Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Paphitis,

Your take on offshore companies is a little influenced by the adverts of the company creators. The US court in the case above might not be able to touch the assets themselves, (ie no remedy in rem) but can definitely use an order against the person and if he does not comply then deal with the case as contempt of court and shove him in jail for a long time. There are cases when the court can and will look behind the "corporate veil".

Offshore companies are more organizational tools than tax avoidance or fool proof asset protection.

As to the original topic which is the legal opinion of the EU official, it is no surprise. The EU has NO CHOICE in the matter than to support the European legal order which is simple and straightforward: the right to property and its enjoyment is a HUMAN RIGHT and it cannot be curtailed or diminished arbitrarily. It is that simple.

[Tim Drayton]

Youd be surprised, with YTL interest rates of 22% who needs a UK pension.

I think a lot of Turkish Cypriots thought the same thing last time Turkish lira interest rates were very high, prior to the 1999 Turkish banking crisis. The results are well known:

http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/esc/ramses/sonan.pdf

The banking crisis hit the north of Cyprus in late 1999. The amount deposited in the failing banks was USD 163 million in 58.000 different accounts. This amount represented almost 18% of all bank deposits in the banking system. More than 30,000 individuals were affected, making the crisis a real social trauma for Turkish Cypriots.

This time round, the results may be a bit different. Turkish Cypriots now have more sense than to keep their money in Turkish lira; it may be foreigners living in the north who get their fingers burned.

[AWE]

Paphitis,

Your take on offshore companies is a little influenced by the adverts of the company creators. The US court in the case above might not be able to touch the assets themselves, (ie no remedy in rem) but can definitely use an order against the person and if he does not comply then deal with the case as contempt of court and shove him in jail for a long time. There are cases when the court can and will look behind the "corporate veil".

Offshore companies are more organizational tools than tax avoidance or fool proof asset protection.

As to the original topic which is the legal opinion of the EU official, it is no surprise. The EU has NO CHOICE in the matter than to support the European legal order which is simple and straightforward: the right to property and its enjoyment is a HUMAN RIGHT and it cannot be curtailed or diminished arbitrarily. It is that simple.

Hi Nikitas,

It was not Paphitis but me.

That said if a person does not own an asset then a court cannot claim it. So they may be able to jail them but if they are in the TRNC then it cannot be enforced. The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises.

[DT.]

Paphitis,

Your take on offshore companies is a little influenced by the adverts of the company creators. The US court in the case above might not be able to touch the assets themselves, (ie no remedy in rem) but can definitely use an order against the person and if he does not comply then deal with the case as contempt of court and shove him in jail for a long time. There are cases when the court can and will look behind the "corporate veil".

Offshore companies are more organizational tools than tax avoidance or fool proof asset protection.

As to the original topic which is the legal opinion of the EU official, it is no surprise. The EU has NO CHOICE in the matter than to support the European legal order which is simple and straightforward: the right to property and its enjoyment is a HUMAN RIGHT and it cannot be curtailed or diminished arbitrarily. It is that simple.

Hi Nikitas,

It was not Paphitis but me.

That said if a person does not own an asset then a court cannot claim it. So they may be able to jail them but if they are in the TRNC then it cannot be enforced. The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises.

Money laundering checks and KYC (know your client) procedures now mean the beneficial owner is always required when registering an offshore company for a bank account, especially for a mortgage.

[-mikkie2-]

"The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises."

It is not possible for a main residence in the UK to be held in an off-shore trust. The simple fact of the matter is a property is a fixed asset. It also affects taxation - the residents of such a property would have to pay rent to the trustee otherwise you will fall foul of UK tax laws! The Inland Revenue would then have something to say about that. It also would mean that the asset would be locked away in such a way that it would actually be a drain on your finances rather than a benefit.

To get around this the Orams would basically have to sell everything they have in the UK and hold any proceeds in offshore accounts. It would also mean the Orams would not be able to set foot again in the UK, because as they are domiciled there, they would still be liable for UK taxation. Obviously, once the Cyprus problem is solved they would be screwd again. Basically they will be screwed either way!

[AWE]

Paphitis,

Your take on offshore companies is a little influenced by the adverts of the company creators. The US court in the case above might not be able to touch the assets themselves, (ie no remedy in rem) but can definitely use an order against the person and if he does not comply then deal with the case as contempt of court and shove him in jail for a long time. There are cases when the court can and will look behind the "corporate veil".

Offshore companies are more organizational tools than tax avoidance or fool proof asset protection.

As to the original topic which is the legal opinion of the EU official, it is no surprise. The EU has NO CHOICE in the matter than to support the European legal order which is simple and straightforward: the right to property and its enjoyment is a HUMAN RIGHT and it cannot be curtailed or diminished arbitrarily. It is that simple.

Hi Nikitas,

It was not Paphitis but me.

That said if a person does not own an asset then a court cannot claim it. So they may be able to jail them but if they are in the TRNC then it cannot be enforced. The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises.

Money laundering checks and KYC (know your client) procedures now mean the beneficial owner is always required when registering an offshore company for a bank account, especially for a mortgage.

I agree the money laundering and KYC rules are there but only this year I set a company in Hong Kong (a less dodgy offshore environment) and although I chose to go the HK to open the bank account I did not have to do so and could also have hidden behind a a nominee director system. The point being that if you do not have an asset in the EU the an EU court cannot claim it.

[DT.]

Paphitis,

Your take on offshore companies is a little influenced by the adverts of the company creators. The US court in the case above might not be able to touch the assets themselves, (ie no remedy in rem) but can definitely use an order against the person and if he does not comply then deal with the case as contempt of court and shove him in jail for a long time. There are cases when the court can and will look behind the "corporate veil".

Offshore companies are more organizational tools than tax avoidance or fool proof asset protection.

As to the original topic which is the legal opinion of the EU official, it is no surprise. The EU has NO CHOICE in the matter than to support the European legal order which is simple and straightforward: the right to property and its enjoyment is a HUMAN RIGHT and it cannot be curtailed or diminished arbitrarily. It is that simple.

Hi Nikitas,

It was not Paphitis but me.

That said if a person does not own an asset then a court cannot claim it. So they may be able to jail them but if they are in the TRNC then it cannot be enforced. The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises.

Money laundering checks and KYC (know your client) procedures now mean the beneficial owner is always required when registering an offshore company for a bank account, especially for a mortgage.

I agree the money laundering and KYC rules are there but only this year I set a company in Hong Kong (a less dodgy offshore environment) and although I chose to go the HK to open the bank account I did not have to do so and could also have hidden behind a a nominee director system. The point being that if you do not have an asset in the EU the an EU court cannot claim it.

still a nominee director will be questioned and they will have to reveal the beneficial owner.

[AWE]

"The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises."

It is not possible for a main residence in the UK to be held in an off-shore trust. The simple fact of the matter is a property is a fixed asset. It also affects taxation - the residents of such a property would have to pay rent to the trustee otherwise you will fall foul of UK tax laws! The Inland Revenue would then have something to say about that. It also would mean that the asset would be locked away in such a way that it would actually be a drain on your finances rather than a benefit.

To get around this the Orams would basically have to sell everything they have in the UK and hold any proceeds in offshore accounts. It would also mean the Orams would not be able to set foot again in the UK, because as they are domiciled there, they would still be liable for UK taxation. Obviously, once the Cyprus problem is solved they would be screwd again. Basically they will be screwed either way!

As it was Mrs Orams who was served with the writ if she transfers the UK assets to a trust (offshore or not) with her children (assuming they have some) as beneficiaries she than has no assets in the UK.

In short if one has no assets then there is no tax liability nor can a claim be made against the non-existent assets. As trusts in the UK take assets out of your ownership the assets cannot be claimed in a court case. But please correct me if I am wrong.

[DT.]

"The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises."

It is not possible for a main residence in the UK to be held in an off-shore trust. The simple fact of the matter is a property is a fixed asset. It also affects taxation - the residents of such a property would have to pay rent to the trustee otherwise you will fall foul of UK tax laws! The Inland Revenue would then have something to say about that. It also would mean that the asset would be locked away in such a way that it would actually be a drain on your finances rather than a benefit.

To get around this the Orams would basically have to sell everything they have in the UK and hold any proceeds in offshore accounts. It would also mean the Orams would not be able to set foot again in the UK, because as they are domiciled there, they would still be liable for UK taxation. Obviously, once the Cyprus problem is solved they would be screwd again. Basically they will be screwed either way!

As it was Mrs Orams who was served with the writ if she transfers the UK assets to a trust (offshore or not) with her children (assuming they have some) as beneficiaries she than has no assets in the UK.

In short if one has no assets then there is no tax liability nor can a claim be made against the non-existent assets. As trusts in the UK take assets out of your ownership the assets cannot be claimed in a court case. But please correct me if I am wrong.

How's the property going ot change hands if the title deed is with the bank for the mortgage?

[AWE]

"The aim was to take the Orams assets in the UK, so if those assets are not in an EU state it will not be easy to take, hence the whole offshore trust and company thing. Also the telling part was the bit about you keeping operating the assets until and legal problem arises."

It is not possible for a main residence in the UK to be held in an off-shore trust. The simple fact of the matter is a property is a fixed asset. It also affects taxation - the residents of such a property would have to pay rent to the trustee otherwise you will fall foul of UK tax laws! The Inland Revenue would then have something to say about that. It also would mean that the asset would be locked away in such a way that it would actually be a drain on your finances rather than a benefit.

To get around this the Orams would basically have to sell everything they have in the UK and hold any proceeds in offshore accounts. It would also mean the Orams would not be able to set foot again in the UK, because as they are domiciled there, they would still be liable for UK taxation. Obviously, once the Cyprus problem is solved they would be screwd again. Basically they will be screwed either way!

As it was Mrs Orams who was served with the writ if she transfers the UK assets to a trust (offshore or not) with her children (assuming they have some) as beneficiaries she than has no assets in the UK.

In short if one has no assets then there is no tax liability nor can a claim be made against the non-existent assets. As trusts in the UK take assets out of your ownership the assets cannot be claimed in a court case. But please correct me if I am wrong.

How's the property going ot change hands if the title deed is with the bank for the mortgage?

In the Orams case is the deed with the bank for a mortgage I don't know? But given the bank is likely in the TRNC this is tough to enforce in the EU.