FIUs or other relevant competent authorities are increasingly looking for UBOs and UBO is a major concern for FATF, which is adding tax crimes to its list of predicate offences for money-laundering and in a paper titled "FATF's Response to the Public Consultation on the Revision of the FATF Recommendations", especially sections 11 and 12, addresses the concerns about unclear UBO.
Ultimately, it comes down to how each jurisdiction writes and interprets its laws as well as how you structure your offshore entities. There is no one-fits-all answer. However, based on what I have heard from FIUs or other relevant competent authorities throughout Europe, they︀ will go after UBOs and consider the UBO's income - even in a nominee structure︁ - possibly liable for taxation in the UBO's country of tax residence even if the︂ income is not remitted into that jurisdiction. Simply withdrawing or being paid from a company︃ offshore to an offshore bank account may be considered taxable income.
Of course, FIUs have︄ an inherent interest in making the public declare everything and tax as much as possible.︅ Their word is not gospel.
I want to make clear that I am not saying︆ that you are wrong. I'm just problematizing the situation. It is definitely possible to keep︇ funds offshore and never have to pay tax on them, though this is not necessarily︈ the case in all jurisdictions and cases.
