How to choose the right jurisdiction to protect your assets via offshore trusts
I know that the term “protecting property in an offshore” or “protecting capital in an offshore” can demoralize some readers of my blog about offshore companies, bank accounts, and schemes. In fact, many clients should figure out what they really need – a good old offshore bank account or a personal strategy and scheme for protecting accumulated capital abroad? What is the actual difference? And most importantly, how to ensure that your assets are protected?
I will try to give to you asset protection information, so learn more at http://www.navajasturismo.com/.
You may have already thought about opening an offshore bank account. Even a simple private bank account outside of one’s own country is already a big step towards a secure financial future. The simplest offshore bank account opened for an individual gives you free access to foreign currencies and investments that you would not be able to access through the bank of your home country.
The opportunities that open up for you with the opening of a bank account abroad are not limited to access to a wider range of financial instruments. Most individuals today apply for opening an offshore bank account not as individuals, but on behalf of a corporation, offshore company, foundation or trust. This kind of corporate veil allows for a relatively low fee to acquire a much more reliable degree of security and confidentiality of your deposits to the accounts of foreign banks. I’m not even saying how much more reliable an offshore corporate bank account is compared with a regular account for a private person opened in your country. The corporate veil also works well in the twenty-first century if an offshore company is correctly registered in a suitable offshore jurisdiction.
To begin with, I would like to draw the attention of readers of my blog about opening safe offshore bank accounts for a number of reasons why it is important for the ordinary citizen to protect their savings from creditors, plaintiffs and even his country’s government by choosing in advance a more suitable jurisdiction on private property.
In order for you to understand how, why and why you can use the legislation of your home country to protect your property and accumulated capital, let’s look at some of the basics of jurisprudence.
According to the constitution, in democratic countries, state power is most often represented by three types of power:
Legislature makes laws. This is the parliament or the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States. Selected legislators vote to enact laws and create a legislative system.
Administrative power is bureaucrats whom we have not elected. Their job is to administer a system developed by the legislature. The function of bureaucrats is not to think and reflect. A simple example on the fingers. In the UK, the same bureaucrats who issued ID cards in the UK are now closing this system by order of new members of the legislature.
The judiciary is lawyers of various calibers who discuss the laws that the legislature voted for. Their work is the interpretation of complex and sometimes ambiguous laws.
Legislative, federal and judicial authorities must act separately and independently of each other. All three branches of government have a clearly defined role, and this system has worked quite recently. But nowadays the system no longer works as originally planned. In other words – the system does not work.
First, elected representatives of the legislature do not always read the laws for which they vote. Even if they read these laws, there is no guarantee that they will understand them … because the bills submitted and proposed for voting are often deliberately confused and designed to be ambiguous. Important parts of the law slip unnoticed, and this is exactly what bureaucrats need.
A good example is the HIRE Act in the USA. This act is supposedly designed to prevent unemployment, but this legislation is also the strongest extraterritorial legislation in US history that intervenes in the business of foreign banks, as well as US citizens who live and work outside the United States.
Bureaucrats rarely tend to think for themselves, but if they begin to interpret legislation, they do it in the most perverted and not provided way. Modern legislation that emerged from under the stamp of legislative power, but developed by bureaucrats inclines bureaucrats to the interpretation of legislation that is beneficial for them.
In turn, the judiciary has become very susceptible to politics. In the US, you are more likely to get a lawsuit than to go to the hospital. In countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia there is a whole layer of lawyers who work for a percentage of the amount won and act like predators. Judges play up to lawyers and feel Robin Hoods, redistributing wealth.
The main problem of the modern judicial system is that it is too easy and simple to sue you. The plaintiff does not have to pay a lawyer who works for a percentage of the won, in advance, and thus can sue you for anything. And such lawyers work very well for a high percentage of any maximum amount that the plaintiff can get you to sue. If you are a wealthy person, then the lawyer will not have to try hard to make you a villain in the eyes of the judge and the jury. The judge will redistribute part of your condition in favor of the plaintiff, who may not have worked honestly for more than one day in his life.
What conclusion can you draw from the foregoing? As I already wrote, the system of legislative, executive and judicial power in the complex no longer works. In other words, you and your family can no longer rely on the government and judicial system of your country to protect your constitutional rights, namely the rights to personal financial freedom and property. In some cases, it is the government that violates your constitutional rights.
At the moment, the governments of large countries simply do not have enough money, and they tighten the nuts. Previously, people were warned in advance about tax increases so that they had time to prepare, but this is no longer the case. In June 2010, the tax on capital gains overnight rose by 10 points.
While European states traditionally built a pyramid-style pension system in the USA, they approached the issue of pensions more professionally. But at the moment, the Obama government is very eagerly looking towards the pension funds of ordinary US citizens. I’m not saying that they are simply being confiscated, but the government can get more control over these funds in the name of “investor protection and investment” and insist that pension funds be invested in such a supposedly AAA level investment fund as government debt.
It is a mistake to think that the strategy of protecting capital, investments and property is only needed by very rich or representatives of professions connected with the risk of being tried, for example, by doctors.
Nowadays, a property protection strategy is needed for any person who has a pension savings plan or any business owner, as well as any person with a bank or brokerage account with so much money, the loss of which could affect the quality of life.