Section Four - Choose
An Appropriate Strategy But Get it Right the First Time
Section
Introduction: Blindly investing offshore without doing the proper
due diligence and research to determine advisors, strategies and
products best suited to your needs is more risky than keeping all of
your investment funds inside the United States. Educate
yourself, choose respected consultants and highly regulated
jurisdictions and plan your strategy right because investment
mistakes and a poor choice of advisors can cost you money just as it
does in the U.S.
Chapter 14 - Utilize
Asset Protection Techniques to Build Maximum Protected Wealth
Talking Points: What can we learn from legal and jurisdictional
attacks on asset protection since 9/11? What are the legal loopholes
used to steal the wealth of productive working Americans and how do
we build maximum protected wealth against this threat? It is
apparent that duress clauses and the limitation of client access to
the protected funds better defends your wealth. This defense, along
with the confidentiality and protection that a respected top-tier
offshore jurisdiction provides, effectively defends most legitimate
wealth safely protected offshore.
"There
are over 3,000 federal criminal statutes, including more than 200
offenses for which your property can be seized, often without a
criminal conviction. Are you unknowingly violating any of them?"
-- Mark Nestmann
His URL is
www.nestmann.com
It is time to cut to the chase. We must put the philosophy, history,
and old-style asset protection measures behind us and have a frank
discussion on innovative wealth protection techniques necessary to
build the most bullet-proof protected wealth possible in our 21st
century environment. Regulations, jurisdictions, products, and the
degree of privacy have changed since 9/11. Therefore, our wealth
preservation structures and strategies must also change to meet
these new challenges of today. Listed below are the features we
will discuss on the following pages:
·
Utilize Client Duress Protection In Your Offshore
Trust or Annuity Strategy
·
Enhance Your Protection from Litigation and Divorce
·
Take Advantage of Attorney/Client Privilege for
Increased Confidentiality
·
All Documentation Should Be Held Offshore
·
Maintain a Low Profile
In order to build maximum protected wealth, it is necessary to close
the loopholes used to capture the assets held in old-style asset
protection structures. Duress protections are important in order to
keep the courts and others from forcing you to do what you would not
have done on your own free will. Your asset protection strategy
should not depend on permanent personal, business or family
relationships because these often change, especially when large sums
of money are involved. Remember, your best friend can quickly become
your worst enemy.
The use of attorney/client privileges can help keep your
communications and structures stay confidential if you utilize an
attorney in jurisdictions where attorney/client communications are
still private. This confidentiality can be further enhanced through
products and strategies requiring the minimal amount of legal
reporting and by maintaining all documentation outside your own
country.
Utilize
Client Duress Protection
Maximum asset protection is created with a duress clause allowing a
financial service provider, trustee, or your attorney to require a
visit from the individual beneficial owner if there is any question
whether a withdrawal or liquidation is voluntary or under some type
of coercion from outside parties. The duress clause should still
allow for investment strategies and portfolios to be changed at any
time. Funds needed for immediate liquidity should never be invested
in a wealth preservation program in the first place because if
short-term liquidity needs can be met this opens up your structure
to outside attack. This is why other funds should remain accessible
outside of your offshore protected wealth in order meet any short or
intermediate-term needs without weakening your structure.
Case
Study # 7 Contempt of Court
Dr. John Doe worked in a specialized field of medicine. He sees many
friends and colleagues constantly subjected to nuisances and, on
occasion, threatening lawsuits. Following advice, he legally
established an offshore asset protection trust that allowed for a
credit/debit card when he needed to withdraw distributions. John
was later sued, and due to an unfair judge and corrupt legal system,
he lost and a judgment was taken out against him.
After the court had cleaned out all of his U.S. domiciled property
and investments they then moved against his offshore asset
protection trust. He and his lawyers used the usual asset protection
trust defense but the judge just ruled him in contempt of court for
not turning over the funds as requested, using the monthly and
annual limit on the debit card withdrawal against the trust. John
refused to do roll over, knowing that his last remaining wealth
available for his family and children’s education was in the trust
and thus spent many months in jail for contempt. This destroyed his
career, his health, and his marriage.
A better solution: One option to consider in a properly structured
plan is to not provide for an option to access most of your
protected funds, except during pre-established intervals when you
might want to cancel or make a withdrawal. The structure
should also contain a duress clause to make sure you are not being
forced to withdraw funds against your will during these
pre-established withdrawal or cancellation periods. Few judges would
be able to demand or enforce a contempt of court action against a
person utilizing a structure with delayed and only pre-established
withdrawal or cancellation options.
Do
You Really Want A Loan Provision In Your Offshore
Structure?
Offshore account and structure loans are an open invitation to
plaintiff’s and courts to access and steal your protected wealth.
The funds you desire to place in an asset protected environment
should never be what you might require for short or
intermediate-term lifestyle needs. The right to borrow from your
structure can be an open door for those out to steal your wealth.
Case
Study #8 Variable Annuity Loans
John Doe invested $500,000 in a standard offshore fixed or variable
annuity for asset protection. While this kind of investment,
depending on the jurisdiction and product, can provide substantial
protection from judgments and lawsuits, a loan provision can limit
your wealth defense. Here's why:
Imagine that John is faced with an unwarranted lawsuit and loses the
domestic case. Although the offshore jurisdiction provided iron clad
asset protection to life insurance and annuity products, his home
country judge could have cared less about foreign jurisdictional
laws and legislation. The court demanded a copy of the annuity
contract, saw the loan provision and immediately ordered John to
borrow the proceeds out of the contract. If he refused he would be
placed in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order.
Both the judge and John lived in downtown New York City and they
well understood the life threatening danger and risk of sexual
attack sure to happen to him in the local jail. John had no
recourse but to agree to the judge’s court order and his offshore
protected funds were lost.
A Better Solution: Make sure if you have an annuity or life
insurance product with an offshore insurance provider, that you make
reference to the fact that under duress, the insurance company
and/or properly structured trust will not allow for pledging of the
policy, or where applicable, an internal loan provision will not be
offered.
Enhance
Your Protection from Litigation and Divorce
In proper asset protection planning, everything should be
transparent and legal from the beginning. Utilizing a strategy,
which is tax compliant, deferred, and fully disclosed means the IRS
will not get involved should a relationship go sour.
Case
Study #9
Maximum Divorce Protection
Mary has decided to leave her husband John for a younger woman and
indicates they and the children will soon be relocating to the
Cayman Islands. She has always been the major breadwinner while John
became a stay at home dad caring for the home and children. Mary
has offered to split their home and U.S. assets 50/50 which would
result in approximately $100,000 each in order to work out a fair
and equitable settlement.
Suffice it to say that John’s ego has taken a bad hit and he is
really upset at this turn of events. John has always been a snooper
around the house and discovered that Mary had been stashing legal,
after-tax money for years in an offshore bank account and she has
neither disclosed the foreign financial account nor paid taxes on
the interest. There is one million dollars in the account and John
knows their U.S. disclosed assets reduced by substantial debts only
equals $200,000. Out of anger and need for money, John goes to the
IRS with this information hoping for his possible 15% share of the
reward. You know
the rest of the story. John gets the snitch money
while Mary and the children become destitute because the $200,000 is
eaten up by legal fees from lawyers representing both sides in the
divorce.
A Better Solution: A different outcome would probably have resulted
had Mary, regardless of her personal integrity and relationship
failings, taken a new 21st century asset protection approach to the
situation. Here's another scenario.
First, using an insurance product rather than a bank account could
have made all her offshore earnings tax-deferred. Second, the money
came from after-tax earnings so there were no legal problems here as
anyone can establish an offshore account. The account could have
been an insurance product, which usually only requires the one time
filing of a 1% excise tax form. Therefore, she would not have had
regulatory or annual reporting problems with the account.
Next, since the account had been established for years, the courts
would probably have ruled no attempt at fraudulent conveyance, while
John's lawyers would surely have demanded half of the tax-deferred
account and might have won the case had they agreed to take it on a
contingency basis. However, if the lawyer had really reviewed the
situation, they probably would have demanded upfront fees due to
Mary's iron clad asset protection plan. But let’s assume the lawyer
was just a nice guy and felt sorry for John’s treatment and that
John won his case in court.

Ron Fact, Book & Video Recommendations For This Page:
When you review the problems and corruption in the American
legal and regulatory systems it is clear that few legal protections
exist today for productive working Americans. This is why it is so
important to take advantage of legal, offshore asset protection
techniques. - Ron Holland
The Swiss
Confederation Institute News
For daily updated news,
editorials and reports relating to topics
covered in The Swiss Preserve Solution.
Next Page
Previous Page