vague ramblings

 

[Eurocash]

Are you honestly‌ disputing that banks have it as part of their standard terms and conditions that they‍ need to be kept informed of changes to the UBO?

Are you joking? You think⁠ banks are just happy for UBO's to change without them being informed? I am speechless⁤ if so.

And with regards to "vague ramblings" I don't see how a comment like⁣ that can serve anyone. It's a well established fact that the insolvency regimes in major⁢ developed countries allow court appointed liquidators/insolvency administrators to get behind structures.

Simply claiming "oh but︀ a holding company owns this and you can't touch the holding company" is so very︁ naive.

You can call it "vague ramblings" but if you actually go to google and︂ do a bit of searching you will see many cases across the globe where structures︃ like this have been penetrated

And, what do you bring to the table in terms︄ of feedback? I'm trying to give the OP something to think about which, whether he︅ likes what I have to say or not, is a damn sight more than you're︆ contributing

 

[drysponge]

no im saying what i said, its an easy thing for you⁠ to cite & be done with, but for whatever reason you dont.
seems like an easy thing for you to cite.
vague ramblings.

 

[Eurocash]

Put your apparent task of⁠ criticising me to one side for a minute: you're not helping the OP

I'll make⁤ this as concise as I possibly can.

Piercing the corporate veil is easier than ever,⁣ and supported by judiciaries in many countries.

With that in mind, my position is that⁢ if your goal is asset protection/privacy, it is worth considering having several unconnected entities, rather︀ than chaining them.

Have you got anything to add or are you just here to︁ troll me?

 

[drysponge]

try to not‌ take it so personal okay
again, totally vague, unfalsifiable statement
worth considering? sure.
any better? i⁣ don't really see how, if you are personally liable (for something?) you're still going to⁢ have to come up off those assets for the amount liable, unconnected or not

 

[Eurocash]

excellent suggestions

 

[alley]

What’s the issue nowadays with setting up a company where imaginary friends officially own your‌ assets?