Trust Estate
Offshore Trusts And The Drive Towards Transparency

Most trusts are used for legitimate purposes. Those that are not will find it increasingly difficult to invest and operate in jurisdictions such as the UK, argues the author of this article.
The UK recently unveiled a new beneficial ownership disclosure regime (as reported here). For example, the new Register of Overseas Entities is held by Companies House and requires overseas entities that own land or property in the UK to declare their beneficial owners and/or managing officers. Another development is the Register of Persons With Significant Control (PSC). These raise new compliance challenges that wealth advisors must grasp.
  To delve into the details of what’s involved is Marilyn
  McKeever, partner at law firm BDB Pitmans. We hope
  these insights are useful and encourage discussion. Feel free to
  enter the debate and contact tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com
  
  The usual disclaimers apply to views of outside
  contributors.
  
  Trusts and transparency
  Transparency includes making information available about the true
  ownership of entities, as well as exchanging information between
  tax authorities around the world. This is a global initiative
  aiming to prevent and expose tax evasion, money laundering and
  terrorist financing. 
  
  Trusts are within the scope of the transparency regimes, and
  rightly so, but they have been squeezed into a framework designed
  by civil lawyers for companies and similar entities. 
  
  Register of Persons With Significant Control
  (PSC)
  The PSC Register requires UK companies to disclose their “persons
  with significant control”/“beneficial owners” to Companies House.
  The register is open to anyone who wants to see it. If the chain
  of owners ends in a trust, the PSC of the trust, must be
  identified, which includes anyone who in fact exercises
  “significant influence or control over the activities of that
  trust.” 
  
  Many settlors, beneficiaries and protectors will be PSCs. The
  register discloses extensive personal information, including
  name, date of birth, nationality, address and the nature of the
  PSC’s “control.” If a PSC shows that they are at serious
  risk of violence or intimidation, access may be restricted to
  public authorities e.g. HMRC and the police.
  
  The onus is on the company to find out who its PSCs are, and it
  and its officers are subject to criminal sanctions and fines if
  they do not make reasonable efforts to do so. 
  
  If a PSC fails to provide their information to the company, or
  provides inaccurate information, they are also subject to fines
  and a prison sentence of up to two years and the company can
  impose restrictions which prevent dealings with the shares, the
  receipt of dividends and the exercise of voting rights. 
  
  Affected trustees will have the tasks of identifying the PSCs,
  which can be tricky where de facto influence is the test and
  explaining to the settlor or beneficiaries why their personal
  details have to be disclosed.
  
  The Trust Register
  The Trust Register imposes obligations on the trustees to
  register the trust with HMRC. The trustees must provide details
  of who they are, their address and country of residence.
  Individual trustees must provide additional personal information.
  They must also provide personal information about the settlor,
  beneficiaries and protectors.
  
  Initially, offshore trusts only had to be registered if they had
  a UK tax liability. The regime has been extended to include
  non-UK express trusts which have or acquire real estate in the UK
  or which have at least one trustee in the UK and a business
  relationship with a UK professional. Such trusts should have
  registered by 1 September 2022. Government figures show that up
  to the end of June, 7,700 offshore trusts had registered.
    
  
  As well as law enforcement agencies, anyone with a “legitimate
  interest” has access. HMRC guidance indicates that this only
  applies to individuals and organisations investigating money
  laundering or terrorist financing involving the trust. More
  worrying for trustees is that anyone can obtain the information
  on the register about a trust which controls a non-EEA company or
  other legal entity. So, journalists and members of the public are
  entitled to see personal details of the settlor and beneficiaries
  of any registered trust which owns an offshore investment holding
  company.
  
  HMRC will not provide information about “beneficial owners” who
  are under 18, lack capacity or would be at risk of blackmail,
  kidnapping, violence or intimidation. For some families these are
  very real risks.
  
  A trustee who fails to register a trust or registers late, can be
  personally liable for a penalty of £5,000 ($5,892) per offence.
  The penalty cannot be paid out of the trust fund. HMRC
  has indicated that it will take a “softly softly” approach
  to a first offence, unless the trustees have defaulted
  deliberately. 
  
  Trustees also have an obligation to update the information on the
  register if it changes, within 90 days of the change. Failure to
  do so promptly can again result in £5,000 personal fines.
  
  The Register of Overseas Entities
  The final piece of the puzzle (for now) is the Register of
  Overseas Entities (ROE) which, from 1 August 2022, requires
  “entities,” principally offshore companies, which own UK
  land to register with Companies House. The company must provide
  information about itself and its “beneficial owners.” The
  rules are similar to those for the PSC. Where trustees are the
  beneficial owners, their details must be registered as well as
  personal information for the beneficiaries, settlors and other
  “interested persons.”  
  
  The public has access to the information on the ROE, although
  trust information is shared only with law enforcement and other
  public agencies.
  
  A company which fails to register, and its officers, are subject
  to criminal sanctions including fines up to £2,500 for each day
  of default and up to five years in jail for the officers. The
  company must update the information each year and failure to do
  so is also a criminal offence, as is the provision of false
  information. In addition, a defaulting company will be unable to
  register its property interest at the Land Registry or deal with
  it.
  
  Another headache for trustees is that the information about
  beneficial owners and the company’s officers must be “verified”
  by a UK regulated agent before the entity can be registered. This
  is a stringent process going beyond client due diligence. Many
  professionals are reluctant to provide the service because the
  professional will commit a criminal offence themselves if they
  get it wrong.
  
  Conclusion
  Most trusts are used for legitimate purposes. Those that are not
  will find it increasingly difficult to invest and operate in
  jurisdictions, like the UK, which take their international
  obligations seriously.
  
  While that is a good thing, the drive for transparency imposes
  increasing and extensive compliance burdens on innocent trusts,
  erodes the ability of trustees to safeguard the privacy of their
  settlors and beneficiaries and puts the trustees, their
  underlying companies and their officers at risk of criminal and
  financial penalties. 
  
  Trustees need good, and timely, advice about their obligations.