EMI Asset Protection

[danneskjold]

Didn't see it explicitly answered here, so thought to ask...

If you want to dissuade‌ charge orders from creditors - or your own government - a general piece of advice‍ is to bank with an institution that has NO branches in your home country.
Can the same be said for EMIs since they are not banks? Are they more or⁠ less susceptible to seizure by virtue of their structure?

Furthermore, do correspondence banks count as⁤ 'bank branches in your own country'?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Golden Fleece]

You discuss two different, but related, issues. Both relate to judicial jurisdiction. This is from︀ a U.S. perspective.

1) The subpoena power. Any creditor or injured party can file a︁ civil lawsuit and issue a subpoena for business records held by any third party over︂ which the court has jurisdiction. The government can do the same in any civil, criminal,︃ or administrative case. So, any enterprise (regardless of whether it is a bank, EMI, or︄ any other business) that has a branch in your home country can get served with︅ a subpoena for its business records, making it possible (subject to approval by the court)︆ to reach records stored in a foreign nation. On the other hand, if a foreign︇ company has no branch in your home country, then the court has no jurisdiction over︈ that company. In answer to your question, this applies to a bank, EMI, or any︉ other business located in your home country.

2) Correspondence banks. The general rule is that︊ an offshore bank simply having a correspondence bank relationship with a bank located in another︋ country does not open that offshore bank to court jurisdiction for purposes of subpoena or︌ other legal actions. Having said that, this is exactly how the U.S. Government targeted Wegelin︍ Bank of Switzerland and put it out of business. It used a concept known as︎ extraterritorial jurisdiction to target Wegelin through its correspondence banking relationship with a U.S. bank. Only️ a few countries in the world could enforce such overreach. Arguably only the U.S., because‌ of its threats to cut off countries from the SWIFT system for non-compliance. I wrote‍ about it here:

https://www.offshorecorptalk.com/th...best-privacy-in-2020.26941/page-2#post-171997

 

[danneskjold]

Thank you for the high quality response. So if I understand correctly, in the case‌ of an EMI like Wise (who I've read uses internationally-branched banks like Barclays), my funds‍ are not protected with regard to government subpoenas/orders.
Quite sad about Wegelin. I suppose the⁠ next logical step would be to search for an EMI without US branches (if this⁤ exists), or settle on some crazy business trade account to insure insulation (Dukascopy comes to⁣ mind).

 

[Golden Fleece]

Well, if you are a U.S. citizen then nothing⁢ will protect you in a criminal matter. The USG has unlimited resources. If it wants︀ records, it will likely eventually get them, unless dealing with a hostile government.

The same︁ goes for funds, although I assume far more legal process is involved to confiscate someone's︂ property.

 

[danneskjold]

I wonder how easy any type of seizure would be in my case. Of the‌ funds I have, a portion will be used to purchase crypto, which will then be‍ stored in a cold wallet instead of the EMI or bank. The other portion will⁠ be in some combination of RE or long-term agriculture. So since the majority of it⁤ won't just be sitting in the account, perhaps this offers a little more shielding. Just⁣ trying to think from the USG's perspective about how to actually take these funds.