I Introduction

As I reflect on the developments of the last 12 months, the overriding theme is that of continuing regulatory change in the private wealth arena. A sense of increasing pace and convergence in particular stand out in comparison with earlier years.

The pace component is best seen in the introduction of new regimes or the updating of existing rules. The theme of convergence is based upon how centrally significant the concept of 'beneficial ownership' is becoming to many of the initiatives. A third strand is an increasing divergence between the European Union and the United States in this arena: the European Union continues to force the pace on transparency, while the United States proceeds at a much more leisurely speed and gives greater weight to privacy concerns than its European neighbours.

Clients whose assets are fully declared and are in compliance with their tax obligations are becoming increasingly sensitive to the massive complexity and increased regulatory burden that falls upon service providers and the attendant costs that they are obliged to meet. This is leading to a mindset in which additional elements of complexity in asset-holding structures are being viewed with a greater degree of scepticism. In some cases, it is also leading to a review as to whether existing structures, whether trusts or holding companies, are still the best means of achieving the family's objectives and warrant additional cost and regulation.

While these compliant families fully understand the need for transparency to tax and regulatory authorities, there is growing concern about the pressure for public disclosure in the context of beneficial ownership registers when the disclosure relates not to businesses that trade and engage with the public at large, but to family asset-holding structures.

A review of the preamble to the EU's Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5 AMLD) shows that, while apparent lip service is paid to respecting an individual's right to privacy, the argument that greater public or quasi-public access to information with respect to many private asset-holding structures is required to combat the fight against terrorism and money laundering appears to hold sway. The fact that any private asset-holding structure of this type will be obliged to provide comprehensive and detailed beneficial ownership information to regulated service providers such as banks, trust and corporate service providers, legal advisers and accountants is not regarded as sufficient by EU policymakers.

5 AMLD also exemplifies a mindset in which those whose family structures (such as trusts and foundations) are managed outside the EU are subjected to a greater degree of transparency than for EU-managed structures. The rationale for this approach is that, as non-EU jurisdictions have not embraced the same degree of transparency for corporate registers, it is necessary to render the entities that hold assets with an EU connection, such as real estate, or those with an ongoing EU 'business relationship', to public scrutiny. I deal with this in greater depth below.

Tax authorities have been swift to fasten onto the increased scope of these measures. While fighting terrorism and drug-smuggling was their original purpose, they have enabled tax authorities to widen the net of information that is collected and reported on citizens who are neither terrorists nor drug barons but who hold significant wealth in complex asset-holding structures.

In the rest of this foreword, I will consider two specific areas:

  1. the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)'s revised Common Reporting Standard (CRS) Commentary with a focus on trust guidance; and
  2. the wide-reaching implications of the EU's 5 AMLD and the meaning of 'control' in a trust context with regard to UK and Maltese trust registers.

i CRS Revised Handbook (April 2018) with a focus on the amendments to trust guidance

CRS applies to trusts when:

  1. trust is a reporting financial institution (RFI); or
  2. a trust is a passive non-financial entity (NFE) that maintains an account with an RFI.

One of the key issues under discussion under the CRS and the first version of the CRS Commentary was the status of 'protectors'.

The CRS framework provides for reporting in the context of trustees who are RFIs to be made of persons who are treated as having an 'equity interest' in the trust fund. In this context, Section VIII.C.4 of the CRS states that an equity interest is held 'by any person treated as a settlor or a beneficiary of all or a portion of the trust or any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust'.

By contrast, in relation to a trust that is a passive NFE, it is necessary to identify controlling persons in relation to the trust. In the CRS, Section VIII D.6 defines 'controlling person' on the basis that the expression is intended to correspond to the term 'beneficial owner' as described in Recommendation 10 and the interpretative note on Recommendation 10 of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidance as adopted in February 2012. In the case of a trust, controlling persons means 'settlor, the trustees, the protector (if any), the beneficiary or class of beneficiaries and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust'.

In its FAQ issued in June 2016, the OECD took the position that, where a trust is an RFI, a protector 'must be treated as an account holder irrespective of whether it has effective control over the trust'. This response does not address the clear distinction in the CRS itself between the holders of equity interests in a trust that is an RFI (which only includes protectors if they actually exercise ultimate effective control; see above) when contrasted with the 'controlling persons' definition of a trust that is a passive NFE (which includes protectors regardless of the powers they hold; see above).

The Secretariat of the OECD previously confirmed that it is their intention that protectors of trusts that are RFIs should be reported, and the FAQ was discussed in and approved by the relevant working party of the OECD.

The second version of the Commentary has amended Paragraph 253 to read:

The Equity Interests are held by any person treated as a settlor or beneficiary of all or a portion of the trust, or any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust. The reference to any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust, at a minimum, will include the trustee and the protector as an Equity Interest Holder.1

Until the legal basis for this is made clear in the CRS treaty itself, it is considered that there is a reasonable basis for forming the opposite conclusion.

The new Commentary also provides further clarity on what reporting is required when an account is closed or a beneficiary removed:

Where an account is closed during the year, the fact of closure is reported (in addition to any distributions made prior to closure). A debt or Equity Interest in a trust could be considered to be closed, for example, where the debt is retired, or where a beneficiary is definitely removed.2

The other main amendments to the Commentary relate to the obligation to look through equity interest holders and controlling persons, which are themselves entities. Paragraph 256 has been amended to read:

Where an Equity Interest (such as the interest held by a settlor, beneficiary or any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust) is held by an Entity, the Equity Interest holder will instead be the Controlling Persons of that Entity. As such, the trust will be required to look through a settlor, trustee, protector or beneficiary that is an Entity to locate the relevant Controlling Person. This look through obligation should correspond to the obligation to identify the beneficial owner of a trust under domestic AML / KYC procedures.3

The new Commentary notes that, in looking through entities,

The Controlling Persons of Passive NFE are defined in the CRS as natural persons exercising control over the Entity. The CRS definition of the term Controlling Person corresponds to the term beneficial owner as set out in Recommendation 10 and the accompanying Interpretative Note of the 2012 FATF Recommendations.
The identity of beneficial owner of a legal person is defined as any natural person who ultimately has controlling ownership interest which is usually defined on the basis of a threshold. Footnote 30 to the Interpretative Note to Recommendation 10 of the 2012 FATF Recommendations (as printed in March 2012) gives an exemplary ownership threshold of 25%.

Although, earlier in the Commentary it notes that:

It is important to point out that the ownership threshold for legal persons of 25% that is specified in footnote 30 in the Interpretative Note to Recommendation 10 of the 2012 FATF Recommendations (as printed in March 2012) is only indicative.
Should the ownership structure analysis result in doubt as to whether the person(s) with the controlling ownership interest are the beneficial owners or where no natural person exercises control through ownership interest the analysis shall proceed to identifying any other natural person(s) exercising control of the legal person through other means. As a last resort, if none of the previously mentioned tests result in identification of the beneficial owner(s), the senior managing official(s) will be treated as the beneficial owner(s).

Various examples are given on how to look through entities. Unfortunately, the new Commentary does not cover more complex structures that had previously been raised with the OECD, such as where a purpose trust owns a private trust company.

ii Trust registers: implications of 5 AMLD and the meaning of 'control'

The key text for 5 AMLD was published in December 2017 and endorsed by a legislative resolution of the European Parliament on 19 April 2018. It was then adopted by the EU Council on 14 May 2018. On 19 June 2018, the text for 5 AMLD was then published in the Official Journal of the European Union. EU Member States must transpose 5 AMLD into their national law by 10 January 2020.

Enlarged scope of registration

4 AMLD limits the scope of trusts requiring registration on a domestic trust register in the relevant EU Member State to those that generate tax consequences; 5 AMLD widens this scope to all trusts that 'reside or are established' in the Member State concerned. It also applies to fiducie, treuhand or fideicomiso as well as to foundations (which fall within the concept of legal arrangements). In practice, in the case of trusts, this will be the place where the trustee resides and not referenced to the governing law of the trust itself.

Non-EU resident trusts: registration

There is a requirement for non-EU resident trusts to register in two instances. The proposed new Article 31(3a) of 5 AMLD, for a trust established or residing outside the European Union, reads:

Member States shall require that the beneficial ownership information of express trust and other types of legal arrangements when having a structure or functions similar to trusts shall be held in a central beneficial ownership register set up by the Member State where the trustee of the trust or similar legal arrangement is established or resides.
Where the place of establishment or residence of the trustee of the trust or similar legal arrangement is outside the Union, the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be held in a central register set up by the Member State where the trustee enters into a business relationship or acquires real estate4

On business relationships, the existing text of Article 3(13) of 4 AMLD, which is not amended by draft 5 AMLD, states: 'a business relationship means a business, professional or commercial relationship that is connected with the professional activities of an obliged entity and which is expected, at the time when the contact is established, to have an element of duration.'

It is unclear what these words mean in practice. In the broader sense, they could be taken to include sourcing professional advice from a counterparty in an EU Member State. It is understood that the intent at the time 4 AMLD was finalised was to focus on 'business trusts'. The European Union was informed at the time by STEP and other commentators that this expression did not have any well-established meaning given that the vast majority of business activity conducted in a trust context would, for reasons of liability protection, be conducted through the mechanism of underlying companies. It remains to be seen what sort of guidance will be provided on this topic. If given a wide meaning, it could mean any use of professional advisers for legal, tax accounting or investment advice within the EU could trigger a requirement to register.

So far as the acquisition of real estate is concerned, it would seem this is confined to situations of EU real estate held at the trust level alone and not where such real estate is held via an underlying entity.

The regulations make provision to allow a trust to provide evidence of registration in one Member State through a 'certificate of proof of registration or an excerpt . . . of the register' to avoid the need for duplicated registration.

Public access

5 AMLD allows for a modified form of public access to the trust register by 'persons who are able to demonstrate a legitimate interest with respect to money laundering, terrorist financing, and the associated predicate offences, such as corruption, tax crimes and fraud'.

At present, there is no clearly understood meaning as to what constitutes 'legitimate interest'. The implications of the 5 AMLD preamble are, however, that NGOs and investigative journalists with anti-corruption profiles should normally be seen as being able to assert a legitimate interest. This may well be a matter where different EU jurisdictions take a variety of approaches.

There is also a requirement to interlink the various EU registers by 2021, and a requirement to provide mechanisms for the verification of data. The absence of any verification mechanism to date has been seen as a major limiting factor in the utility of beneficial ownership registers. How this verification will be policed is unclear.

The qualified public access on the basis of legitimate interest needs to be contrasted with circumstances where full public access is proposed. This is in the case of use of a non-EU holding company by a trust that either resides in an EU Member State or, it would seem, becomes registrable as a result of an EU business relationship or holding of EU real estate as noted above.

Article 31(4) of 5 AMLD considers the situation for trusts owning a controlling interest in a non-EU company:

The central register shall ensure timely and unrestricted access by competent authorities and FIUs, without alerting the parties to the trust concerned. It may also allow timely access by obliged entities, within the framework of customer due diligence in accordance with Chapter II. Member States shall notify to the Commission the characteristics of those national mechanisms to ensure that the information on the beneficial ownership of a trust or a similar legal arrangement is accessible in all cases to:
  1. competent authorities and FIUs, without any restriction;
  2. obliged entities, within the framework of customer due diligence in accordance with Chapter II;
  3. any person or organisation that can demonstrate a legitimate interest;
  4. any person that files a written request in relation to a trust or similar legal arrangement which holds or owns a controlling interest in any corporate or other legal entity other than those referred to in Article 30(1), through direct or indirect ownership, including through bearer shareholdings, or through control via other means.5

Article 30(1) is the requirement for EU companies to maintain a public register of beneficial owners. Thus, for all non-EU companies, any person can, on written request, obtain information on an EU-resident trust that controls it. It is understood at this stage that privacy may be afforded to EEA-resident companies that maintain a public register. This would mean Liechtenstein companies may not fall within the scope of sub-paragraph (d) as it is an EEA member.

It is not clear how an individual would in the first instance learn of the existence of a trust in these circumstances. There is also no recognition in these rules that non-EU companies may be subject to any form of public beneficial ownership register in their own jurisdiction (given the UK's recent proposals to extend public registers of corporate entities to its overseas territories).

iii The UK's position: Brexit transition

A recent UK parliamentary report stated:

Although these dates all fall after the UK's projected exit from the EU in March 2019, it now appears likely the Government will agree to a post-Brexit transitional period during which EU law would continue to apply in the UK as if it were still a Member State. In those circumstances, the new AMLD would have to be implemented if its transposition dates occur within that period (which, considering the Prime Minister has said the transition is likely to be “around two years”, is likely to be the case for all three types of register).

It is therefore anticipated, given the imminent application of 5 AMLD, that the United Kingdom will be obliged to comply with it, at least during the transitional period. Given that the United Kingdom has also been within the vanguard of transparency initiatives with its European neighbours, it would be unsurprising if it continued to apply 5 AMLD in some form once the Brexit transition has concluded. Whether the public access component for trusts would be watered down remains to be seen. It is understood that the Labour Party advocates full public access to the UK trust register.

It is also unclear whether UK companies will be regarded as 'non-EU' for this purpose post-Brexit, but it is assumed they will be regarded as equivalent.

iv Meaning of 'control' in the context of EU trust registers

FATF 2012 Recommendations: Recommendations 10, 24 and 25 require trustees and financial institutions to identify 'the ownership and control structure of the customer'. I now turn to the two examples of trust registers in the EU that have been implemented under 4 AMLD, the forerunner to 5 AMLD. This throws an interesting light upon the extraordinary width of whom should be regarded as a beneficial owner in the context of a trust.

Section 5(2) of the UK's Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which came into force on 26 June 2017, require that trustees register:

  1. a settlor;
  2. trustees;
  3. named beneficiaries;
  4. beneficiaries who have received a distribution from the trust; and
  5. anyone who exercises 'ultimate control' over the management of the trust.

Section 2(1)(e) Malta's Trusts and Trustees Act (Register of Beneficial Owners) Regulations (the RBO Regulations), which came into force on 1 January 2018, require that trustees register:

  1. a settlor;
  2. trustees;
  3. named beneficiaries;
  4. a protector; and
  5. anyone exercising 'ultimate and effective control over the trust by any means', including any other person:
    • whose consent is to be obtained; or
    • whose direction is binding in terms of the terms of the trust instrument or of any other instrument in writing, for material actions to be taken by the trustee.

FATF 2012 Recommendation 10: financial institutions must identify 'any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust'.

In the context of the EU's 4 AMLD and the trust register, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have stated that 'control' means a power (whether exercisable alone, jointly with another person or with the consent of another person) under the trust instrument or by law to:

  1. dispose of, advance, lend, invest, pay or apply trust property;
  2. approve proposed trust distributions;
  3. vary or terminate the trust;
  4. add or remove a person as a beneficiary or to or from a class of beneficiaries;
  5. appoint or remove trustees or give another individual control over the trust; and
  6. direct, withhold consent to or veto the exercise of a power mentioned above.

In the context of the 4 AMLD and the beneficial ownership register for trusts, Malta's RBO Regulations have stated that 'control' means anyone exercising 'ultimate and effective control over the trust by any means', including any other person whose consent is to be obtained; or whose direction is binding in terms of the terms of the trust instrument or of any other instrument in writing, for material actions to be taken by the trustee.

The definition of 'material actions' means the following actions or any other actions achieving the same result:

  1. the amendment of the trust instrument;
  2. the addition or removal of any beneficiary, or any person from a class of beneficiaries, or any action affecting the entitlement of a beneficiary;
  3. the appointment or removal of trustees or protectors or to give another individual control over the trust;
  4. the acceptance of an additional settlor as may be applicable in terms of the terms of the trust instrument;
  5. the change of the proper law of the trust; and
  6. the assignment or transfer of all or most of the assets of the trust or the termination or revocation of the trust.

CRS imports into the concept of 'controlling persons' a direct link to the FATF defined terms of 'beneficial owners'. The CRS Commentary states at Paragraph 132:

Subparagraph D (6) sets forth the definition of the term 'Controlling Persons'. This term corresponds to the term 'beneficial owner' as described in Recommendation 10 and the Interpretative Note on Recommendation 10 of the Financial Action Task Force Recommendations (as adopted in February 2012), and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with such Recommendations, with the aim of protecting the international financial system from misuse including with respect to tax crimes.6

On this basis, it is highly likely that the expanded definition of control that is implicit in the UK and Maltese trust registers in an anti-money laundering context that flows from the FATF 2012 framework will, over time, result in more significant disclosure being required in a CRS tax information exchange context. This is an example of the aforementioned convergence theme (see Section I).

As a separate matter, the FATF has recently been reviewing the 2008 Guidance to Trust and Corporate Service Providers. It is possible that the amended text will also give more detailed guidance on the meaning of a 'natural person exercising effective control' in a trust context. This will have a direct impact on CRS reporting for trusts in the light of the linkage mentioned above in the CRS model treaty.

The significant extensions are most likely to impact influence exercised:

  1. by committees where, to date, it has been argued that no one individual can personally decide upon a course of action;
  2. in an indirect manner by a family individual who does not serve as a protector as such but instead has a power to appoint or remove protectors; and
  3. by those with negative 'veto' powers but without positive powers to decide upon specific matters that impact the relevant trust.

It could be timely, therefore, for advisers to consider whether current governance arrangements for the oversight of trusts are still 'fit for purpose' or not.

ii Conclusion

What can be said at this stage is that advisers must continue to keep themselves informed on the important changes to the regulatory and transparency arena. There is no sign that the pace of reform is slowing at this point, quite the opposite.

In the longer term, it remains to be seen whether the degree of transparency and attendant public disclosure that the EU has embraced will be adopted more widely in the rest of the developed world. It is clear that the United States has been much slower to adopt measures that override privacy in such a sweeping manner.


1 Emphasis added.

2 Emphasis added.

3 Emphasis added.

4 Emphasis added.

5 Emphasis added.

6 Emphasis added.