Wyoming DAO LLCs

Are you looking to form a DAO?

 

A decentralized autonomous organization, or a “DAO,” is a Blockchain based “organization” encoded as a transparent computer program, controlled by the organization members rather than by any outside entity or authority.

 

Without incorporating a DAO looks like a Club or Partnership ie an unincorporated association wherein each of the members is jointly and severally liable in the event that the DAO is successfully sued pr incurs some other liability.

 

In order to ensure that the members can avoid personal liability – and so that the liability of the group collectively might be Limited – it is submitted that the preferred legal structure for most DAOs would be to incorporate as a Company.

 

Why Incorporate a DAO LLC?

 

It is anticipated that most DAOs will want to incorporate as a Company. As things presently stand the Wyoming DAO LLC would appear to be the most flexible vehicle for such purposes.

 

A DAO LLC is a type of limited liability company (LLC) in which there is no single commanding body behind decisions. All decisions are made by majority vote by either those who have invested in the organization or through a computer algorithm, depending on the type of DAO. A DAO effectively runs itself based on a set of rules that are implemented upon its creation and then updated by either stakeholders of the organization or by an algorithm over time.

 

A DAO completes actions through a series of “smart contracts”, which are different from traditional legal contracts in that they exist and operate autonomously through the internet without need for manual human action. Despite this autonomy, there are still some actions a DAO cannot complete autonomously, for example some interactions with the legal system.

 

This autonomous action allows for a DAO system to operate outside of the administrative structure of a traditional organization. Instead of top-down management, every member has an equal part in deciding the action of the organization, or all management can be conducted by a computer program outside the control of the establishing party. In either case, no single person or party makes decisions within the DAO.

 

This has both advantages and disadvantages in the efficiency of decision making. Being more responsive to the needs of stakeholders is a common advantage when a DAO is managed by a group, but is often met with potential for less-informed and slower changes. When managed by an algorithm, it is possible for mistakes to be made that a human would not, but this often comes with the benefit of increased objectiveness and success-oriented action. It is important to note that although a DAO LLC is technically still an LLC, the operations of the two vary drastically in practice.

 

Creation of a DAO LLC

 

A DAO LLC is formed very similarly to a traditional LLC, with the primary difference being the two new steps of establishing the rules behind the DAO and funding the DAO prior to it becoming operational.

 

Establishing the rules involves deciding how the DAO will operate at the time of the formation and, although this can be changed later on, doing so often involves significant action from stakeholders.

 

Funding the DAO involves creating a token which represents and tracks the investments of stakeholders in the DAO, and is a way for stakeholders to participate in and influence the actions of the DAO.

 

DAO’s are not controlled by any single entity; although there must be an entity to create the DAO, this founder does not control the DAO after its creation. Although it is common for the founder of a DAO to participate in said DAO by contributing to the initial funding, this is not necessary. It is possible for a founder to create a DAO, but have no part in the management of said DAO following its creation.

 

Because DAO’s rely heavily on the initial ruleset implemented during formation, it is extremely important that the code behind this rule set is carefully written and that all potential bugs and security flaws are fixed before the system is deployed. Having a strong initial base for the DAO is essential to the success of the DAO moving forwards.

 

OCI Wyoming DAO LLC Formation Services

 

Decentralized autonomous organizations are completely legal, however as with all new technologies, DAO’s are subject to significant changes in regulation. Current Wyoming legislation under Bill-SF0038 (effective 07/01/2021) dictates that the management of a DAO LLC has many of the same requirements of traditional LLC’s, with some additional criteria for the more complex management structure and backend required for its operation.

 

A Wyoming DAO LLC can be formed quickly, correctly and inexpensively.  We charge $US1,500 and it includes the following:

  • Option To Select Member Managed or Algorithmically Managed Structure
  • Inclusion of Publicly Available Identifier of Any Smart Contract Directly Used to Manage, Facilitate, or Operate the DAO in Articles of Organization As Required by Law
  • Anonymous Filing of Articles of Organization Which Meet All Legal Requirements
  • For Member Managed DAO, Operating Agreement Which Meets All Legal Requirements
  • Resignation of Organizer Document
  • 1st Year of Registered Agent Services As Required By Wyoming Law
  • 5 Pieces of Mail Scanning
  • Free Use of Our Address

 

NOTE: This option should ONLY be used by seasoned blockchain entrepreneurs with prior experience creating DAOs and Smart Contracts who are seeking to add the protections of Wyoming limited liability protections.

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

How & Where To Set Up a DAO

A decentralized autonomous organization, or a “DAO,” is a Blockchain based “organization” encoded as a transparent computer program, controlled by the organization members rather than by any outside entity or authority.

 

Distributed-ledger technology is probably the most discussed innovation in the digital transformation of the economy and society. With features such as decentralization, reliability, and anti-counterfeiting, it opens up a broad field of innovative applications and completely new forms of cooperation.

 

Although developments often focus on payment systems and other financial instruments, large blockchain-based ecosystems and projects point to a development in which online groups coordinate at eye level and possibly pseudonymously, relying exclusively or entirely on software. These digitally resident/created decentralized organizations – that operate autonomously without traditional leadership and hierarchy – have come to be known as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs).

 

Prelim

 

A DAO is a Blockchain structure (like a secure database), that any member can leverage to self-govern through participation; A DAO sets rules – baked into code – and permits voting through digital tokens (a form of cryptocurrency) — all while leveraging smart contracts. Only that DAO’s Token holders have the power to vote.

 

In essence, a DAO allows groups of participants to create organizational forms beyond the hierarchical, top-down corporate firm (which must be responsive to the needs of a board and shareholders). DAOs essentially eliminate or minimize the roles of executives and managers in the organization, relying instead on transparent rules that apply to all members and participants

 

How does a DAO work?

 

The primary aim behind the creation of a DAO is to create a virtual entity to replace the central management of previous forms of organization. A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), is an organization, particularized by rules encoded as a computer program, that is transparent, and controlled by the organization members. In terms of decision making a DAO is, in effect, unable to be influenced by any outside party including any central government.

 

DAOs are particularly prevalent in the Ethereum blockchain ecosystem, combining ideas about organizational forms, coordination, network effects, blockchain, and smart contract technology. A DAO allows a group to organize around a mission or goal and to coordinate the mission via smart contracts, enforced immutably and autonomously on the blockchain. DAOs represent an evolution in how people coordinate with one another, as the organization itself is autonomous from any third party intermediary’s influence and goals.

 

The main reason a DAO is formed is to decentralize and automate the governance of an organization. The rules by which a DAO operates are encoded as a computer program that is accessible via the blockchain, and controlled by all of the organizing members, rather than by a central governing board. Since the blockchain is essentially a public record, the DAO seeks to provide total transparency, requiring that all of its financial transaction records be recorded by a public facing blockchain. There is no top-down hierarchal structure to a DAO; A DAO depends almost entirely on the operation of autonomous smart contracts to enliven the rules and carry out the decisions made by/within the organization.

 

Tokens

 

Typically, tokens (a random cryptocurrency) are used to govern a DAO, and provide voting and decision-making power to participants, with greater power being given to those with more tokens.

 

A DAO is in effect a cooperative association which has a stated purpose and a plan to execute decisions via code. (For example the intended purpose of a DAO could be to win a Sotheby’s auction and retain an original copy of the US Constitution). Also stipulated in the DAO is its governance — for example (if it wins the auction) where does the community want the document to be stored or displayed?

 

In effect a DAO is a new form of scalable, open, self-organized network that is coordinated by crypto-economic incentives as well as by self-executing code on the blockchain that enables the participants to achieve common goals.3

 

Forming a DAO as your core business structure provides for a number of advantages including:

 

  • making it easier to attract investors
  • limits short-termed speculation
  • allows for a democratic approach to asset management;

 

Business Structure

 

The precise legal status of this type of business organization (ia a/the DAO) is unclear.

 

Traditional business structures (eg Companies Limited by shares) are focussed on limiting liability in the event of commercial failure or law suits, perpetual succession and/or on providing tax benefits. The uncertainty surrounding the legal status of a typical DAO creates potential legal exposure, leaving open questions, such as, whether or not DAO owners are unlimitedly, directly and personally liable for all financial obligations, debts, and taxes incurred by the DAO, and/or in respect of legal action taken against the DAO.

 

Furthermore, it is not clear as to whether or not a DAO would even be legally recognized by a court of law. As such, if a court determines that a DAO is not a legally recognized business structure, then that DAO would simply be considered a general partnership, and all members of the DAO would share unlimited, direct personal liability to all debt and legal actions taken against the partnership.

 

Legal Status?

 

DAOs represent a unique opportunity and challenge today as they are rapidly evolving into a new class of organization. DAOs are reminiscent of cooperatives (co-ops) in many ways, albeit with an expanded set of abilities enabled by the decentralized and transparent nature of the blockchain combined with automatically executing smart contract logic. The transparency of DAOs is one of their main benefits, since all of the actions and funding in DAOs are viewable by anyone. This significantly reduces the risk of corruption and censorship. The transactions undergone by a DAO are individually visible at any time, whilst also protecting the anonymity of their members through cryptography.

 

DAOs also have low barriers of entry and exist in contrast to traditional hierarchical firms. While this can be a definite plus for fluidity and flexibility of DAO organization, it can also represent a unique challenge as successful DAOs need to have attractive incentivization structures and keep rent-seeking activities low to retain membership.

 

Flexibility

 

DAOs have a key differential in their structure from the hierarchical firm in that they are decentralized, consisting of many autonomous individuals and small teams that take responsibility for their own goals and determine their own forms of governance. Static job descriptions are replaced by a fluidity of roles, where members are allowed to opt in or out as they see fit. The fluidity of roles and ease of entering and exiting DAOs can be a large boon as well as a challenge.

 

Without the same structure as a firm locking people into certain roles, the game theoretic incentives that keep members participating become increasingly important. A DAO that does not end up structuring its smart contracts and coordination mechanisms in a way that incentivizes and benefits the members faces challenges from a DAO that has a more positive benefit structure for all of its members.

 

A crucial part of the structure within DAOs that helps with this issue are the autonomous groups that often form within it, to pursue objectives tangential and related to the overarching mission of the DAO. In many current DAOs, these small teams are often called “guilds,” reminiscent not only of medieval crafting associations, but from the squad-like entities born of modern massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs).

 

The gamification of interaction in DAOs is an important part of how DAOs function, as game theoretic incentives allow DAOs to build inner structures that reward members and encourage positive participation. These incentives also foster a sense of individual and cooperative ownership in the efforts that fulfill the objectives of the DAO. These incentives are not only in the positive feeling members get for participating and furthering the goals of an organization they participate and believe in, but there can also be direct financial incentives through ERC-20 tokens, or non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The renumeration isn’t always financial though, as the NFTs that a DAO generates for its activities or to reward members are often a key piece in establishing a communal identity within the overarching DAO itself.

 

The ability of members to decentralize and formulate rapidly executing autonomous groups within DAOs, while also adhering to the central mission of the DAO, allow powerful network effects to begin to accumulate, as a DAO itself becomes an organization of organizations. This is where DAOs begin to separate from traditional co-ops in definition (although not entirely), and the organization itself begins to become an aggregate entity that members not only participate ii, but actively vote on and govern to create maximally beneficial rules for the participants.

 

Smart Contracts

 

Crucial to how DAOs function are smart contracts, which, (for the purposes of this article), we will be focusing on within the context of the Ethereum Ecosystem.

 

A smart contract is a directly executing computer program on a blockchain that can represent many different things, from agreements between two persons, to guaranteed execution of funding proposals, to even complex governing structures that cannot be censored. In the context of DAOs, smart contracts enable the rules of how a DAO functions to be executed without interference, and without the necessity of including a trusted third party to make sure that agreements are carried out.

 

DAOs take advantage of this in many ways, including how members are automatically paid for their efforts, how proposals are voted on and enacted, and even how the agreements of the DAO are audited. All smart contracts will execute and are all available openly to be viewed on the blockchain. This powerful transparency takes us to a point where you simply cannot structure a DAO that has perverse incentives going against the best interests of the members, as they can simply view it in real time, and due to low switching costs, leave the DAO for more appealing opportunities.

 

It should also be noted that while many DAO’s are for-profit organizations, they also can be set up as non-profit organizations to aggregate capital and fund specific projects (environmental, charitable, housing, social, etc.) based on the votes of the members.

 

Bankless DAO

 

A prime example of a rapidly evolving DAO is Bankless DAO, formed as a decentralized community to “help the world go bankless.” This DAO aims to accomplish its mission by forming a decentralized community to coordinate together and “propagate bankless media, culture and education. Its goal is to drive adoption and awareness of truly bankless money systems like Ethereum, DeFi, and Bitcoin”.

 

The Bankless DAO works towards its key aim/s through the collective participation of its community; A native governance token allows members voting rights in proposals for the DAO and funds a community treasury for the pursuance of the goals of the Bankless DAO. Members are free to organize into guilds and pursue whatever sub-goals they see fit in accomplishing the main mission of the DAO. These autonomous groups within the overarching group are a key aspect of the organizational strength and evolving coordination abilities of how DAOs seek the accomplishment of their objectives.

 

Autonomy

 

DAOs are autonomous in the sense that they are unable to be corrupted by an outside groups objective, as the coordination and incentivization layer is the Blockchain that the DAO uses for coordinating its objectives. This is a critically important piece in the evolution of coordination, as third-party influences do not end up co-opting the goals of the DAO, and it remains “autonomous” in the sense that the DAO fulfills the accomplishment of whatever goals the members select without third party input or influence.

 

While DAOs at a high level represent an evolution in how human beings organize and coordinate, at a lower level they are simply an extension of many related web3 and blockchain technologies. Digital assets allow ownership of fungible and non-fungible goods to be tokenized. Besides the many cryptocurrencies we have seen rise over the past decade, lately there has been an explosion in NFTs ie Non-Fungible Tokens, (where each token is not a 1 to 1 exchange for another).

 

Importantly, participation in a DAO can be tokenized, and members granted voting rights and incentives based on what tokens they hold. As tokens are all smart contracts, the way DAOs are governed can be programmed and voted on by their participants. Smart contracts run immutably on the blockchain and are censorship resistant. This means that 3rd parties can’t arbitrarily change the rules to their benefit, and members can know that voting proposals within a DAO will execute autonomously of human intervention.

 

The Coordination Evolution

 

As an extension of the many different technologies humanity has been building for many decades, DAOs represent an evolution in coordination, and not a revolution. They represent simply an interesting and powerful new way for human beings to coordinate, and with that, a way to help solve many formerly intractable problems.

 

Many of the large-scale problems affecting humanity today are rooted in an inability for people interested in solving these problems to develop a proper way to coordinate effectively:-By the time interested people and parties are at a scale to effect change, many third parties have established themselves along the coordination layer and inserted their own needs (openly or not) that may come at the expense of the overall mission. DAOs offer an opportunity to change that dynamic and offer a chance at re-imagining how we group together with one another to solve problems.

 

This isn’t to say there aren’t problems facing DAOs, as in any emergent technology. Issues with long term member retention, gamified participation (that can itself be gamed by bots), benefits for members, governance structures, legal compliance, recruiting, talent retainment, income volatility, and voting are all open issues many DAOs and their members are actively experiencing and attempting to solve.

 

DAOs are rapidly expanding in the Ethereum blockchain ecosystem, and are being experimented with, used, built, and iterated on in real time. Regardless of the current problems, DAOs have the potential to empower groups to solve problems, coordinate, and execute ideas in a way that may be increasingly necessary to solve entrenched 21st century problems. Moreover, the creation of DAOs as a coordination structure represent an important evolution in how people can democratically coordinate on their own terms to achieve objectives they choose. This of itself represents an important piece of humanity’s own evolution and may indeed play a part in resolving many of the current challenges we face today.

 

Organizational Structure

 

DAOs have no leaders, board members or operations beyond what is mutually agreed upon by members in the smart contracts which govern the operation of a DAO. These software enforced rules can cover any aspect of operations, but usually relate to a treasury of digital assets held by the DAO and deployed in grants. No one person can control, profit or endanger the organisation as the model seeks to create a genuine distribution of power among members.

 

With lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses have been forced to adapt, realising the potential for at home work, and greater digital based collaboration. Global manufacturing, loans and peer-to-peer goods/services could make find improvements to their business models using DAO elements.

 

The Way Forward?

 

Being an emergent technology, DAOs are rapidly expanding in the Ethereum blockchain ecosystem, and are being experimented with, used, built, and iterated on in real time. There are many unsolved problems with DAOs, particularly around issues involving legal compliance, benefits, recruiting, talent retainment, income volatility, and governance. Regardless of the current problems, DAOs have the potential to empower groups to solve problems, coordinate, and execute ideas in a way that may be increasingly necessary to solve entrenched 21st century problems.

 

DAOs represent a unique opportunity and challenge today as they are rapidly evolving into a new class of organization. DAOs are reminiscent of cooperatives (co-ops) in many ways, albeit with an expanded set of abilities enabled by the decentralized and transparent nature of the blockchain combined with automatically executing smart contract logic. The transparency of DAOs is one of their main benefits, “since all of the actions and funding in DAOs are viewable by anyone. This significantly reduces the risk of corruption and censorship.The transactions undergone by a DAO are individually visible at any time, while also protecting the anonymity of their members through cryptography.

 

DAOs also have low barriers of entry and exist in contrast to traditional hierarchical firms. While this can be a definite plus for fluidity and flexibility of DAO organization, it can also represent a unique challenge as successful DAOs need to have attractive incentivization structures and keep rent-seeking activities low to retain membership.

 

More Examples

 

What are some current examples of DAOs? DAOs currently active include MakerDAO, MolochDAO, BanklessDAO, Raid Guild, and MetaFactory. These DAOs all have different purposes, from governing the issuance of funds against crypto collateral, funding grant proposals for different projects (MolochDAO), being a collective of guilds that members vote on to decide different objectives (BanklessDAO), undergoing collective development projects (RaidGuild), and organizing around fashion and culture that creator members produce (MetaFactory). This is only a small snapshot of DAOs, and many more are being created by the day. Another important point is that while many DAO’s are for-profit organizations, they also can be set up as non-profit organizations to aggregate capital and fund specific projects (environmental, charitable, housing, social, etc.) based on the votes of the members.

 

An example of a very successful DAO is action is MakerDAO. MakerDAO is the governance structure of the Maker protocol. The Maker protocol “allows anyone, anywhere to generate the Dai stable going against crypto collateral assets.” The Maker DAO employs a two-token system, one being the Dai stablecoin, and MKR, the governance token used by stakeholders to vote on proposals and manage the Dai stablecoin and how it is implemented. MKR token holders are the decision makers of the Maker protocol. Token holders vote to decide on different policies governing the DAI stablecoin, including the “stability, transparency, and efficiency” of the stablecoin. The DAO governs the protocol, and the incentives of the token holders ensure that policies benefit all who use MakerDAO, as there is an incentive to coordinate the best policies for all token holders.

 

The Constitution DAO

 

As alluded to above, a collective formed a little while back to bid at auction for one of the last remaining original copies of the American Constitution. Had the ConstitutionDAO won the auction,  questions of governance would have been proposed, and the individuals who own the requisite digital tokens in their wallets, could have then voted. Indeed, individuals now can create wallets to store tokens or cryptocurrency that not only allows them to own digital assets like cryptocurrency, digital art (NFTs), or land in the Metaverse, but also sign or vote on a topic that a DAO has offered. (They must own those specific DAO tokens in their wallet in order to vote.) These wallets are the future of identity, asset ownership, and your ability to prove something, vote, or sign agreements.

 

ConstitutionDAO started with the idea that the general population could own a copy of the Constitution. They gave themselves six days to raise the high end of the projected winning auction, $20 million; and at the time of this writing, 7,500 people had contributed to this DAO, at a sum of well over $40 million, blowing past the original goal. (Since ConstitutionDAO did not win the auction, all funds will be returned to those who donated them.)

 

If anyone wishes to participate in a DAO, you first must purchase tokens, which typically gives voting rights that will allow the owner to guide what that organization does in conjunction with the rest of the community that also owns the tokens. We may also see DAOs using factional ownership of an asset — for example, a Picasso painting, London Bridge, or the Empire State Building. In this instance you have the ability to influence decisions, but you also have a partial ownership of the underlining asset as it appreciates or depreciates.

 

Kinship groups, tribes, armies, churches, and modern firms (profit and non-profit) are all types of organizations that have evolved legally and in business to coordinate increasingly complex human interactions, goals, and projects. DAOs are what is referred to in the book “Reinventing Organizations” as a “Teal Organization,” or an “organization as an independent force with its own purpose, and not merely as a vehicle for achieving management’s objectives. Teal organizations are characterized by self-organization and self-management.” DAOs are autonomous in the sense that they are autonomous from an outside groups objective, as the coordination and incentivization layer is the blockchain the DAO uses for coordinating its objectives. This is a critically important piece in the evolution of coordination, as third-party influences do not end up co-opting the goals of the DAO, and it remains “autonomous” in the sense that the DAO fulfills the accomplishment of whatever goals the members select without third party input or influence.

 

While DAOs at a high level represent an evolution in how human beings organize and coordinate, at a lower level they are simply an extension of many related web3 and blockchain technologies. Digital assets allow ownership of fungible and non-fungible goods to be tokenized. Besides the many cryptocurrencies we have seen rise over the past decade, lately there has been an explosion in Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT)s, simply meaning that each token is not a 1 to 1 exchange for another. Importantly, participation in a DAO can be tokenized, and members granted voting rights and incentives based on what tokens they hold. As tokens are all smart contracts, the way DAOs are governed can be programmed and voted on by their participants. Smart contracts run immutably on the blockchain and are censorship resistant. This means that 3rd parties can’t arbitrarily change the rules to their benefit, and members can know that voting proposals within a DAO will execute autonomously of human intervention.

 

Improved Inter-Communications

 

Many of the large-scale problems affecting humanity today are rooted in an inability for people interested in solving these problems to develop a proper way to coordinate effectively. By the time interested people and parties are at a scale to effect change, many third parties have established themselves along the coordination layer and inserted their own needs (openly or not) that may come at the expense of the overall mission. DAOs offer an opportunity to change that dynamic and offer a chance at re-imagining how we group together with one another to solve problems.

 

Legal Framework

 

Without legal protection, those operating within a DAO may be considered to be in a general partnership or some form of unincorporated association.

 

This means that where one member to the DAO commits a wrong, the other members, while perhaps being entirely innocent, could be liable at law. Pinpointing which individual is responsible for a wrongdoing could be a potential issue particularly given the lack of legal regulation and the way in which blockchain systems operate.

 

Since the DAO model first emerged, the series of benefits that an organisation without a centralised controller could provide has been recognised. But the unique features of a DAO also means that hitherto DAOs have operated without a specific legal framework and, as a result, do not have any legal personality at law.

 

Without such a framework the legal ownership of assets controlled by a DAO remains unclear; A DAO can look a lot like a general partnership or unincorporated association, exposing its stakeholders to personal liability for any debts or legal actions against a member of the DAO. These are core issues which need to be resolved by law so that emerging types of blockchain-based organisations can operate effectively in the countries wherein the members are based or intend to pursue objectives.

 

The Beginnings of Legal Recognition

 

In April of 2021, the progressive American State of Wyoming (the birthplace of the LLC ie a Company/Partnership hybrid that can enable tax to be avoided at a/the Corporate level) made headlines when its legislature approved a first-of-its-kind bill that determined individuals and organisations in the blockchain industry can create a legally recognised Decentralized Autonomous Organisation (DAO) in Wyoming. If countries are spurred to play catch-up and enact their own DAO related laws, the new type of organisation may no longer need to be viewed as a risky experiment but a possible corporate option.

 

Since the DAO model first emerged, the series of benefits that an organisation without a centralised controller could provide has been recognised. But the unique features of a DAO has also meant that they operate without a specific legal framework and, as a result, are not given any legal personality at law.

 

Without these protections the legal ownership of assets controlled by a DAO has been unclear, and a DAO can look a lot like a general partnership or unincorporated association, exposing its stakeholders to personal liability for any debts or legal actions against a member of the DAO. These are the core issues which need to be resolved by a DAO law so that emerging types of blockchain-based organisations can operate effectively.

 

The Wyoming Solution

 

Much like the DAO model law proposed by the Coalition Of Automated Legal Applications (COALA), the Wyoming law (see Wyoming’s DAO law ) attempts to resolve the above-referred issues. At a high-level, the Wyoming law prohibits lawsuits against DAOs as general partnerships and enforces the rights of DAOs as legal persons in state court to protect individual DAO members. As a result, the law extends traditional legal protections to DAO members in aims to minimise the risk of DAO members being held personally liable by a DAO.

 

That’s not to say the new law has been free of criticisms. Since Wyoming’s recognition of DAOs, there have been some strong opinions shared on the law, including questions about the additional and allegedly unnecessary burdens it creates for DAOs, an “unsound definition of smart contracts” as a form of a constituent company document, and the law’s lack of significant guidance for the ways in which a DAO company in Wyoming practically differs from a traditional company in Wyoming. The discourse is all useful for any jurisdiction that may wish to follow Wyoming in formulating a DAO Legal structure.

 

Comments from US lawyers note the approach of Wyoming’s DAO legislation is to give maximum effect to the freedom of contract principle, including by waiving the fiduciary duties of DAO members by default. Under the new law, while members of traditional Wyoming companies still owe fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company and other members, DAO members participating in a DAO company are only subject to an implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

The Wyoming DAO Company Law – Details

 

The Wyoming DAO recognition law is a supplement to the existing LLC Law, which was notably the first in the nation. The law allows the creation of DAOs as limited liability companies, conferring legal status and identity on such entities for the first time.

 

As a supplement to the LLC Law, the DAO Supplement is viewed as providing exceptional coverage for DAOs, but the rest of the LLC Law applies to them, where not specifically carved out. The technical requirements include using DAO, LAO, or DAO LLC in the name of the organization to distinguish it from current LLC usages. The Article of Organization must include a specific notice to alert all potential members that the DAO may eliminate fiduciary duties and restrict transfers of ownership interests, withdrawal, or resignation from the DAO, return of capital contributions and dissolution of the DAO.

 

The Articles of Organization, or alternatively, the Operating Agreement of the DAO, must indicate whether it will be member-managed, with at least one person who is a member in order to conduct the business of the DAO LLC, because management shall be vested in its members. The Articles of Organization will govern a range of activities generally undertaken by corporations, including: members’ rights, duties, relations, voting rights, DAO activities and how they will be conducted, means of amending the articles or operating agreement, distributions to members, transferability of membership interests, withdrawals of members and their contributions, dissolution and distribution to members upon dissolution, procedures for amending, updating, editing or changing applicable smart contracts, and a publicly available identifier for any smart contact used to manage, facilitate or operate the DAO. Much of the information necessary to operate the DAO will be available in the white paper of the entity creating the DAO and publicizing its advantages to potential members.

 

Alternatively, the DAO may be “algorithmically-managed”, by the underlying smart contract without human intervention. It is not necessary for the DAO to reveal the workings of the smart contract(s) used for transacting the business of the DAO, but the law requires that the underlying smart contracts must be “able to be updated, modified or otherwise upgraded.” This requirement can work a hardship on many DAOs, because one of the main attractions of using blockchain and smart contracts is that the record is immutable, so having the contracts readily modified is not really possible without an entirely new contract to replace the prior version.

 

Potential members should be aware that the law specifically precludes rights of inspection of records because transactions will be transparent on the blockchain and therefore there is no need for additional documentary transparency. “Open blockchain” means a blockchain as defined in W.S. 34-29-106(g)(i) that is publicly accessible, and its ledger of transactions is transparent;”

 

The Usefulness of the DAO Supplement

 

The DAO Supplement anticipates that DAOs will be used to transact business using digital assets, which are defined as “a representation of economic, proprietary or access rights that is stored in a computer readable format and is either a digital consumer asset, digital security or virtual currency;” or digital consumer security, defined as “a digital asset that is used or bought primarily for consumptive, personal or household purposes and includes:(A) An open blockchain token constituting intangible personal property as otherwise provided by law;(B) Any other digital asset which does not fall within paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of this subsection.

 

Wyoming has enacted a Digital Identity statute that provides some additional support for the use of DAOs under the DAO Supplement. The state legislation can be used in a complementary manner to enable the creation of a DAO with members using digital identities and even to undertake limited in-state crowdfunding efforts to create the treasury needed to support the projects the DAO undertakes. No other jurisdiction has combined these approaches in such a complementary fashion.

 

The future of DAOs?

 

As has been noted, DAOs have the potential to become the future of businesses or organizational structures not only in the Metaverse, but in the real world. At the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2021 Emerging Legal Technology Forum, a Lawyer colleague sat on a panel discussing the evolution of blockchain and tossed out a prediction that a DAO will own a major sporting franchise within the next four years. The comment was received with a collective gasp in the room. Imagine the ability for you and others to vote on which players the New York Giants pro football team acquires… yet, by owning tokens of the NYGiantsDAO or whatever it may come to be named, you in combination with others who own said tokens could vote to acquire the next greatest player or even possibly vote on who to bench in the next game. The implications are profound.

 

The sums of money that DAOs will raise likely will be staggering, such that they could overwhelm current ownership models with a flood of money from massive numbers of private individuals interested in participating. We have seen this with ConstitutionDAO now having raised more than $40 million and counting in just six days.

 

DAOs in Every day Life

 

Here is one simple example of a DAO translated into real life. Think about the interaction you have with a vending machine. In essence, it is a legal contract that you are entering. You approach the machine in your breakroom, and it takes your money via credit card. You choose your confectionery, and the machine dispenses the snack. As a DAO, it uses that money to re-order more Snickers or Mars bars, when it knows that that row is nearly empty. It can also order cleaning services and pay the rent all by itself. As you put money into that machine, you and its other users have a say in which snacks it will order and how often it should be cleaned. Ultimately, it has no managers, and all of those processes were pre-written into its code.

 

Most initial DAOs will have a board or controlling entity, of course, but they will use code and voting rights-governing models to establish equitable means of responsibility and decision-making. However, ultimately it is a system whereby the code could be fully autonomous, meaning a business could be established and run nearly or completely autonomously.

 

Decentralized Finance

 

In the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) space, many of the exchanges are code-based executions of asset swapping or purchases of assets like cryptocurrency or synthetic assets that mirror stocks. These organizations are increasingly DAO-centric and will eventually not have much human intervention, because much of its operations should be programmed into the organizational structure, only needing tweaks of code voted on by the DAO members.

 

DAOs are the future of organizations. They will create an amazing world of possibilities, but simultaneously disrupt many structures we currently have in place now. On the legal side, there is incredible opportunity for Lawyers in both transactional practice areas as well as the eventual litigation side of the business. When regulation comes, it will be fascinating to watch how Lawyers embrace and adapt to this decentralized model with the current lens.

 

Compliance

 

What will be the Finance/Securities Regulators approach be to regulating DAOs? On the one hand, if a DAO is about trading different types of cryptocurrencies, no doubt it will be regulated because of the close similarities to equity investment vehicles or exchanges. On the other hand, many DAOs will not necessarily be about the value of the tokens used to transact business of the DAO, but more about how to deploy resources to more efficiently work cooperatively to achieve a goal that the members of the DAO agree is something they want accomplished.

 

What Does Compliance Look Like for DAOs?

 

Key regulatory authorities have begun to identify the prime characteristics of anti-money laundering (AML) programs that will be acceptable. “An AML Program will in most cases need to include, at a minimum:

 

  • policies, procedures, and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the provisions of the BSA and its implementing regulations;
  • independent testing for compliance;
  • designation of an individual or individuals responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls; and
  • ongoing training for appropriate persons.

 

Rules for some financial institutions refer to additional elements of an AML Program, such as appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence.”

At a minimum, smart contracts will probably have to bake into the code some aspects of this list in order to become more widely acceptable and useful to businesses and individuals seeking to employ these new technologies seamlessly.

 

How to Make a DAO Work

 

One of the most promising benefits of DAOs is the low barrier to entry for individuals and small businesses who otherwise are not participating in the stock market, banking, and lending, or making their services or goods available to broader markets. The possibility of greater inclusion and grouping of like-minded individuals to undertake projects for the common good of the group is something new and inherently more democratic than most existing organizations.

 

Being internet-native organizations, DAOs have several advantages over traditional organizations. One significant advantage of DAOs is the lack of trust needed between two parties. While a traditional organization requires a lot of trust in the people behind it — especially on behalf of investors — with DAOs, only the code needs to be trusted. Trusting that code is easier to do as it’s publicly available and can be extensively tested before launch. Every action a DAO takes after being launched has to be approved by the community and is completely transparent and verifiable. Such an organization has no hierarchical structure. Yet, it can still accomplish tasks and grow while being controlled by stakeholders via its native token.

 

The lack of a hierarchy means any stakeholder can put forward an innovative idea that the entire group will consider and improve upon. Internal disputes are often easily solved through the voting system, in line with the pre-written rules in the smart contract. By allowing investors to pool funds, DAOs also give them a chance to invest in early-stage startups and decentralized projects while sharing the risk or any profits that may come out of them.

 

DAOs solve the principal-agent dilemma through community governance. Stakeholders aren’t forced to join a DAO and only do so after understanding the rules that govern it. They don’t need to trust any agent acting on their behalf and instead work as part of a group whose incentives are aligned. Token holders’ interests align as the nature of a DAO incentivizes them not to be malicious. Since they have a stake in the network, they will want to see it succeed. Acting against it would be acting against their self-interests.

 

In summary, DAOs provide an inherently evolutionary means to create organizations on a cooperative, democratic, and unbiased basis to accomplish goals held in common by the members and displayed transparently in the smart contracts underlying the operation of the DAO. While some DAOs may be engaged in investment activities that warrant supervision by the SEC and CFTC and their equivalents, many will certainly have other goals that could well permit regulation as cooperative associations in which the members manage and control the organization in a non-hierarchical manner and the sharing of profits or dividends is equitable and democratically governed.

 

Legal structures for DAOs

 

Currently, many DAOs are not established as legal entities, potentially exposing their members to a number of risks and liabilities. That said there a number of legal personalities that could be applied to and/or be used as a protective coating for the average DAO. Let’s consider the options…

 

Option 1: DAOs without a registered legal entity

 

The first option, commonly seen throughout the DeFi- Ecosystem, is to not set up a legal entity at all but rather, to try and create a fully decentralized structure. This does not mean, that DAOs without a registered legal entity operate outside the law. In most jurisdictions, they will be seen as general partnerships with the corresponding legal consequences. This most significant one is the risk of the personal liability of every participant. But this means also the DAO has a legal personality and can in most jurisdictions legally own assets and also employ people. In such a case, although the participants did not register the DAO, they created a fully recognized legal entity in most jurisdictions that can sue and can be sued. This is often misunderstood.

 

Although this bears significant risks, as mentioned, this structure also takes advantage of regulatory arbitrage in certain areas. If there is no central entity involved and the project is truly decentralized – and is launched anonymously – legal enforcement becomes challenging. Even the US SEC has acknowledged, that the greater a project’s decentralization, the less likely the underlying tokens would be considered securities.8

 

Moreover, regarding international private law, finding the applicable law and the responsible regulatory authority can be quite challenging in the case of a fully decentralized DAO. Because in the case of DAOs with economic interests, the cooperation agreement between the participants is sufficiently consolidated under conflict of laws, so that the connecting rules of international company law have to be applied.

 

If no explicit choice of law is made, the rules of international company law reach their limits in the case of DAOs. This is because, unlike traditional software applications that reside on a specific server under the control of an operator assigned to a specific jurisdiction, DAOs run on every node of a blockchain – everywhere and nowhere… And unlike traditional organizations – which are run by individuals living in distinct and identifiable territories – DAOs typically are collectively managed by a distributed network of peers who contribute to the underlying blockchain-based network from anywhere in the world. Consequently, a decentralized blockchain network, like a DAO, is fundamentally opposed to the traditional International Private Laws search for the cartographic center, since no spatial center of gravity can be determined!

 

The traditional theories to determine the jurisdiction for companies in most jurisdictions are linked either to the place of incorporation or to the administrative center. In the case of a DAO, these theories have little application, because typically neither of these places can be determined.

 

In addition to the above referred situs conundrum, other historical reference points also have limited application to DAOs. For example, the assets of a DAO can be, if consisting only in digital currency (as if often the case), spread all over the world. For that reason, the principle Lex loci rei sitae (law of the place where the property is situated) cannot be implemented.

 

A conceivable solution would be in some cases to determine the applicable law on the ground of jurisdiction of the other contractual party if the place can be identified and a contract in the legal sense exists. But this solution does not help with determining the legal status of a DAO in the first place.

 

Finally, it would be possible to always rely on the Lex Fori principle. This means the positive law of the state, nation, or jurisdiction within which a lawsuit is instituted or remedy sought. Apart from the legal-theoretical concerns, which the lex fori brings with it, the application also runs counter to considerable practical considerations due to the concept of the DAO. For example, it may be necessary for litigants to bring actions in several jurisdictions in order to obtain legal protection, meaning a law suit against a DAO may become very impracticable from an economic point of view.

 

As a consequence, it is quite difficult to determine the applicable law for DAOs and thus the competent jurisdiction and regulatory authorities, which also makes enforcement of law very difficult. Determining whether a project is sufficiently decentralized to avoid scrutiny from regulatory authorities for the unregistered sale of securities is a highly nuanced and complex process. No single factor is determinative and the regulatory authorities will look at the totality of the circumstances in making this determination. Therefore, if you are looking to launching a DAO and are concerned that the governing Tokens might be considered a “Security” it is strongly recommended that you reach out to regulatory authorities for guidance and also seek legal advice pre launch.

 

Option 2: Setting up a DAO with a liability wrapper or as a DAO LLC

 

The second option is setting up a DAO with a liability wrapper, which protects its members. This is an interesting option, especially for organizations willing to operate within the United States and give up some kind of decentralization. Within the US, you have a few options for which state to incorporate in.

 

Model Blockchain-Based Limited Liability Company (BBLLC) Vermont and Delaware LLC

 

The first step in this direction in Anglo-American law has already been taken. In 2018 US state of Vermont pass a law making it possible to establish a so-called Blockchain-Based Limited Liability Company (BBLLC) in Vermont. This opened up the possibility of establishing a limited liability DAO for the first time.  For this purpose, a Blockchain-Based Limited Liability Company (BBLLC) was registered in Vermont after the deployment of the DAO on the Ethereum Blockchain by dOrg. By linking the DAO to this BBLLC, the DAO has an official legal status that allows it to enter into contractual agreements and offer liability protection to participants. The BBLLC enables full governance via the blockchain and using smart contracts.

 

OpenLaw in the U.S. state of Delaware is also taking a similar approach by establishing the LAO (Legal DAO). The LAO provides a legal structure to allow members to invest in blockchain-based projects in exchange for tokenized shares or utility tokens.  This structure is called a “legal wrapper,” which is created by structuring the DAO as an LLC to hold the company responsible for contracts, taxes, and violations of law, but not the individuals acting on behalf of that company. The goal of the LAO is to limit the liability of the participants, provide clarity on the applicable law, and provide tax benefits (flowthrough/single taxation).

 

Option 3: Model Wyoming Decentralized Autonomous Organization Supplement DAO LLC

 

On April 21, 2021, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed Bill 38, which allows Wyoming to recognize decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as Limited Liability Companies (LLCs). The new law is essentially an amendment to the current Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act. Under the provisions of the Act, a DAO is defined as a limited liability company whose articles of incorporation include a statement that the company is a DAO. Concerning decision-making in a DAO, the notion of a majority of members is also concretized. Namely as the approval of more than fifty percent (50%) of the participating member interests in a vote in which a quorum of 4 members participates.

 

It is also interesting to note that a membership interest is determined as a member’s ownership share in a member-led decentralized autonomous organization, which may be defined in the entity’s charter, smart contract, or operating agreement. The use of the term “ownership share” indicates a corporate reference and thus also suggests a classification as a security, even though this is not explicitly addressed in the bill.

 

The second part then determines the scope of application of the Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act to DAOs.  In addition to a new formation, an existing LLC may also be converted into a DAO by amending its articles of organization to include the same statement. The DAO’s registered name would also have to include the appropriate designation, such as “DAO,” “LAO” (Limited Liability Autonomous Organization), or “DAO LLC”.20

 

Additionally, all Wyoming DAO LLCs must have a disclaimer in their articles of incorporation that the rights within this form of organization may differ materially from the rights in traditional LLCs, particularly for membership rights. The articles of organization filed with the Secretary of State for registration must also describe the structure of the DAO as either a member-managed DAO or an algorithmically managed DAO.  If this is not specified, it is assumed to be a member-managed DAO; This shows that the Wyoming legislature also distinguishes between different levels of automation of DAOs and their design.

 

Furthermore, the Wyoming DAO LLC law specifies that an algorithmically managed DAO may only be formed “if the underlying smart contracts can be updated, modified, or otherwise upgraded”. This is presumably intended to guarantee the controllability of DAOs in light of future technological advances.26

 

For the DAO formation process, the law states that any person may form a decentralized autonomous organization, which shall have one or more members, by signing and submitting an original and an exact or adapted copy of the articles of incorporation to the Secretary of State for filing.  Each such DAO must have and continuously maintain a registered agent in this state of Wyoming, as also provided in the Wyoming Company Act.28

 

In addition to the requirements above, the articles of incorporation must include a publicly available identifier of each smart contract used directly to manage, facilitate, or operate the DAO. A DAO may be established and operated for any lawful purpose, regardless of whether it is for profit.

 

Moreover, it specifies what, at a minimum, must be regulated in the DAO’s bylaws, namely the relationships among its members and between the members and the DAO as a society itself.

 

While this formal legal framework is a step forward for the crypto industry and solves the problem of member liability, the new law does not address other fundamental issues. For example it is unclear whether DAO members are granted the right to act on behalf of the DAO and legally bind it; rather, it requires that this be clarified in the bylaws. Concerning necessary legal certainty, a statutory regulation would be desirable, at least for those cases in which this is unclear. It is also not clear who is responsible for updating the underlying smart contracts in the case of algorithmically managed DAOs.

 

Finally, fundamental questions regarding the regulatory classification of DAOs and DAO Tokens are unclear. Firstly, depending on its activity, a DAO could be considered an “investment company” meaning (depending on where its members are located) it would then have to comply with the disclosure requirements and investment restrictions set forth by law in the Member’s home jurisdiction.

 

Secondly, it is possible that the tokens issued by the DAO as a form of membership interest could be classified as a Security under the applicable law of the Member’s home jurisdiction/s. Certainly where American members are involved this is likely to be the case for most for-profit DAOs following the SEC’s decision in the case of the DAO. (Based on the investigation in that case, and under the facts presented, the Commission determined that The DAO Tokens are securities under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

DAO LLCs Summary

 

The option of using a liability wrapper is probably the best option for most DAOs, particularly those looking for the most legal certainty and safety (and for those who are willing to comply with all the necessary regulations and provisions of the different Member jurisdictions). Also, as mentioned, if the DAO decides to give out the Token it needs to be carefully looked at, because in most cases it will be qualified as a security with the corresponding legal necessities (prospect, registration with the local SEC, etc.)

 

Within the different options in Vermont, Delaware and Wyoming, the choice depends on every individual case and the goals of the DAO and its community. While Wyoming’s law is most true to the DAO structure, it also requires the most information and paperwork. By way of comparison in Delaware, the setup of the LLC is quite fast and cheap and provides a lot of flexibility. But it also requires that every Member of the DAO needs to be a member of the LLC and each time a member changes this would need to be updated. To go into too much detail here which states fit which structure would go beyond the scope of this paper, and require legal advice in each case, but in summary, the option of a US LLC is particularly suitable for projects that want the greatest security and are willing to comply with the numerous legal requirements.

 

Option 3: Setting up a DAO as a Foundation

 

A foundation with legal capacity under private law is an organization set up by one or more founders to permanently fulfill a purpose defined by the founder with the help of the assets dedicated to the foundation.  In this respect, a Foundation format could be considered to pack DAOs into a legal construct.

 

General Structure

 

In principle, certain parallels between blockchain organizations and Foundation law can be clearly seen. The immutability principle, which is intrinsic to a Blockchain and on which trust in it is based, is similarly found in the solidification principle under Foundation law.  This principle states that it is not possible to update the founder’s intentions after the foundation has been established.  In both cases, changes are only possible under increased conditions.

 

In addition, the aspect of autonomy proves to be fundamental both in the legal form of a foundation and in a blockchain-based organization. Foundation autonomy enables the foundation to develop a life of its own over time. It can be completely detached from the founder, which is still tied to the purpose of the foundation and thus to the founder’s will, but whose existence is no longer at the disposal of the foundation’s participants.

 

This autonomous dynamic is a core component of a blockchain-based DAO, whose goal is to act independently and autonomously from the original developers according to the previously determined code. In this respect, DAOs open up the possibility of extending and permanently consolidating the degree of independence of foundations, which is limited by the legal framework.

 

That said, it is questionable whether DAOs can be established and operated without problems within the current legal limits of the typical Foundation. The general view is that the purpose, assets and organization of a foundation are the three essential elements of the concept of a foundation.

 

While the foundation purpose can be determined by an initiator given the diverse possibilities of DAOs, some issues open up with regard to the foundation assets and the legal structure. Firstly, in some jurisdictions, it is questionable whether virtual goods, which will regularly be the case in the form of tokens in DAOs, are suitable foundation assets. The line is drawn insofar as, according to the requirement of proper asset management, the foundation assets cannot consist exclusively of highly speculative components.

 

In addition, in many jurisdictions, the organization of foundations raises practical challenges for a DAO. In almost all jurisdictions, the organization of a foundation requires a board of Councillors (the Foundation equivalent of a board of Directors in the case of a Company), which represents the foundation as a management body in legal transactions (most jurisdictions will allow for a Foundation to be established with as little as one Councillor). Finding a board of Councillors can be difficult for DAOs with the goal of full decentralization. However, if this requirement can be fulfilled, there are some good possibilities to structure a DAO as a foundation and it has already been used by different projects in the past.

 

Swiss Foundation and the Cayman Islands Foundation Company

 

The most used jurisdictions are Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Switzerland provides in comparison to other European jurisdictions a more flexible foundation model with a relatively easy setup and a quite moderate taxation.

 

Regarding the Cayman Islands, this is also a jurisdiction, which a lot of crypto projects choose, with reasonable reasons behind it. Especially the legal structure of a so-called “Foundation company” is very interesting, which was introduced as a new structure by law 2017.

 

The Caymans foundation company is a remarkably flexible vehicle that operates like an incorporated trust, allowing it to function like a civil-law foundation or common-law trust while retaining the separate legal personality and limited liability of a company and tax neutrality. The foundation company also can designate beneficiaries, which will not be treated as a beneficiary under a legal or common-law trust arrangement.  The reason is, that the starting position under the Law is that a designated beneficiary has no rights or powers against the foundation company, only those expressly stated by the foundation company. Moreover, a foundation company does not need to maintain a register of its beneficiaries with their legal names under the Law. It can designate beneficiaries by class of persons for example as “token holders” or “node operators “and also reward those beneficiaries according to that class. Although anti-money laundering considerations always need to be kept in mind this could be useful for DAOs where the DAO intends to undertake distributions, airdrops of tokens, or other rewards to the DAO community.

 

The Foundation Option – Conclusion

 

Fully decentralized DAOs may have difficulties setting up as a Foundation given the legal boundaries. But attention should also be drawn to the many parallels between DAOs and the foundation structure, such as the high degree of autonomy and the permanent perpetuation so that corresponding considerations by legislators to adapt the foundation would be desirable. Until then, the structure is suitable for DAOs, which are willing to give up some decentralization and can designate trusted representatives. In particular a Foundation structured as a Purpose Foundation could have strong potential as a model DAO (For details as to what a Purpose Foundation is click on this Link: https://offshoreincorporate.com/what-is-a-purpose-foundation/ )

 

Combinations of the different options

 

A lot of projects combine a Foundation with a Company incorporated in low regulation (eg an IBC or an LLC), business-friendly jurisdiction. In this structure The Foundation owns the Company. The Company typically employs the developers/management team and or runs the commercial side (ie the money making objectives) of the organization. Mostly, the foundation will hold the treasury and will have an agreement with the IBC/LLC in which it states, that the DAO Treasury will pay for the expenses of the IBC/LLC. Although this option can use the benefits of options two and three, it also comes with additional requirements and certain centralization aspects, which need to be considered regarding the structure.

 

Summary

 

As shown, there is no “perfect” and no onefitsall solution for DAOs. Until a proper legal framework for DAOs is created, which enables them to operate fully decentralized with limited liability legal recognition and easy taxation, every current legal setup comes with its benefits and downsides and each DAO should seek individual legal advice, which option fits the best for its needs. Especially when a DAO Token is involved, the legal setup can get even more complicated, as a Token can often be qualified as a security42 and create additional legal requirements, such as prospects or registration with the legal authorities.

 

Concerns

 

DAO’s are still a relatively new concept, built on the relatively new technology of the blockchain. With the advantages of this innovation also come some growing pains, namely those of security flaws and a higher potential for future changes in government regulation.

 

Within a stakeholder-voting structure, security flaws are far more difficult to address in DAO systems than in traditional LLC’s, a result of the sluggishness when implementing changes compared to traditional management structures . Even for obvious flaws, a DAO still requires all issues to be voted on by its stakeholders. This can lead to delays when fixing flaws in the structure behind a DAO’s operations, which in the context of security breaches can be detrimental to stakeholders and their holdings within the DAO.

 

Algorithmic management structures are also subject to security flaws, but in a slightly different way. Flaws in algorithmic decision making may be harder to catch than flaws in the decision making of humans, and as such have a higher potential to be exploited by malicious parties.

 

Potential for Legal Changes

 

Decentralized autonomous organizations are completely legal, however as with all new technologies, DAO’s are subject to significant changes in regulation. Current Wyoming legislation under Bill-SF0038 (effective 07/01/2021) dictates that the management of DAO LLC’s has many of the same requirements of traditional LLC’s, with some additional criteria for the more complex management structure and backend required for its operation.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst the Private Foundation will have attraction to certain DAO Founders (particularly those forming more for altruistic purposes) by treating DAOs as a distinct legal entity with the same limited liability protections as traditional LLCs, Wyoming has become an attractive place to form a DAO. A DAO LLC can provide all the advantages of an LLC with additional capabilities to fulfill a wide variety of possible needs that a traditional LLC is not capable of.

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

How To Launch an ITO (Initial Token Offering) in Mauritius

The Mauritius Virtual Asset and Initial Token Offering Services Act 2021 (the “Act”) came  into force on the 7th of February 2022.

 

The Act delivers a regulatory framework for new and developing activities regarding Virtual Assets (“VAs”) and Initial Token Offerings (“ITOs”) in Mauritius.

 

What are the different licences available under the VASP regime?

 

VASP consists of several sub-categories of licences as follows:

 

  • Holders of Class M (Virtual Asset Broker-Dealer) licences carry out activities such as exchange between VAs and fiat currencies; or exchange between one or more forms of VAs.
  • Class O (Virtual Asset Wallet Services) licences pertain to the transfer of VAs.
  • Class R (Virtual Asset Custodian) licensees are responsible for safekeeping of VAs or instruments enabling control over VAs; administration of VAs or instruments enabling control over VAs.
  • Class I (Virtual Asset Advisory Services) licence is required for the participation in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of VAs.
  • Virtual asset exchanges must apply for a Class S (Virtual Asset Market Place) licence. A Virtual Asset Exchange is a centralised or decentralised virtual platform, whether in Mauritius or in another jurisdiction which facilitates the exchange of VAs for fiat currency or other VAs on behalf of third parties for a fee, a commission, a spread or other benefit and which:

 

  1. holds custody, or controls VAs, on behalf of its clients to facilitate an exchange or
  2. purchases VAs from a seller when transactions or bids and offers are matched in order to sell them to a buyer.

 

The definition of Virtual Asset Exchange also includes the owner or operator of the virtual platform, but excludes a platform only providing a forum where sellers and buyers may post bids and offers and a forum where the parties trade in a separate platform or in a peer-to-peer manner.

 

For more details check this link: https://www.fscmauritius.org/media/119933/faqs-vaitos-act-2021-final.pdf

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

 

 

What is the difference between a Trust and a Foundation?

 

We are often asked “What is the difference between a Trust and a Private Foundation?”

 

Trusts and Foundations are very similar ie they are both, in effect, 3 headed creatures.

 

A Trust is set up by a person called a Settlor, is managed day to day by a person called a Trustee and typically has beneficiaries ie persons who are designed to benefit financially from the set-up of the Trust. (For more details on what a Trust is click on this Link: https://offshoreincorporate.com/offshore-trusts/  )

 

A Foundation is set up by a person called a Founder, is managed day to day by a person called a Councillor and (like a Trust) typically has beneficiaries ie persons who are designed to benefit financially from the set-up of the Foundation. (For more details on what a Foundation is click on this Link: https://offshoreincorporate.com/private-interest-foundations/ )

 

In short you can achieve the same result with a Foundation as with a Trust but have more control (and you can get potentially get around CFC rules, see below).

 

Foundations are a creature of (European) Common Law.

 

Under Common Law a Foundation is presumed at law to be both the legal owner AND the beneficial owner of any asset it holds.

 

One jurisdiction ie Seychelles has taken this a step further and enshrined this aspect of Common Law into statute ie in section 71 of the Seychelles Foundations Act, (see Links to the Act below) it specially provides that the legal AND beneficial owner of any asset held by a Seychelles Foundation is the Foundation itself. Moreover, the beneficiaries of a Seychelles Foundation are not entitled receive any income or capital from the Foundation and have no legal or beneficial interest in Foundation assets until such time as the asset is actually transferred by/from the Foundation to the Beneficiary {See section 71 (c)}.

 

Given the explicit wording of these provisions it’s hard to see how one’s local revenue authority could argue differently. As such you could be a beneficiary of a Seychelles Foundation and potentially not have to report income/pay tax on any profits made by the Foundation (or any Company it owns) unless or until such time as the Foundation actually resolves to pay you a Distribution (or until such time as you receive income – eg Consulting fees/salary – from any Company owned by the Foundation).

 

In the case of a Trust all actions must take place under the hand of the Trustee. If not, the Trust could be rendered/declared void for being impotent at law (also known as a Sham Trust). If a Trust is declared a sham all income and reporting/tax payable obligations revert back to the Settlor of the Trust.

 

In the case of a Foundation, day to day control lies in the hands of the Foundation Council/Councillor; Unlike a Trust, the Councillor’s powers can be reserved to the Founder of the Foundation and (eg where a “Nominee” Founder is deployed) then assigned confidentially to any third party (eg you) without effecting the legal integrity of the Foundation!

 

Again, unlike a Trust, a Foundation is a separate legal entity and is typically used as a vehicle by which to potentially avoid the application of CFC (Controlled Foreign Corporation) rules. We used to use Offshore Trusts for such purposes back in the noughties but the problem with a Trust is that you have someone (ie a Trustee) holding property for the benefit of 3rd parties who are inarguably beneficial owners of that property and probably/potentially entitled to the income/capital of the Trust… which, these days in many countries, often carries with it, reporting/tax consequences onshore (ie if you’re entitled to receive a Trust distribution, even if you haven’t actually received a distribution, you can be taxed on it) especially countries which have CFT (Controlled Foreign Trust) rules.

 

A Foundation is very similar to a Trust in that it’s set up by a Founder (like a Settlor in the case of a Trust) and managed day to day by a Councillor (like a Trustee in the case of a Trust) who manages the Foundation property for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Foundation. A key advantage of a Foundation is that it’s a separate legal entity in its own right (ie the Foundation actually owns the assets held by the Foundation – unlike a Trustee who holds property for someone else ie the beneficiaries) and generally speaking the beneficiaries are not entitled to receive any distribution of income or capital from the Foundation unless or until such time as the Foundation Council actually resolves to pay a distribution.

 

What this means as a beneficiary, in the case of a Foundation, is that you may be able to defer paying tax at home on the income of any investments held by a Foundation enabling you to reinvest 100% of that income not just the after-tax component. With the power of compounding this can assist you to achieve your Capital/Net worth target/s in as little as 10 years as opposed to 30 years +!

 

Day to day responsibility for managing a Foundation lies in the hands of a Councillor. All Foundations allow for the Councillor’s rights to be reserved to the Founder on record of the Foundation. Most jurisdictions allow you to use a Nominee Founder. What typically happens there is, at registration, the Councillors key rights and powers are reserved in the Foundation’s Regulations to the Founder. On day 2 the (Nominee) Founder assigns those powers to you via a Deed of Assignment. Gifting you more control if you want it.

 

Note the ability to use (and reporting obligations in respect of) an Offshore Trust or Private Foundation for such purposes as generically described varies greatly from country to country. You should seek out local legal advice and local financial/tax advice before committing to set up or deploy an Offshore Trust or Private Foundation.

 

To view the Seychelles Foundations Act 2009 click on this link:  https://seylii.org/sc/legislation/act/2009/32

To view the 2020 Amendments to the Seychelles Foundations Act click here: https://seylii.org/sc/legislation/act/2020/7

To view a consolidated version of the Act (current at 2021) click on this link: https://fsaseychelles.sc/legal-framework/legislations Then click on the Button on that page that says “Foundations” That button provides access to downloadable copies of the original Seychelles Foundations Act and all subsequent amendments

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

Seychelles Foundations (Amendment) Act, 2021

On the 6th of August 2021 amendments to the Foundations Act (Cap 270) were published in the Seychelles Official Gazette and enacted as and from the same date.

 

Amendments mainly addressed two areas:

1) Improvement and modernizing existing Foundations Act provisions, and

2) Ensuring OECD and EU Code of Conduct Group requirements related to exchange of

information are efficiently addressed in the local legal framework

 

Accounting Records Keeping

The obligation to keep accounting records have been in place since the first Foundations

Act, 2009. Foundations were requested to keep accounting records for at least 7 years

after the end of the period to which it relates. Foundations were given the option to keep

accounting records outside Seychelles, while notifying the Registered Agent of the

address, where the originals are kept.

 

The new amendments require each Foundation

(a) to prepare an annual financial summary to be kept at its registered office in Seychelles

within 6 months from the end of the Foundation’s financial year; and

(b) where its accounting records are kept outside Seychelles, lodge, not less than on a biannual basis, the accounting records at the company’s registered office in Seychelles, provided that any accounting records, whether outside Seychelles or not, shall be presented to the Seychelles authorities on request. Key points to note:

 

  • Electronic records are acceptable, while the Foundation shall inform its Registered Agent of the address where the originals are kept.
  • “Bi-annual basis” means January and July of every year.
  • Financial year” is the calendar year, unless it is changed by the resolution of councillors.
  • A Financial Summary is required to be kept at registered office. It is NOT required to submit the Financial Summary to any authority, unless there is legal request received from the Seychelles competent authorities.
  • A grace period for every Foundation to keep their accounting records in Seychelles within 6 months from the date of enactment of the 2021 Amendments (IE by 6th February 2022).

 

Penalties for non-compliance with requirement to keep accounting records are up to $USD10,000 on the Foundation and its councillor, who knowingly permit a contravention. It is not yet, however clear, if all the accounting records (for the past 7 years) must be delivered by 6th February 2022. (There is currently a dispute between the Regulator and the industry on that matter, which we hope will be resolved shortly).

 

The law does not have retrospective effect when it comes to lodging accounting records with a Foundation’s Seychelles registered agent, but it clearly states that the records must be presented on authority’s request.

 

The Regulator also is yet to come up with form of Financial Summary, as well as written guidelines regarding the implementation of the obligations relating to accounting records.

 

Required actions if you have formed or are managing a Seychelles Foundation:

1) To arrange and organize your foundations’ accounting records for the past 7 years. To be

prepared to furnish accounting records to the Registered Agent upon request, if not already

done so.

2) To mark 2 important deadlines for each calendar year: 31st of July (for furnishing the

accounting records for transactions of the first half of a year); and 31st of January (for

furnishing the accounting records of the second half of a year).

3) To prepare accounting records for the past 7 years for a foundation that goes into voluntary dissolution / striking-off / de-registration/ discontinuation and provide them to OCI

before such procedures are completed.

 

Registered Agent records preservation obligations

Registered agents must preserve the following records of foundations (including dissolved,

struck-off, continued outside Seychelles) under the administration, for at least 7 years:

registers of councillors, beneficiaries, founders, registered agents, supervisory persons,

attorneys (agents), and accounting records in the possession of the registered agent. When a registered agent ceases business, such records shall be provided to the FSA or to any other person approved by the FSA (preferably in digital format).

 

Deemed Dissolution period

Automatic dissolution (for non-payment of annual fees and failure to satisfy the requirements of the Foundations Act) reduced from 10 / 3 years to 1 year from date of striking-off.

 

Court Restoration

An application to restore the name of a struck off or dissolved foundation to the Register may be made to the Court within one year of the date of the striking off and within five years of the date of dissolution.

 

The above application can be made to the Court by:

(a) a creditor, councillor, founder, protector or liquidator of the Foundation; or

(b) any person who can establish an interest in the Foundation to be restored to the Register.

 

The court shall not make an order restoring a Foundation to the Register, unless it is satisfied that:

(a) the foundation will have a registered agent (a licensed ICSP has agreed to act as registered agent of the Foundation); and

(b) the Foundation is in compliance with its obligations (i) under the Foundations Act relating to accounting records, registers of councillors, beneficiaries, founders, registered agents, supervisory persons, attorneys (agents); and (ii) under the Beneficial Ownership Act, 2020 relating to register of beneficial owners.

 

Administrative Restoration

An application to restore the name of a struck off or dissolved foundation to the Register may be made to the Registrar within one year of the date of the striking off and within five years of the date of dissolution.

 

The above application can be made to the Registrar by the Foundation itself or by its

councillor, beneficiary, founder, supervisory person.

 

The Registrar shall not restore the name of a foundation if the Registrar is not satisfied that

the foundation is in compliance with its obligations:

(a) under the Foundations Act relating to accounting records, registers of councillors,

beneficiaries, founders, registered agents, supervisory persons, attorneys (agents); &

(b) under the Beneficial Ownership Act, 2020 relating to register of beneficial owners.

 

Introduction of certain fees and penalties increase

The following Government fees have been introduced by the Foundations (Amendment) Act, 2021 with effect from 1st January 2022:

1) Court restoration: for filing with the Registrar of a sealed copy of an order of the court for

the restoration of the name of a Foundation to the Register: US$500

2) Administrative restoration by Registrar:

  • $US300 (if the application for restoration is made within 6 months after striking off

the Register);

  • US$500 (if the application for restoration is made more than 6 months after striking

off )

 

The majority of penalty fees for non-compliance have been increased to a penalty not

exceeding US$10,000.

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crypto Business & The Seychelles Regulatory Sandbox License

In a bid to try and cash in on the Crypto start up boom key IOFC Seychelles has in place a little-known law that purports to encourage Fintech businesses (that may otherwise be considered licenseable activities) to incorporate in Seychelles without needing to apply for any form of Special License.

 

This article examines the juxtaposition as between the fine print of the regulations as worded versus how it might work in practice for any prospective applicant.

 

The legal provision in question is known as the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (Regulatory Sandbox Exemption) Regulations, 2019. You can view a copy of the Regulations here: https://seylii.org/sc/legislation/si/2019/36/SI%2036%202019%20-%20Financial%20Services%20Authority%20%28Regulatory%20Sandbox%20Exemption%29.pdf

 

The key takeouts are these:

 

  • An eligible person may obtain from the Authority, exemptions from the — (a) licensing; (b) disclosure; (c) reporting, requirements under the Securities Act to offer different eligible financial services for testing purposes.

 

  • Eligible financial service “means — (a) providing a financial product advice in relation to a particular kind of financial product; or (b) applying for or acquiring a particular kind of financial product; or (c) issuing, varying or disposing of a non-cash payment facility; or (d) arranging for the issuing, varying or disposing of a particular kind of financial product.

 

  • The exemption applies for a maximum period of 24 months or until such time as specific legislation comes into play which regulates that particular activity. As such there is no certainty.

 

Interestingly as far as can be ascertained at the time of writing (21 November 2021), only one Company has successfully applied for this exemption.

 

We can also reveal that a very senior (genius) Australian/UK/Seychelles qualified Lawyer hitherto has drafted almost all the Seychelles Financial Services Industry laws since 2003 (including the Seychelles Mutual Funds Act, the Securities Act, the Foundations Act, The new Trusts Act and more). Interestingly, notwithstanding that he has also (as of 2 years ago) drafted legislation that will enable Crypto related enterprises to apply for specific licenses under Seychelles law (sadly this act hasn’t yet been circulated for feedback from stakeholders… meaning its 1-2 years away from being passed into law) the gent in question had no involvement with the drafting of these Regs.

 

A considered view of these Regs is that they are clumsy and unworkable. Which would probably explain why only one business has successfully applied for such an exemption. To quote a very senior Consultant who was asked (in confidence) to review the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (Regulatory Sandbox Exemption) Regulations, 2019 “the thing that the key players inside the Seychelles FSA (ie the Financial Services Authority) don’t understand is that the Regs are an adjunct to the Securities Act and as such an exemption can only be given for an activity that would otherwise be a licenseable activity under the Securities Act eg a Securities Dealers License, a Money Exchange License, a Financial Advisers License etc”. Most Crypto related activities wouldn’t fall under these categories. Moreover, the Authority itself doesn’t have a clear set of guidelines in terms of what kind of businesses they will grant exemptions for.”

 

Why is this so? The unfortunate reality is that (notwithstanding that the jurisdiction has been gift-wrapped and hand delivered some of the cleverest and most market friendly “Offshore” laws/products of the past 20 years) there is a VERY small talent pool inside the Seychelles FSA/Govt (the entire population of the country is only 100,000). The key decision makers inside the FSA are mostly recent University graduates with little understanding of complex areas of law such as this. The easy thing for them to do is to procrastinate hoping that the applicant will lose interest and or eventually (after much to and fro) decline to approve the application. To put in the vernacular if you do decide to apply for such a license you can expect to be messed about royally…. You could spend 6 months and thousands of dollars in legal etc fees and get nowhere… These Regs were very rushed and not at all thought-through. In short, in practice, it would seem that the Seychelles FSA doesn’t have the brain power and/or the staff and/or the wherewithal to deal with applications arising from these Regs…

 

Moreover, it is our understanding that if you do get approved in principal for the exemption you would need to provide proof that either (a) you have the requisite license to sell and or manufacture this product/service in the jurisdictions in which you intend to operate or (b) that such a license is not necessary in the places where you intend to do business.

 

All that said it should also be noted that, in any event, the Securities Act only purports to regulate activity that takes place in or from Seychelles. As such you could form a Seychelles IBC and, provided you have no Directors/Shareholders inside Seychelles, – and have no clients or staff inside Seychelles – you would not be in breach of the Securities Act and as such you would not need to apply for any form of exemption.

 

The proof of that pudding is in the eating… FYI for the past 18 months and more, every other week we have managed to incorporate a new Defi related enterprise in Seychelles including Cryptocurrency Exchanges (we actually incorporated the Bitmex group of Companies), Token Offering Companies and ICOs/etc without needing to apply for licenses or exemptions.

 

That said if you are (or one of your clients is) insistent on applying for an RSL (Regulatory Sandbox License) we’d suggest you take a close look at the Mauritius Regulatory Sandbox License Regs which are also aimed at Fintech entrepreneurs but eminently more thought through. Check this link for details: https://offshoreincorporate.com/setting-up-an-ico-in-mauritius/

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

What is the global minimum corporate tax rate proposal?

The “global minimum corporate tax rate deal”, is an International Tax Harmonization Initiative driven by the G7 and OECD and, for individual/SME clients looking for International Tax Planning Solutions, all but non applicable.

 

Some quick background for those not in the know…

 

In October 2021, some 136 countries approved the rolling out of the OECD’s Pillar Two global minimum corporate tax rate deal, which will establish a global minimum tax regime (agreed at 15%) through a series of interlocking rules which will reallocate certain taxing rights over multinational enterprises (MNEs) from their home countries to the markets where they have business activities and earn profits, regardless whether the MNEs have a physical presence there.

 

Thankfully, we understand that the global minimum tax rate deal will have little, if any, impact on IBC jurisdictions such as Seychelles Belize, BVI, Nevis, the BVI, Panama, St Vincent, Samoa etc because: (i) it ONLY APPLIES TO MNEs with a GLOBAL TURNOVER in excess of EURO 750 MILLION per annum, and (ii) the deal does NOT force a nil tax country (or any country that does not tax foreign income) to impose a 15% minimum tax.

 

While the new global minimum corporate tax regime will disrupt some offshore business and is about the West staying rich, we see no problem with it to the extent that it forces the likes of Google, Amazon and Starbucks to pay their fair share of global tax, i.e. by bestowing taxing rights to the countries where they make large sales, etc. No doubt you will have heard that the likes of Amazon, for example, currently pay very little UK/US/Onshore tax despite making billions in UK/US/Onshore sales (as they sell out of low-tax places like Dublin or Luxembourg).

 

We believe there will be continuing demand for IBCs because:

 

  • Non-applicability of the global minimum tax rate deal to companies with an annual turnover of less than Euro 750 Million;
  • Non-taxing of foreign-sourced income will always be an attractive feature for businesses and individuals residing, owning assets and carrying on business in multiple countries and providing continued scope for legitimate tax planning and reduction;
  • While paperwork and cost have grown in recent years, offshore companies are still cost-effective compared to most onshore Companies;
  • There is still less red tape and admin in respect of offshore companies than most onshore Companies;
  • IBCs provide Asset Protection; and
  • Despite some dilution in privacy, IBCs continue to offer significantly more privacy than onshore companies (and where IBC director, shareholder and beneficial owner has to be filed with the IBC Authorities, such information is not publicly-accessible).

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

 

 

 

THE NEW SEYCHELLES TRUSTS ACT 2021

The Seychelles Government is currently passing into law substantial amendments to its International Trusts Act (which was initially published in 1994).

 

The main changes include that Seychelles Trusts may now be for an indefinite period (ie removal of the rule against Perpetuity) and the Trustee may now be a Seychelles Licensed Trustee or, for “connected” trusts (including the typical Family Trust), the client may form an IBC Private Trust Company (“PTC”) to serve as Trustee.

 

This article reveals and discusses in depth the full raft of changes to the Seychelles International Trusts Legislation.

 

 

1.1     A trust is a legal arrangement created when the owner of assets (known as the settlor) transfers          ownership of those assets to a trustee to hold and administer under the terms of a trust instrument (also known as a trust deed) for the benefit of: (i) one or more beneficiaries; or (ii) a charitable or           non-charitable purpose; or (iii) one or more beneficiaries and for a charitable or non-charitable           purpose.

 

1.2     A trust is not a separate legal entity: it operates and owns assets through its trustee, who holds the             trust assets in accordance with the terms of the trust deed for the benefit of the trust’s beneficiaries         or purpose. The settlor of a trust may in the trust deed reserve to a protector or other person      certain rights relating to the trust, such as the right to appoint or remove trustees or beneficiaries.

 

1.3     Seychelles trusts are provided for by the Trusts Act 2021 (the Act), which repealed and replaced the International Trusts Act 1994 as amended (the former Act). Former trusts (a trust registered          under section 75 of the former Act and subsisting as at the commencement of the Act, 6 August    2021) are deemed to be re-registered as registered trusts under the Act with effect from 6 August           2021 (section 96(2) of the Act).

 

BENEFITS OF TRUSTS 

 

1.4     The benefits of trusts primarily flow from the divestment of ownership and control of assets by the          settlor. As the assets of a trust do not form part of the settlor’s personal property or estate, trusts        are a useful vehicle for tax and estate planning as well as for asset protection purposes. Trusts are           commonly used to hold investments such as company shares, bonds and real estate or as part of a       family office structure.

 

          Wealth Protection

 

1.5     On transferring assets into a trust (acting by its trustee), the settlor ceases to own the assets and            they become trust assets, which (in the absence of fraud) are protected from attack by the settlor’s    personal creditors. The Act puts in place strong trust asset protection provisions, including a two           year claim limitation period protecting trust assets from attack by creditors of the settlor and            exclusion of foreign forced-heirship laws.

 

Outside estate succession planning

 

1.6     Trusts are often formed as a means by which an individual owning wealth can make arrangements             for the enjoyment of certain assets by designated beneficiaries during his or her lifetime and    succession arrangements for the transmission of the assets to one or more beneficiaries after his     or her death without reference to a will and avoiding the cost and complications of probate. 

 

Privacy

 

1.7     A Seychelles trust is registered with the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) and a   registration number allocated, but the trust deed is not filed with the FSA or with any other         Seychelles governmental body. Details of trust settlors, beneficiaries and protectors, if any, are            required to be filed with the Seychelles Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), but are not publicly     accessible.

 

No Seychelles tax on foreign income or profits

 

1.8     There is no Seychelles taxation on foreign income or profits of a Seychelles trust.

 

Protectors (optional)

 

1.9     The trust deed may appoint a protector and reserve certain powers to the protector, such as the     right to appoint or remove trustees or to approve the addition or removal of beneficiaries or           amendment to the terms of the trust deed.

 

1.10   Unlimited duration

 

A Seychelles trust, including a non-charitable trust with beneficiaries, may continue in existence for           an indefinite period.

 

Requirement for licensed Seychelles resident trustee or private trust company trustee

 

1.11   A Seychelles trust is required to have an approved trustee: (i) a corporate trustee licensed under            the International Corporate Service Providers Act by the FSA to provide trustee services (licensed       trustee) or, (ii) in the case of a connected trust (as defined in the International Corporate Service   Providers Act), a licensed trustee or a private trust company (section 21(1) of the Act). Additionally,     one or more non-resident co-trustees may be appointed.

 

Independence and stability of Seychelles

 

1.12   Seychelles is a stable and independent Country, having gained independence from the UK in 1976.

 

2.       TYPES OF TRUSTS

 

In order to accommodate specific needs or wishes of settlors, various types of trust are     accommodated under Seychelles law, including:

 

2.1     Discretionary Trust – The discretionary trust provides flexibility and is the most common type of          offshore trust. Under the terms of a discretionary trust the trustee is given wide discretionary       powers as to when, how much and to which beneficiaries he should distribute the income and     capital of the trust. Such a form of trust is useful where at the time of creation of the trust the future        needs of beneficiaries cannot be accurately determined. The beneficiaries are not regarded as    having any direct legal rights over any particular portion of the trust fund but only a right to be   considered to benefit when the trustee exercises his discretion.

 

  • Letter of wishes – The settlor does not have any ownership interest in trust property. The trustee of a discretionary trust administers the trust at its absolute discretion, subject to the terms of the trust deed, but a letter of wishes is usually provided by the settlor, setting out his or her wishes in relation to administration of the trust. The letter serves as a non-binding guide to the trustee. A letter of wishes will typically contain the settlor’s wishes with respect to beneficiary entitlements, including who gets what, when and if any conditions are to be imposed. See Annexure 1 to this Guide for a sample letter of wishes” (each letter should be tailored to reflect a settlor’s specific circumstances / wishes).

 

  • Dealings through the Trustee - Once a trust is created, the settlor should not be exerting control over the trust assets as if it remained his or her own property. This is a factor a Court may consider in deciding if a trust is valid or is a ‘sham’. If there are to be dealings with trust property, these should occur via the trustee or with the trustee’s knowledge and approval.

 

  • Company and Trust – A trust may be used together with a company. Often a company and trust dual structure is used, where the company is the active entity and the trust is passive in that its main role is to hold and own the shares in the company; with the company owning any property, funds or other assets/investments.

 

2.2     Fixed Interest Trust – Under a fixed interest trust, the principal beneficiary will normally be    granted a vested interest in the income of the trust fund throughout his or her lifetime and the     discretion of the trustee regarding the disposition of the trust fund will be limited. For example, the           trust instrument may specify that the trustee is required to distribute all of the income of the trust         fund to a particular individual during that person’s lifetime and subsequently to distribute the capital    of the trust fund in fixed proportions to named beneficiaries (such as the settlor’s children). In view           of potential tax reporting obligations, the proposed settlor and beneficiaries should seek prior       expert legal and tax advice where they are resident and domiciled.

 

2.3     Purpose Trust – A purpose trust means a trust for the fulfillment of one or more non-charitable             purposes and without beneficiaries. For those clients who are looking for a neutral party in a network of commercial transactions, the purpose trust, in combination with a company wholly-    owned by such a trust, has provided the means by which bankruptcy remoteness can be achieved,           while enabling the transaction to be effected “off balance sheet” or as an “orphan” structure in     relation to its originator. Purpose trusts have been used in conjunction with asset financing        transactions, securitisations and private trust companies. For example, the purchase by a specially           incorporated company of a ship or aircraft with finance provided by a lending institution. They are     also used in credit enhancement and in financing transactions.

 

2.4     Charitable Trust A trust may be established for charitable purposes under the Act. These      include (among others) the relief of poverty, advancement of education, religion, health, arts, sport,      animal welfare, human rights and fundamental freedoms or the protection of the environment     (section 17 of the Act). A charitable purpose trust is not to be confused with a public charity         established under the applicable law of charities in any given jurisdiction. We do not provide trustee      services for charitable trusts.

 

3.       ESTABLISHMENT OF SEYCHELLES TRUST AND REGISTRATION OF TRUSTEE      APPOINTMENT

 

3.1     A Seychelles trust is established when a settlor with legal capacity to contract provides trust property during the person’s lifetime (inter vivos) or by will to one or more trustees (section 4(1) and        section 8(1) of the Act) to hold such property: (i) for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries; or (ii)        for any charitable or non-charitable purpose which is not for the benefit only of the trustee; or (iii)    for both the benefit of one or more beneficiaries and for any purpose referred to in paragraph (ii)   (section 3(1) of the Act).

 

          Seychelles trusts to be in writing

 

3.2     A Seychelles trust shall be of no effect unless created in writing by either: (i) a declaration of trust      executed by the original trustees of the trust in which the trustees acknowledge that they are       holding the trust property in accordance with the terms of the trust; or (ii) a trust deed executed by           the settlor and the original trustees of the trust by which the trust property is transferred to the     trustees and they acknowledge that they shall hold the trust property in accordance with the terms        of the trust (section 8(2) of the Act).

 

          Registration of trustee appointment declaration

 

3.3     An approved trustee, on appointment as trustee of a Seychelles trust, is required to make a trustee        appointment declaration and to apply for registration of the trustee appointment declaration by      submitting it to the FSA with the registration fee of US$200 (section 11(1) and First Schedule of the           Act). Pursuant to section 11(2) of the Act, the trustee appointment declaration is required to be in             writing and state:

 

(a)        the name of the trust;

 

(b)        the date of formation of the trust;

 

(c)        the name and address of each approved trustee of the trust;

 

(d)        that the property of the trust does not include any: (i) immovable property in Seychelles; or                     (ii) shares or other interests in any company or other entity which owns or has any interest                        in immovable property in Seychelles;

 

(e)        that the instrument creating the trust is in writing; and

 

(f)         the proper law of the trust.

 

3.4     The trust instrument (deed or declaration creating the trust) is not required to be filed with the FSA.

 

3.5     On receipt of a trustee appointment declaration accompanied by the registration fee, the FSA will:         (i) register the trustee appointment declaration in the Register; (ii) allocate a reference number to            the trust; and (iii) issue to the approved trustee who submitted the trustee appointment declaration       a letter stating the name of the trust, the reference number of the trust and the date of registration        of the trustee appointment declaration (section 11(3) of the Act).

 

Duration of trust

 

3.6     Unless its terms provide otherwise, a trust (including a non-charitable trust for beneficiaries) may       continue in existence for an indefinite period (section 15(1) of the Act). No rule against perpetuities         or excessive accumulations shall apply to a trust or to any advancement, appointment, distribution          or application of assets from a trust (section 15(2) of the Act).

 

4.       TRUST PROPERTY

 

Property held on trust

 

4.1     Subject to sections 10(2) and 14(2) of the Act (see paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 below), any property   worldwide may be held by or vested in a Seychelles trust (via its trustees) and, subject to the terms         of the trust, a trustee may accept from any person property to be added to the trust property          (section 10(1) of the Act).

 

Prohibitions relating to Seychelles trusts

 

4.2     Pursuant to section 10(2) of the Act, a Seychelles trust shall not:

 

(a)        carry on any activity which is unlawful, immoral or contrary to any public policy of                                             Seychelles;

 

(b)        own or otherwise hold an interest in: (i) immovable property (real estate) in Seychelles; or                         (ii) shares or other interests in any company or other entity which owns or has any interest                        in immovable property in Seychelles.

 

          Invalidity of trusts

 

4.3     Pursuant to section 14(2) of the Act, a Seychelles trust shall be invalid and unenforceable to the   extent that:

 

          (a)        it purports to do anything which is contrary to the law of Seychelles;

 

          (b)        it purports to confer any right or power or impose any obligation the exercise or carrying                             out of which is contrary to the law of Seychelles;

 

          (c)        it purports to apply to immovable property (real estate) situated in Seychelles in                                      contravention of section 10(2)(b) of the Act;

 

          (d)        it is created for a purpose in relation to which there is no beneficiary identifiable or                          ascertainable, unless: (i) it is a charitable trust; or (ii) it is a purpose trust and if the terms of                       the trust provide for: (A) the appointment of an enforcer in relation to the trust’s non-                               charitable purposes; and (B) the appointment of a new enforcer at any time when there is                        none; or

 

(e)        the Court declares that: (i) the trust was established by duress, fraud, mistake, undue                                   influence or misrepresentation or in breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) the trust is immoral or                                   contrary to public policy; (iii) the terms of the trust are so uncertain that the performance is                    rendered impossible; or (iv) the settlor was, at the time of its creation, incapable of creating                      the trust.

 

Protection of trust property

 

4.4     An important matter relating to trusts, especially when established for asset protection purposes, is            the extent to which trust property is safe from attack by litigants or other claimants seeking to   pursue claims relating to the settlor or beneficiaries. The Act provides a number of robust       provisions aimed at protecting trust assets.

 

Anti-Forced Heirship

 

4.5     In some countries, the law imposes restrictions on the freedom of an individual to dispose of their           property by will (often referred to as forced heirship). The Act defines heirship rights as claims or    interests in, against or to property of a person arising or accruing in consequence of his or her            death, other than rights, claims or interests created by will or other voluntary disposition by such   person or resulting from an express limitation in the disposition of property (section 66(1) of the Act). In countries imposing heirship rights, statutorily-designated relatives of a deceased are        entitled to claim a fixed percentage of the estate.

 

4.6     No claim against a trust on the basis of foreign forced heirship rights shall be recognized or enforced under Seychelles law as the Act expressly provides that any questions in respect of a          Seychelles trust (including as to the validity of a trust, the validity or effect of any transfer of         property to a trust, capacity of the settlor or the administration of a trust), shall be determined in           accordance with the law of Seychelles and no rule of foreign law shall apply (section 66(1) to (3) of             the Act), and such questions shall be determined under Seychelles law without consideration of           whether or not:

 

(a)        any foreign law prohibits or does not recognise the concept of a trust; or

 

(b)        the trust or disposition avoids or defeats rights, claims, or interests conferred by any                                 foreign law upon any person by reason of a personal relationship to the settlor or by way of                         heirship rights, or contravenes any rule of foreign law or any foreign judicial or                                        administrative order or action intended to recognize, protect, enforce or give effect to any                                     such rights, claims or interests.

 

4.7     No foreign judgment with respect to a trust shall be enforceable in Seychelles to the extent that it is       inconsistent with section 66 of the Act (see preceding paragraph): section 66(4) of the Act.

 

Claims against a trust by creditors of the settlor

 

4.8     The general rule is that a disposition of property to a trust shall not be void, voidable or otherwise    liable to be set aside, or subject to any implied condition, by reason of: (i) bankruptcy or liquidation          of the settlor; or (ii) any action, proceeding or other claim by a creditor of the settlor (section 67(2)           of the Act).

 

4.9     However, in narrow circumstances, a creditor of the settlor of a trust may bring an application      in the Supreme Court of Seychelles (the Court) seeking to set aside a disposition of property to a       trust. If the Court, in respect of a claim by a creditor is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that            the disposition of property to the trust was made: (i) with an intent to defraud and at an     undervalue; or (ii) the transferor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the            disposition, the Court shall declare the disposition void and set aside to the extent necessary to      satisfy the obligation of the claimant creditor together with such costs as the Court may direct           (section 67(3) of the Act). In respect of such a claim against a trust:

 

(a)        The burden of proving an intent to defraud shall be upon the creditor seeking to set aside                            the disposition to the trust (section 67(4) of the Act); and

 

(b)        No legal action or proceedings under section 67(3) of the Act shall be commenced after                                two years from the date of the relevant disposition to the trust (section 67(5) of the Act).

 

5.       SETTLORS

 

5.1     Subject to the Act, any person, known as a settlor, who has the legal capacity to contract may   create a trust by providing trust property or by making a testamentary disposition on trust or to a       trust (section 4(1) of the Act).

 

5.2     A settlor may also be a trustee, a beneficiary, a protector or an enforcer, but shall not be the sole            beneficiary or trustee of a trust of which he or she is a settlor (section 4(2) of the Act). The   preceding requirement (section 4(2) of the Act) is not contravened if a settlor is the sole beneficiary   of a trust during the settlor’s lifetime, provided that the terms of the trust provide for the trust to         have one or more persons as beneficiary upon the settlor’s death (section 4(3) of the Act).

 

5.3     A settlor shall be deemed to have had the capacity to create a trust if, at the time that he or she transfers or otherwise vests trust property in a trust, he or she is not a minor, is of sound mind and     not incapacitated under: (i) the laws of Seychelles; or (ii) the laws of his or her domicile or          nationality; or (iii) the proper law governing the transfer or disposition (section 4(4) of the Act).

 

          Reservation of powers by settlor

 

5.4     A settlor may (but is not required to) reserve or grant, for himself or herself or another person,          certain powers in relation to the administration of the trust. Under section 16(1) of the Act, a        Seychelles trust is not invalidated by the reservation or grant by the settlor (whether to the settlor or     to any other person) of all or any of the following powers or interests:

 

(a)        a power to revoke, vary or amend the terms of a trust or any trusts or powers arising wholly              or partly under it;

 

(b)        a power to direct or approve the advancement, appointment, distribution or application of                          income or capital of the trust property;

 

(c)        a power to act as, or to direct the appointment or removal of, a director or officer of any                           corporation wholly or partly owned by the trust;

 

(d)        a power to direct the trustee in connection with the purchase, retention, sale, management,                 lending, pledging or charging of the trust property or the exercise of any powers or rights                                   arising from such property;

 

(e)        a power to appoint or remove any trustee, enforcer, protector or beneficiary;

 

(f)         a power to appoint or remove a professional person acting in relation to the affairs of the                           trust or holding any trust property;

 

(g)        a power to change the proper law of the trust or the forum for the administration of the                            trust;

 

(h)        a power to restrict the exercise of any powers or discretions of trustee by requiring the                           trustee that they shall only be exercisable with the consent of the settlor or any other                                 person specified in the terms of the trust;

 

(i)         a beneficial interest in the trust property.

 

          Recommendation to obtain prior independent expert legal and tax advice    

 

5.5     The role of the trustee (who legally holds trust property) is to manage and control the trust and trust        property in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument. If a settlor (or someone appointed by         the settlor other than the trustee) is given very wide powers in respect of a trust (e.g. the power to       direct or approve ‘fiscal’ matters such as investment activities or distributions and the power to   revoke the trust) this may potentially undermine the trustee and may cause the trust to be viewed             as a sham or a mere nominee vehicle of the settlor or may constitute ‘management or control’ so      as to make the trust ‘tax resident’ where the settlor is resident or domiciled, which may have       adverse tax consequences for the trust or settlor where the settlor is resident or domiciled. It is        recommended that an intended settlor seek expert legal and tax advice in his or her country of residence and domicile before establishing a trust, including as to the scope of any powers the      settlor proposes to reserve in respect of the trust.

 

6.       BENEFICIARIES          

 

6.1     A beneficiary shall be: (a) identifiable by name; or (b) ascertainable by reference to: (i) a class, or          (ii) a relationship to some person whether or not living at the time of the creation of the trust or at            the time which under the terms of the trust is the time by reference to which members of a class             are to be determined (section 18(1) of the Act).

 

6.2     The terms of a trust may provide for the addition or removal of a person as beneficiary or for the   exclusion of a beneficiary from benefit (section 18(2) of the Act). The terms of a trust may impose          upon a beneficiary an obligation as a condition for benefit (section 18(3) of the Act).

 

6.3     The terms of a trust may make the interest of a beneficiary liable to termination (section 68(1) of          the Act). Without prejudice to section 68(1) of the Act, the terms of a trust may make the interest of           a beneficiary in the income or capital of the trust property subject to: (i) a restriction on alienation or        disposal; or (ii) diminution or termination in the event of the beneficiary becoming bankrupt or any     of his or her property becoming liable to sequestration for the benefit of his or her creditors (section           68(2) of the Act).

 

          Beneficiary’s entitlement to information

 

6.4     Subject to the terms of the trust (which may restrict a beneficiary’s right to trust information), a            beneficiary is entitled, on written request to the trustee of the trust, to inspect or obtain: (i) a copy of          the instrument creating the trust, any amendment thereto and any deed supplemental to the        instrument creating the trust; and (ii) a copy of the annual audited financial statements of the trust,       if any, or, in the absence of annual audited financial statements, a summary of the financial position         of the trust, with reference to the assets, liabilities, income and costs of the trust (section 19(1) of       the Act).

 

6.5     Subject to section 29 of the Act and an order of the Court, the terms of a trust may: (i) confer upon            any person a right to request the disclosure of information or a document concerning the trust; (ii)       determine the extent of the right of any person to information or a document concerning the trust;            or (iii) impose a duty upon a trustee to disclose information or a document concerning the trust to     any person (section 37(1) of the Act). Subject to the terms of the trust and to any order of the           Court, a beneficiary or an enforcer may request disclosure by the trustee of documents which        relate to or form part of the accounts of the trust (section 37(2) of the Act).

 

6.6     Pursuant to section 37(4) of the Act, subject to the terms of the trust and to any order of the Court,       a trustee shall not be required to disclose to any person information or a document which:

 

(a)        discloses the trustee’s deliberations as to the manner in which the trustee has exercised a                      power or discretion or performed a duty conferred or imposed upon the trustee;

 

(b)        discloses the reason for any particular exercise of a power or discretion or performance of                       a duty referred to in paragraph (a), or the material upon which such reason shall or might                                 have been based; or

 

(c)        relates to the exercise or proposed exercise of a power or discretion, or the performance or                       proposed performance of a duty, referred to in paragraph (a).

 

6.7     Notwithstanding the terms of the trust, on the application of the trustee, an enforcer, a beneficiary   or, with leave of the court any other person, the court may make such order as it thinks fit determining the extent to which any person may request or receive information or a document       concerning the trust, whether generally or in any particular instance (section 37(5) of the Act).

 

6.8     Notwithstanding the terms of a trust, where a trustee of a trust is requested pursuant to a written   law of Seychelles to furnish all or any of the trust’s records or copies thereof (including a request by the FSA under the Financial Services Authority Act, the Seychelles Revenue Commission to meet a     request for information under a tax treaty or the FIU under the Anti-Money Laundering and       Countering the Financing of Terrorism Act), the trustee shall furnish the records or copies thereof to         the requesting party within the time period specified in the request (section 29(1) of the Act).

 

          Disclaimer of interest

 

6.9     A beneficiary may, irrespective of the terms of a trust, disclaim in writing, either permanently or for       such period as he or she may specify, the whole or any part of his or her interest under the trust   (section 20(1) of the Act).

 

7.       TRUSTEES – GENERAL

 

          Role of Trustee – Trust assets

 

7.1     The trustee occupies a pivotal role in relation to the assets of a trust as a trust is not a separate            legal entity and may only act and hold assets through its trustee(s). Section 83(1) of the Act           provides that:

 

(a)        legal title to trust property shall be in the name of the trustee or in the name of another                               person on behalf of the trustee;

 

(b)        the interest of a trustee in trust property is limited to that which is necessary for the proper              administration of the trust; and

 

(c)        trust property shall constitute a separate fund and shall not form part of the trustee’s own                          property (except in the rare event where a trustee is also a beneficiary of the same trust).

 

          Number and type of trustees

 

7.2     Every trust must have a trustee (sections 3(1) and 21(1) of the Act). Every trust shall have an approved trustee and may have one or more co-trustees who may be persons resident outside         Seychelles (section 21(1) of the Act). An approved trustee in relation to:

 

(a)        a Seychelles trust, other than a connected trust, means a licensed trustee (namely, a                              trustee licensed under the International Corporate Service Providers Act by the FSA to                             provide trustee services);

 

(b)        a connected trust, means a private trust company or a licensed trustee (see paragraph 8                            for details relating to connected trusts and private trust companies).

 

          Appointment of new or additional trustee

 

7.3     Typically, the terms of trust (express provisions of the trust instrument) will provide for the            appointment of a new or additional trustee by the existing trustee or by the protector, if any. The   terms of trust may require the prior written consent of the settlor or protector as a pre-requisite to the appointment of a new or additional trustee.

 

7.4     If, subsequent to registration of a trust under section 11(3) of the Act, a new approved trustee is     appointed to a registered trust, the new trustee shall within 21 days file a written notice thereof with            the FSA in the approved form (section 12(1) of the Act).

 

7.5     If: (i) the terms of a trust do not provide for the appointment of new or additional trustee; (ii) any            such terms providing for any such appointment have lapsed or failed; (iii) the person who has the        power to make any such appointment is not capable of exercising the power; or (iv) there is no        other power to make the appointment, without prejudice to the Court’s power to appoint a new or           additional trustee pursuant to an application made under section 71 of the Act, a new or additional        trustee may be appointed by: (a) the trustees for the time being; (b) the last remaining trustee; or          (c) the personal representative or liquidator of the last remaining trustee (section 22(1) and (2) of the Act).

 

          Resignation or removal of trustee

 

7.6     A trustee, not being a sole trustee, may resign from office by notice in writing delivered to the           co-trustees, which resignation shall take effect on the delivery of the resignation notice (section 24(1) and (2) of the Act). If two or more trustees purport to resign simultaneously, the effect of      which would mean that there would be no trustee, the resignations shall have no effect (section    24(3) of the Act).

 

7.7     A trustee shall cease to be a trustee of the trust immediately upon: (i) the trustee’s removal from office by the Court; or (ii) the trustee’s resignation becoming effective; or (iii) the coming into effect         of a provision in the terms of a trust under which the trustee is removed from office or otherwise      ceases to hold office (section 24(4) of the Act). A person who ceases to be a trustee under section          24(4) of the Act shall execute all documents necessary for the vesting of the trust property in the            new or continuing trustees (section 24(5) of the Act).

 

7.8     Where an approved trustee of a registered trust ceases to be a trustee of the trust, the trustee shall          within 21 days file a written notice thereof with the FSA in the approved form (section 12(2) of           the Act).

 

Duties of trustee

 

7.9     A trustee shall in the execution of his or her duties and in the exercise of his or her powers and    discretion: (i) act with due diligence, prudently, to the best of the trustee’s ability and skill and (ii)             observe the utmost good faith (section 25(1) of the Act).

 

7.10   Subject to the Act, a trustee shall carry out his or her functions as trustee and administer the trust:    (i) in accordance with the terms of the trust; and (ii) in the interest of the beneficiaries or in the     fulfillment of the purpose of the trust as the case may be (section 25(2) of the Act).

 

7.11   Subject to the terms of the trust, a trustee shall: (i) so far as is reasonable preserve the value of    the trust property; (ii) so far as is reasonable enhance the value of the trust property (section         25(3) of the Act).

 

7.12   Except with the approval of the Court or as permitted by the Act or expressly provided by the           terms of the trust, a trustee shall not: (i) directly or indirectly profit from the trustee’s trusteeship; (ii) cause or permit any other person to profit directly or in directly from such trusteeship; or (iii) on           the trustee’s own account enter into any transaction with the trustees or relating to the trust        property which may result in such profit (section 25(4) of the Act).

 

7.13   A trustee shall keep trust property separate from his or her personal property and separately      identifiable from any other property of which he or she is a trustee (section 25(5) of the Act).

 

7.14   The trustee of a trust shall disclose its status as a trustee to a financial institution or a designated           non-financial business or profession when forming a business relationship or carrying out an occasional transaction in an amount equal to or above to the amount prescribed under the Third             Schedule of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorist Act 2020       (section 25(6) of the Act). A trustee who contravenes section 25(6) commits an offence and shall     on conviction be liable to a penalty fee of US$500 and to an additional penalty fee of US$25 for   each day or part thereof during which the contravention continues (section 25(8) of the Act).

 

7.15   Subject to the terms of the trust, where there is more than one trustee all the trustees shall join        in administering the trust (section 30(1) of the Act). Where there is more than one trustee no power          or discretion given to the trustees shall be exercised unless all the trustees agree on its exercise, provided that the terms of a trust may empower trustees to act by a majority and a trustee who    dissents from a decision of the majority may require the trustee’s dissent to be recorded in writing           (section 30(2) and (3) of the Act).

 

Powers of trustee

 

7.16   Subject to the terms of the trust and the trustee’s duties under the Act, a trustee shall in relation to        the trust property have the same powers as the beneficial owner of such property (section 32(1) of         the Act). A trustee shall exercise the trustee’s powers only in the interests of the beneficiaries and      in accordance with the terms of the trust (section 32(2) of the Act). The terms of a trust may require       a trustee to obtain the consent of another person (e.g. a protector or settlor) before exercising a           power or discretion (section 32(3) of the Act).

 

7.17   It is customary for a trust instrument to clearly stipulate the powers and their extent which a trustee           is entitled to exercise. Nonetheless, the Act expressly confers, subject to the terms of the trust,           various powers on trustees including (without limitation):

 

(a)        a power to delegate the execution or exercise of any of its trusts or powers (both                                      administrative and dispositive) (section 33(1) of the Act);

 

(b)        a power to appropriate trust property (without the consent of any beneficiary) in or towards                    satisfaction of the interest of a beneficiary in such manner as the trustee thinks fit (section                       35 of the Act);

 

(c)        a power of accumulation of income and advancement in the case of beneficiaries who are              minors (section 45(3) of the Act).

 

7.18   The terms of a trust may confer on the trustee or any other person power to appoint or assign        all or any part of the trust property or any interest in the trust property to, or to trustees for the    benefit of, any person, whether or not such person was a beneficiary of the trust immediately      prior to such appointment or assignment (section 46 of the Act).

 

Remuneration and expenses of trustee

 

7.19   A trustee shall be entitled to such remuneration as may be specified in the terms of the trust,         for the trustee’s services (section 34(1) of the Act). Where the terms of a trust is silent as to the remuneration, a trustee shall be entitled to reasonable remuneration for services that the trustee         provides (section 34(2) of the Act). A trustee may reimburse himself or herself out of the trust, all       expenses and liabilities reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with the trust (section   34(3) of the Act).

 

          Liability for breach of trust

 

7.20   Subject to the Act and the terms of the trust, a trustee shall be liable for a breach of trust committed       by the trustee or in which the trustee has concurred (section 38(1) of the Act). A trustee who is     liable for a breach of trust shall be liable for: (i) the loss or depreciation in value of the trust property         resulting from such breach; and (ii) the profit, if any, which would have accrued to the trust property      if there had been no such breach (section 38(2) of the Act).

 

7.21   A trustee shall not be liable for a breach of trust committed prior to the trustee’s appointment   (section 38(5) of the Act). A trustee shall not be liable for a breach of trust committed by a co-     trustee unless: (i) the trustee becomes aware or ought reasonably to have become aware of the   commission of such breach or of the intention of his or her co-trustee to commit a breach of          trust; and (ii) the trustee actively conceals such breach or such intention or fails within a           reasonable time to take proper steps to protect or restore the trust property or prevent such      breach (section 38(6) of the Act). Nothing in the terms of a trust shall relieve, release or exonerate           a trustee from liability for breach of trust arising from the trustee’s own actual fraud, dishonesty or           wilful misconduct (section 38(9) of the Act).

 

7.22   Where a trustee in good faith and without negligence makes a delegation, appointment or           consultation under section 33 of the Act, the trustee shall not be liable for any loss to the trust   arising from such delegation, appointment or consultation (section 33(3) of the Act).

 

          Power of the Court to relieve trustee from personal liability

 

7.23   Pursuant to section 74(1) of the Act, the Court may relieve a trustee either wholly or partly from personal liability for a breach of trust where it appears to the Court that:

 

(a)        the trustee is or may be personally liable for the breach of trust;

 

(b)        the trustee has acted honestly and reasonably; and

 

(c)        the trustee ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust or for omitting to obtain the                           directions of the Court in the matter in which such breach arose.

 

8.       TRUSTEES – PRIVATE TRUST COMPANIES & CONNECTED TRUST BUSINESS

 

8.1     As an alternative to appointing a professional licensed trustee (licensed under the International   Corporate Service Providers Act by the FSA to provide trustee services), in the case of a           connected trust, a settlor may form a private trust company (see below) to act as trustee of a     Seychelles trust. This may be attractive for family office arrangements and other situations where it      is desirable to keep the trustee functions in-house.

 

8.2     A private trust company or PTC means an international business company (IBC) incorporated or           continued in Seychelles under International Business Companies Act 2016 as amended (IBC Act):         (i) whose memorandum of association states that it is a private trust company; and (ii) which shall            not carry on any business other than providing of the connected trust services in relation to a trust to which it is a trustee (see section 2 of the Act, section 2 of the International   Corporate Service Providers Act and section 2 of the IBC Act).

 

8.3     Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 of the International Corporate Service Providers Act,             connected trust services means the trust services provided in respect of:

 

(a)        a single trust where each beneficiary of the trust is: (i) a connected person in relation to                            the settlor of the trust; or (ii) a charity; or

 

(b)        a group of two or more connected trusts.

 

8.4     Meaning of connected trusts (paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of Schedule 5 of the International   Corporate Service Providers Act):

 

(a)        A trust (the first trust) is connected to another trust (the second trust) where the settlor of                           the first trust is a connected person with respect to the settlor of the second trust.

 

(b)        A group of two or more trusts are connected trusts where each trust in the group is                                  connected to all of the other trusts in the group.

 

8.5     A company shall be treated as a subsidiary (the subsidiary) of another company (the holding   company) where: (i) the holding company is a member of the subsidiary and controls the          composition of the board of directors of the subsidiary; (ii) the holding company, directly or    indirectly, controls more than half of the votes which may be cast at general meetings of the       subsidiary; or (iii) the subsidiary is a subsidiary of any other company which is itself a subsidiary of          the holding company (paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 5 of the International Corporate Service          Providers Act).

 

8.6     Meaning of connected persons (section 2, and paragraph 3(1) to (4) of Schedule 5, of the          International Corporate Service Providers Act):

 

“(1)       A person is a connected person in relation to another person if:

 

(a)        each is in a group of companies;

 

(b)        one is a company and the other is a beneficial owner of shares or other                          ownership interests of that company or of any other company in the same              group of companies;

 

(c)        each is the trustee of a related trust; or

 

(d)        one individual is related to the other by virtue of any of the following relationships: (i)             spouse; (ii) the descendants of the individual and their spouses; (iii) parents, including       step-parents; (iv) grandparents; (v) parents-in-law, including step-parents-in-law; (vi)            brother, step-brother, sister, step-sister and their spouses and children; (vii) spouse’s             grandparents; (viii) spouse’s brother, step-brother, sister, step-sister and their           spouses and children; (ix) parent’s brother, step-brother, sister, step-sister and their         spouses; (x) children of the brother, step-brother, sister or step-sister of the          individual’s parents, both present and future, including step-children and their        spouses; or (xi) children of the individual’s brother, step-brother, sister or step-sister,            both present and future, including step-children and their spouses.

 

(2)        For any of the relationships specified in subparagraph (1)(d) that may be established by                                    affinity or consanguinity, that same relationship may be established by adoption. In                              subparagraph (1)(d)(ii), the terms “descendants of the individual”, means the individual’s                          children, the children of his children, the children of those children, and so on. For such                               purposes, “children” includes step-children.”

 

8.7     A private trust company does not require a trustee services licence under the International   Corporate Service Providers Act, but a private trust company shall not provide any connected            trust services without obtaining an authorisation from the FSA (sections 3(1)(iii-a) and 3A(1) of   the International Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

8.8     Before it commences providing connected trust services, a private trust company shall make an             application to the FSA for obtaining an authorisation under section 3A(1) of the International         Corporate Service Providers Act, which shall be accompanied by: (a) a declaration stating: (i) the          name of the private trust company and its registration number; (ii) the name of its registered agent          or company secretary; and (iii) that it is in compliance with the requirements of the International   Corporate Service Providers Act, including Schedule 5; and (b) an application fee of US$1,000     (section 3A(2) of the International Corporate Service Providers Act). The FSA may grant or reject     the application for authorisation and may at any time revoke the authorisation granted under       section 3A of the International Corporate Service Providers Act (section 3A(3) of the International        Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

8.9     A private trust company shall, on or before the date of each annual anniversary of it being           authorised under section 3A of the International Corporate Service Providers Act: (a) file with the Authority a compliance declaration in the form provided by the FSA; and (b) pay an annual fee of US$1,000 (section 3A(4) of the International Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

8.10   A private trust company shall not: (a) provide any trust services that is not connected trust           services; or (b) solicit trust services from members of the public (section 3B(1) of the International        Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

8.11   A private trust company shall ensure that at all times its registered agent is a company which:          (a) holds both an international corporate services licence and a trustee services licence under the International Corporate Service Providers Act; or (b) holds an international corporate services          licence and is wholly owned by one or more persons who wholly own another company which             holds a trustee services licence under the International Corporate Service Providers Act (section            3C of the International Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

8.12   A private trust company shall, in relation to each trust of which it is trustee, keep at its      registered office: (i) copies of the trust deed, or other document creating or establishing a trust,     and any deed or document varying the terms of the trust under the Act; and (ii) the trust register    required to be kept under section 28 of the Act (section 3D of the International Corporate Service Providers Act).

 

9.       PROTECTORS

 

9.1     The appointment of a protector is optional rather than mandatory. The terms of a trust may (but are not required to) provide for the appointment of a person as a protector of the trust (section     52(1) of the Act).

 

9.2     Some settlors appoint a protector (often a family member or a professional advisor known to the   settlor) to oversee operation of the trust by the trustee. While a protector should not control or   operate a trust (that is the trustee’s role), the trust instrument gives the protector certain powers    and/or may require the trustee to obtain the protector’s prior consent relating to certain trust    decisions. Where a trust has a protector, it is common to give the protector power to appoint or         remove trustees and to approve the addition or removal of beneficiaries.

 

9.3     More specifically, pursuant to section 53(1) of the Act, if provided for in the terms of a trust         instrument, the powers vested in the protector may include:

 

(a)        the power to remove, or appoint a new trustee or additional trustee;

 

(b)        power to add or exclude a beneficiary;

 

(c)        power to approve or change the proper law of the trust;

 

(d)        power to approve proposed trust distributions;

 

(e)        power to approve proposed trust investments;

 

(f)         power to appoint replacement protectors;

 

(g)        power to approve the termination of the trust upon distribution of all of the trust’s property;                       and

 

(h)        such further powers as are conferred on the protector by the terms of the trust or the                              provisions of the Act.

 

9.4     A protector of a trust may be a settlor or an enforcer of the trust, but not a trustee of the trust      (section 52(2) of the Act). A protector of a trust may be a beneficiary of the trust, but not a sole     beneficiary (section 52(3) of the Act).

 

9.5     The role of the trustee (who legally holds trust property) is to manage and control the trust and trust        property in accordance with the terms of the trust instrument. If a protector is given very wide     powers in respect of a trust (e.g. the power to direct or approve ‘fiscal’ matters such as investment      activities or distributions and the power to revoke the trust) this may potentially undermine the      trustee and may cause the trust to be viewed as a sham or may constitute ‘management or control’        so as to make the trust ‘tax resident’ where the protector is resident or domiciled, which could have           adverse tax consequences for the trust or protector, especially if the protector is resident or      domiciled in a high tax country with a worldwide tax system. It is recommended that each intended        protector (and settlor) seek expert legal and tax advice (in his or her country of residence and   domicile) before establishing a trust, including as to the scope of any protector powers reserved in    respect of the trust.

 

9.6     A protector of a trust shall be entitled, on a written request to the trustee of the trust, to: (i) a copy of            the instrument creating the trust, any amendment thereto and any additional deed supplemental to           the instrument creating the trust; and (b) access to and copies of the accounting records of the trust       (section 55(1) of the Act). A protector shall not disclose information or document referred to in         section 55(1) to a beneficiary, if any, or to any third party unless such beneficiary or other party is           entitled under the terms of the trust to have or receive such information or document (section 55(2) of the Act).

 

9.7     A protector or a person acting as an officer, employee or agent of the protector or performing any           duty on behalf of the protector shall not be liable for damages done or omitted to be done in the     discharge of the duties of the protector under the Act or under the terms of the trust, unless it is            proved that the act or omission constituted or arose from the person’s own fraud, dishonesty or            willful misconduct (section 57 of the Act).

 

10.     KEEPING OF ACCOUNTING RECORDS

 

10.1   Accounting records, in relation to a trust, means documents relating to the trust’s assets and      liabilities, receipts and expenditure of the trust and sales, purchases and other transactions to   which the trust is a party, e.g., bank statements, receipts, title documents, agreements, vouchers,      etc (section 2 of the Act).

 

10.2   While trusts are not required to prepare or file annual audited accounts in Seychelles (unless they           earn Seychelles-sourced income), a trustee of a trust is required to keep or cause to be kept proper      accounting records that: (i) are sufficient to show and explain the trust’s transactions; (ii) enable the        financial position of the trust to be determined with reasonable accuracy at any time; and (iii) allow        for financial statements of the trust to be prepared (section 26(1) of the Act).

 

10.3   The trustee shall, in respect of each trust (including a terminated trust) to which it was or is acting           as trustee, preserve accounting records for at least 7 years from the completion of the transaction         or operation to which it relates (section 26(3) of the Act).

 

10.4   Pursuant to section 27(1) of the Act, where the approved trustee of a trust is:

 

(a)        a licensed trustee, the trustee shall:

 

(i)         prepare an annual financial summary to be kept at the licensed trustee’s          principal place of business in Seychelles within 6 months from the end of the        trust’s financial year; and

 

(ii)        on a bi-annual basis, keep its accounting records at the licensed trustee’s          principal place of business in Seychelles.

 

(b)        a private trust company, the trustee shall:

 

(i)         prepare an annual financial summary to be kept at the private trust      company’s registered office in Seychelles within 6 months from the end of the        trust’s financial year; and

 

(ii)        on a bi-annual basis, keep its accounting records at the private trust       company’s registered office in Seychelles.

 

10.5   It shall be sufficient compliance with section 27(1) of the Act, if a copy of the accounting records or financial summary is kept in electronic form at the approved trustee’s principal place or business or registered office in Seychelles (section 27(2) of the Act).

 

10.6   The financial year of a trust shall be the calendar year, unless it is determined otherwise by the trustee (section 27(4) of the Act).

 

10.7   Where an approved trustee keeps a copy of its accounting records at its principal place of business or registered office in Seychelles, the approved trustee shall keep a written record of the physical address of the place where the original accounting records are kept, and of any change thereto (section 27(3) of the Act).

 

11.     TRUST REGISTERS required by the Act

 

11.1   Pursuant to section 28(1) and (2) of the Act, each trustee, in relation to every trust of which it is the          trustee, shall keep or cause to be kept at the principal place of business in Seychelles of the trust’s     approved trustee, a register to be known as the trust register (Trust Register) specifying the    following information in respect of each: (i) trustee; (ii) beneficiary or class of beneficiaries; (iii)   settlor; (iv) protector (if any); (v) enforcer (if any); and (vi) regulated agent and service provider of           the trust including, but not limited to, investment advisors, investment managers, accountants and           tax advisors of the trust:

 

(a)        the person’s full name and address;

 

(b)        the person’s nationality or place of incorporation, as the case may be;

 

(c)        the date on which the person was appointed or otherwise became a trustee, beneficiary,                             settlor, protector, enforcer, agent or service provider to the trust as the case may be, and in                        the case of a natural person identified under section 28(1) of the Act, the date upon which                 such a person began exercising control over the trust;

 

(d)        the date on which the person ceased to be a trustee, beneficiary, settlor, protector,                                enforcer, agent or service provider to the trust as the case may be, and in the case of a                            natural person identified under section 28(1) of the Act, the date upon which the person                                  ceased to exercise control over the trust.

 

11.2   Where the approved trustee of a trust is a licensed trustee, the Trust Register shall be kept at the licensed trustee’s principal place of business in Seychelles; where the approved trustee of a trust is   a private trust company, the Trust Register shall be kept at the private trust company’s registered          office in Seychelles (section 28(3) of the Act).

 

11.3   Subject to the terms of the trust, the Trust Register shall, during business hours, be open to           inspection by any trustee, protector, enforcer, settlor or beneficiary of the trust, and shall be open           for inspection for a period of not less than two hours on each business day (section 28(4) of the           Act).

 

11.4   The Trust Register may be in such form as the approved trustee of the trust approves, but if it is in magnetic, electronic or other data storage form, the approved trustee shall be able to produce           legible evidence of its content (section 28(5) of the Act).

 

11.5   The Trust Register is prima facie evidence of any matters directed or permitted by this Act to be contained therein (section 28(6) of the Act).

 

11.6   An approved trustee shall, in respect of each trust (including a terminated trust) to which it was or is        a trustee, preserve the Trust Register specified under section 28(1) for at least 7 years from the     date: (i) it ceases to the trustee of the trust; or (ii) the trust fails, lapses or terminates (section 28(7)           of the Act).

 

11.7   A trustee who fails to comply with section 28(1), (2), (3), (4) or (5) (trust register keeping          requirements) shall be liable to a penalty fee of US$500 and an additional penalty fee of US$50 for          each day or part thereof during which the contravention continues (section 28(10) of the Act). A            trustee who fails to comply with section 28(7) or (8) shall be liable to a penalty fee not exceeding          US$10,000 (section 28(11) of the Act).

 

12.     REGISTER OF BENEFICIAL OWNERS required by the Beneficial Ownership Act

 

12.1   In addition to the Trust Register required to be kept by the Act (see paragraph 11), the Beneficial Ownership Act 2020 (the BO Act) and the Beneficial Ownership Regulations 2020 (the BO       Regulations) require that a trust keep a Register of Beneficial Owners (see 12.3 below). For BO     Act and anti-money laundering (AML) law purposes, pursuant to regulation 3(6) of the BO            Regulations, the beneficial owner in relation to a trust means an individual who in respect of the    trust is:

 

(a)        a trustee;

 

(b)        a settlor;

 

(c)        a protector;

 

(d)        a beneficiary;

 

(e)        any other individual exercising ultimate effective control over the trust, including any person               who has, under the trust deed of the trust or any similar document, power to: (i) appoint or                    remove any of the trustees of the trust; (ii) direct the distribution of funds or assets of the                          trust; (iii) direct investment decisions of the trust; (iv) amend the trust deed; or (v) revoke                                the trust; and

 

(f)         any other person, known by the resident trustee/agent of the trust, who is exercising                               control over the trust.

 

12.2   The definition of a trust’s beneficial owner for the purposes of record keeping and requirements under the BO Act and customer due diligence under AML law includes (as well as beneficiaries), a           trust’s settlor and, if any, protector, despite them having no ownership interest in the trust or its      assets (see definition of “trust” in section 2 of the Act: trust property is not the property of the settlor        once those assets have been gifted to the trust). Trust property is held by the trustee as legal             owner for and on behalf of the beneficiaries, subject to the terms of the trust.

 

12.3   The trustee of a trust is required to keep at the principal place of business of its resident trustee in       Seychelles, a Register of Beneficial Owners (see section 5(1) of the BO Act and regulation 12(1)           and the First Schedule of the BO Regulations), containing the following information in respect of           the trust:

 

(a)        the name, residential address, service address, date of birth and nationality of each                                   beneficial owner of the trust;

 

(b)        the nature and details of each beneficial owner’s interest in the trust;

 

(c)        the date on which a person became a beneficial owner of the trust;

 

(d)        the date on which a person ceased to be a beneficial owner of the trust; and

 

(e)        where a nominee holds any interest in or control of the trust on behalf of the beneficial                          owner:

 

(i)         the name, residential address, service address, date of birth and nationality of                                       each nominee holding the interest on behalf of the beneficial owner and the                                              particulars and details of the interest held by the nominee; and

 

(ii)        the identity of the nominator (who nominates the nominee to hold interests on his,                                  her or its behalf), and where the nominator is a legal person, the identity of the                                                individual who ultimately owns or controls the nominator (providing their name,                                     residential address, service address, date of birth and nationality).

 

12.4   The Register of Beneficial Owners may be maintained in magnetic, electronic or other data storage       form (section 7 of the BO Act) but the trustee of the trust must be able to produce legible evidence          of its contents. Every trustee of a trust shall maintain accurate and up to date information required   under section 5(1) of the BO Act in the trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners.

 

12.5   The registerable particulars of a trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners must be submitted to the          Seychelles Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) which submitted information is not publicly accessible   (see sections 5(6) and 13(4) of the BO Act). The filing of the registrable particulars with the FIU is           required to be done by a trust’s resident trustee in Seychelles.

 

12.6   A trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners kept at its resident trustee’s office in Seychelles is not open            to public inspection. The persons entitled to inspect a trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners are a       trustee, settlor or beneficiary of the trust and a person whose name is entered in the trust’s        Register of Beneficial Owners as a beneficial owner, limited to inspection of the person’s name in            the Register (section 11(1)(c) and (e) of the BO Act).

 

Declaration by person on becoming beneficial owner

 

12.7   Every person on becoming a beneficial owner of a trust shall within 14 days from the date of      becoming a beneficial owner, submit to the trust a Declaration of Beneficial Ownership containing the registrable particulars relating to the person (section 10(1) of the BO Act and regulation 14 and        Second Schedule of the BO Regulations). “Registrable particulars” means the particulars to be registered under the BO Act in relation to a trust including the particulars required by section 5 of         the BO Act to be kept in a trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners.

 

12.8   Upon receipt of a Declaration of Beneficial Ownership, the trustee of the trust shall within 14 days             cause its Register of Beneficial Owners to be updated on the basis of the Declaration (section       10(2) of the BO Act).

 

Notice of relevant change by beneficial owner

 

12.9   A relevant change in relation to a person occurs if: (i) the person ceases to be a beneficial owner          in relation to the trust; or (ii) any other change occurs as a result of change in the registrable         particulars of the beneficial owner (section 10(8) of the BO Act).

 

12.10 If a relevant change occurs in relation to a beneficial owner of a trust, the beneficial owner shall     within 14 days of such change give written notice to the trustee of the trust providing the following             details for changes to be made to the trust’s Register of Beneficial Owners: (i) the relevant change;       (ii) the date on which it occurred; and (iii) any information needed to update the Register of         Beneficial Owners (section 10(3) of the BO Act).

 

13.     ENFORCERS OF PURPOSE TRUSTS

 

13.1   Settlors typically set up trusts in order to provide a long-term benefit to identified beneficiaries, often relatives. However, there are cases where a settlor has no individual beneficiaries in mind   and instead wishes to provide for the achievement of a goal or purpose, be it charitable or non-           charitable (e.g. commercial or recreational) (see section 3(1) of the Act). Charitable trusts aside,            section 2 of the Act defines a “purpose trust” as a trust created for the fulfillment of one or more       non-charitable purposes, whether or not it has any beneficiaries.

 

13.2   Noting that a purpose trust usually does not have beneficiaries, it is a global trust law norm that there must always be someone who if necessary can go to court to ensure the trust objects are    being fulfilled. Accordingly, the Act requires that the terms of the trust in the case of a purpose   trust shall provide for: (i) the appointment of one or more persons as an enforcer in relation to the          trust’s non-charitable purposes; and (ii) the appointment of one or more persons as enforcer at             any time when there is none (section 59(1) of the Act). A charitable trust can (but is not required to)      have an enforcer, in which case the terms of the trust shall provide for the appointment of one or           more persons as enforcer in relation to the trust’s charitable purposes (section 59(2) of the Act).

 

13.3   Subject to the terms of a trust, it shall be the duty of an enforcer of a purpose trust to enforce       the trust in relation to its non-charitable purposes (section 60(1) of the Act). In the case of a           charitable trust which has an enforcer, it shall be the duty of the enforcer to enforce the trust in             relation to its charitable purposes (section 60(2) of the Act).

 

13.4   An enforcer of a trust can also be a settlor, a beneficiary or a protector of the trust, but the           appointment of a person as enforcer of the trust shall not have effect if the person is also a          trustee of the trust (section 59(3) of the Act). A trustee of a purpose trust shall, at any time when    there is no enforcer in relation to those purposes, take such steps as maybe necessary to secure        the appointment of an enforcer in accordance with the terms of the trust (section 59(4) of the Act).

 

13.5   An enforcer or a person acting as an officer, employee or agent of the enforcer or performing any           duty on behalf of the enforcer shall not be liable in damages for anything done or omitted to be             done in the discharge or of the duties of the enforcer under this Act or under the terms of the trust, unless it is proved that the act or omission constituted or arose from the person’s own fraud,       dishonesty or willful misconduct (section 64 of the Act).

 

14.     SEYCHELLES TAXATION

 

Trusts that only earn non-assessable (foreign sourced) income

 

14.1   A Seychelles trust, including the trustees of the trust, are not liable to tax in Seychelles in respect of          the foreign sourced income or profits (non-assessable income) of a trust (see paragraph 15,   Second Schedule of the Business Tax Act 2009 as amended read with the International Corporate        Service Providers Act). Consequently, a Seychelles trust that only earns foreign sourced income is       not liable for Seychelles tax on any of its income or profits.

 

14.2   A trust which does not earn Seychelles sourced income (assessable income) is not required to file             a Seychelles tax return with the Seychelles Revenue Commission (SRC). The Act does not require          trusts which only earn foreign sourced income to file a tax return or accounts in Seychelles.

 

Trusts that earn Seychelles sourced income

 

14.3   Pursuant to section 87(1) of the Act, if a Seychelles trust earns assessable income (income          sourced from Seychelles) it is required to:

 

(a)        within one month of deriving its first assessable income, notify the FSA in writing that it is                                    deriving assessable income and the nature of the activities giving rise to the assessable                          income; and

 

(b)        within one year of deriving the first assessable income, submit to the FSA an annual return                     accompanied by the annual audited financial statements complying with the requirements                      of sections 142 and 144 and the Sixth Schedule of the Companies Act 1972.

 

14.4   Pursuant to the Business Tax Act 2009 as amended (BTA), on commencing business in     Seychelles the company will be liable for business tax on its assessable income (Seychelles     sourced income) above the tax-free threshold and will be required to file with the SRC an annual tax return within 3 months after the end of the tax year and pay Seychelles tax on any assessable income above the tax-free threshold.

 

Stamp duty exemption

 

14.5   All instruments (documents) relating to the following are exempt from the payment of stamp duty:             (i) the formation of a trust; (ii) transfers of property to or by a trust (acting by its trustees); (iii)       transactions in respect of beneficiaries’ interests in a trust; (iv) the creation, variation or discharge             of a charge or other security interests over any property of a trust; and (v) other transactions          relating to the business or assets of a trust (acting by its trustees), provided that such stamp duty             exemption does not apply to an instrument relating to: (a) the transfer to or by a trust (acting by its           trustees) of an interest in immovable property (real estate) in Seychelles; or (b) the transfer to or by          a trust (acting by its trustees) of shares or other interests in a company or other legal person which   owns or has any interest in immovable property (real estate) in Seychelles (section 87(3) and 4) of        the Act).

 

15.     THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

 

15.1   A trustee of a Seychelles trust may apply to the Court for direction in respect of the manner in       which the trustee may act in connection with any matter relating to the trust and the Court may      make such order as it thinks fit (section 70 of the Act).

 

15.2   Pursuant to section 71(1) and (2) of the Act, an application to the Court may be made by the   trustee, the settlor, the enforcer, a protector or a beneficiary, the FSA or, with leave of the Court, by       any other person, for an order concerning:

 

(a)        the execution or the administration of a trust;

 

(b)        the trustee of a trust, including an order relating to the exercise of any power, discretion or                 duty of the trustee, the appointment or removal of a trustee, the remuneration of a trustee,              the submission of accounts, the conduct of the trustee and distribution of property;

 

(c)        a beneficiary or a person having a connection with the trust;

 

(d)        the appointment or removal of an enforcer in relation to a non-charitable purpose of the                                    trust; or

 

(e)        the appointment or removal of a protector;

 

(f)         a declaration as to the validity or the enforceability of a trust;

 

(g)        the rescission or variation any order or declaration made under the Act, or make any new                        order or declaration.

 

 

OCI recommends that clients seek tax and legal advice in their countries of residence and domicile from an appropriate qualified expert prior to establishing a trust. Settlors, Beneficiaries and Protectors/Enforcers should ensure that they are professionally advised on any restrictions and reporting requirements that participation in or dealings with a trust may involve.

 

ANNEXURE 1

Letter of Wishes

  • This document is for guidance and example purposes only. Any letter of wishes should be tailored to cover the client’s specific circumstances and intended beneficiaries and, as applicable, any restrictions.

 

To:     [insert name and address of trustee], The Trustee of the Trust

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

THE [  insert trust name]  TRUST (the Trust), Seychelles

 

I, [ INSERT FULL NAME OF SETTLOR], of [ insert full address of settlor] , am writing to you as the Settlor the Trust, in order to express my non-binding wishes in respect of the Trust. This letter is not intended to create any legally binding trust obligation. This letter is a confidential communication between me and you (the Trustee) and supersedes any previous wishes given by me. I understand that the power to take decisions in relation to the Trust assets rests with you, the Trustee, and that I am not entitled to take any decisions myself or to order you to make decisions.

 

Subject to your discretion as trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust, my intention is to make provision for the Trust’s Beneficiaries and it is my wish as settlor that the Trust’s assets (Trust Fund) should be held on the following trusts:

 

1.       Subject as provided below, the Beneficiaries of the Trust are my wife [ insert full name ] and I as           principal beneficiaries and my children, [ insert full names ], as ultimate beneficiaries.

 

2.       It is my wish that after my death the Trust Fund be utilised for the benefit of my wife and children.

 

3.       Should my wife survive me then, at your discretion, distributions of capital and/or income of the Trust Fund should be made available to my wife for her accommodation, maintenance and welfare        and thereafter, on her death, I would like the entire Trust Fund to be distributed to my surviving children absolutely in equal shares, provided that:

 

(a)        such final distribution to each surviving child shall be made on him or her attaining the age                     of [25]; and

 

(b)        if any of my children have predeceased the survivor of my wife and I leaving their own                                children, then I would wish each such grandchild (on reaching [25] years of age) to receive               per stirpes the entitlement his or her parent would have received.

 

4.       After my death and before my children attaining the age of [25], you may use your discretion to    advance part of the Trust Fund to any of the children at a younger age (including, for example, in        respect of educational, maintenance or health purposes).

 

5.       If my wife and children predecease me, upon my death to the persons and in the proportions as             follows:

 

(a)        [ insert full name, address and entitlement ]; and

 

(b)        [ insert full name, address and entitlement ].

 

6.       I request that you also have regard to any future expressions of wishes that I may make from time           to time. I further ask that, in the event, of my death, that you have regard to any requests made by           the Trust’s Protector or, if it has no Protector, by [ name and address of person ]. It should however         be borne in mind that my above wishes may be overtaken by future events and I wish you to use           your best judgement to decide how matters should be dealt with in the future. I certify that I am           personally solvent, of sound health and give this letter of wishes of my own free will.

 

Dated:

Signed…………………………………….

Full name:

Settlor

 

 

SEYCHELLES IBC ACT AMENDMENTS

The Republic of Seychelles has recently passed certain amendments to its International Business Companies Act Legislation. This article is designed to summarize key aspects of the amendments. The amendments will be of particular interest to current Seychelles IBC owners as well as clients considering incorporating in Seychelles.

 

Hitherto, Seychelles International Business Companies (IBCs) were incorporated under the International Business Companies Act 2016 (the Act), which has been amended by the International Business Companies (Amendment) Act 2021 (the Amendment Act).

 

Part A below sets out the main highlights and Part B goes into detail. We would particularly draw your attention to the new accounting records requirements for IBCs: see paragraphs A and B of Part A and paragraphs 34 to 42 of Part B below.

 

PART A – IBC AMENDMENT HIGHLIGHTS

 

A.         Bi-annual sending of accounting records to registered office – With effect from 6 February 2022, every company on the Register to keep, on a bi-annual basis, its accounting records at the company’s registered office in Seychelles (section 175(1A) and (1B) of the Act). This means the company shall at least twice annually send updated accounting records to be kept at its registered office in Seychelles. We will provide an update when the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) has issued its final version Guidance Circular, but they have indicated (in their draft Guidance Circular) that the following shall apply:

 

(a)        IBC accounting records relating to transactions or operations in the first half (January to June) of a calendar year must be kept in Seychelles by July of that year;

(b)        IBC accounting records relating to transactions or operations in the second half (July to December) of a calendar year must be kept in Seychelles by January of the following year;

(c)        In respect of existing accounting records (i.e. accounting records relating to the years prior to year 2022) and accounting records relating to year 2022 for companies on the Register, accounting records relating to transactions or operations in the past 7 years to 31 December, 2021 must be kept in Seychelles by 6 February, 2022;

(d)        While the accounting records are required to be kept at the registered office in Seychelles, they are not required to be filed with the Registrar and are not open to public inspection;

(e)        It shall be sufficient if the accounting records are kept at the company’s registered office in electronic form. Where a company keeps a copy of its accounting records (rather than the originals) at its registered office, the company is required to inform its registered agent in writing of the physical address of the place where the original accounting records are kept; and

(f)         Per section 2 of the Act, accounting records, in relation to a company, means documents in respect of: (i) the company’s assets and liabilities; (ii) the receipts and expenditure of the company; and (iii) the sales, purchases and other transactions to which the company is a party (which includes, without limitation, bank statements, invoices, receipts, title documents, agreements, vouchers, etc).

 

B.         Annual financial summary required for large companies and non-large non-holding companies – With effect from 6 February 2022, a large company (i.e. with an annual turnover  above Seychelles Rupees 50,000,000 (approx. US$3,000,000 as at August 2021)) or a non-large company that is not a holding company (i.e. not a company which only holds interests in other companies or assets), is required to prepare an annual financial summary to be kept at its registered office in Seychelles within 6 months from the end of the company’s financial year (section 175(1B) of the Act). Note: For client companies that already prepare annual accounts (audited or unaudited), these will suffice to comply with the “annual financial summary” requirement, provided the annual accounts are sent to the registered agent in Seychelles for keeping at the company’s registered office.

 

C.         Mandatory company name suffix The Act has been widened to permit the name of a company (other than a protected cell company) to end with the words: “Limited Liability Company” or “Company”, or with the abbreviation “LLC” or “Co”, as alternatives to the existing mandatory company name endings of the words: “Limited”, “Corporation”, “Limited” or “Incorporated”, or the abbreviation “Ltd”, “Corp”, or “Inc” (section 25(1) and (2) of the Act).

 

D.         Written consent to be a director, alternate director or reserve director The following new requirement has been introduced (making obligatory a pre-existing common practice): A person shall not be appointed as a director or alternate director of a company, or nominated as a reserve director, unless the person has consented in writing to be a director or alternate director or to be nominated as a reserve director, except the written consent requirement shall not apply to a director, alternate director or reserve director appointed or nominated prior to the commencement of the International Business Companies (Amendment) Act 2021, namely, 6 August 2021 per section 134(7) and (8) of the Act).

 

E.         Deemed dissolution of struck off companies after 1 year – Section 275 of the Act is amended with effect from 1 January 2022 to provide that, where the name of a company that has been struck off the Register under section 272 of the Act (such as for non-payment of annual fees) remains struck off continuously for a period of 1 (one) year (instead of 7 years), it is dissolved with effect from the last day of that period.

 

F.         Restoration application to the Registrar (non-Court) A new section 276(1C) has been introduced with effect from 1 January 2022, reducing the time-limit for an application to the Registrar (to restore the name of a struck off or dissolved company) to: (i) within one year of the date of the striking off notice published in the Gazette under section 272(4) of the Act; or (ii) within five years of the date of dissolution.

 

G.        Restoration application to the Supreme Court of Seychelles Section 277(2) of the Act has been amended with effect from 1 January 2022 to reduce the time-limit for an application to the Court, for an order to restore the name of a struck off or dissolved company under section 277(1), to: (i) within one year of the date of the striking-off notice published in the Gazette under section 272(4) of the Act; or (ii) within five years of the date of dissolution of a company.

 

H.         Eligibility to be liquidator under Sub-Part II of Part XVII of the Act Section 284 of the Act has been widened to allow for a company (whose members intend to voluntary wind up and dissolve a solvent company under Sub-Part II of Part XVII of the Act) to appoint a company or an individual as liquidator to proceed with members’ voluntary winding up and dissolution application. Subject to the disqualification provisions in section 284, a liquidator may be resident anywhere in the world and is not required to be a qualified accountant or insolvency practitioner.

 

For full details in regards to the changes click on this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/dvd4likvetcd6wg/SEYCHELLES%20IBC%20ACT%20CHANGES%20OCTOBER%202021.docx?dl=0

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Residents – How To Open an Offshore Cryptocurrency Exchange Account

Are you a Cryptocurrency Trader or Cryptocurrency Investor based in America?

 

If so, you’d be aware that your residential situation limits your access to Cryptocurrency Exchanges.

 

No doubt you’d like to be able to open a Cryptocurrency Exchange Account with your preferred supplier. The dilemma there is that many (if not most) of the most sought after Cryptocurrency Exchanges won’t accept Americans as clients.

 

If you want access to the widest range of Cryptocurrency Exchanges what you will need to do is set up an Offshore Company.

 

Even if you were to do that, some Exchanges won’t accept a (non American)n Offshore Company as a client if the Director or Shareholder of the Company is an American. So for those Exchanges you’d need to include a Nominee Shareholder and a Nominee Director as part of your Company/legal structure. (Obviously these Nominees would be based outside of the US and ideally in a zero tax locale – most Offshore Service Providers can provide such a service).

 

In the above scenario however (ie an Offshore Company with a Nominee Director/Nominee Shareholder) you would still be classified as the “beneficial owner” of the Company.

 

Some Exchanges won’t accept a (non American)n Offshore Company as a client if the Director or Shareholder or beneficial owner of the Company is an American. To get access to those Exchanges (ie to get access to the widest range of Exchanges) what you would need to do is set up a Private Foundation to act as shareholder of the Company…. Because a Foundation is considered at law to be both the legal owner and the beneficial owner of any asset it holds.

 

A Foundation is a legal entity very similar to a Trust in that it’s set up by a Founder (like a Settlor in the case of a Trust) and managed day to day by a Councillor (like a Trustee in the case of a Trust) who manages the Foundation property for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Foundation (ie persons who are designed ultimately to benefit financially from the set up of the Foundation). A key advantage of a Foundation is that it’s a separate legal entity in its own right (ie the Foundation is presumed at law to be the legal AND beneficial owner of any asset it holds – unlike a Trustee who holds property for someone else ie the beneficiaries) and generally speaking the beneficiaries of the Trust are considered at law to have a beneficial interest in Trust property/income streams).

 

It’s not hard to set up an Private Foundation and or an Offshore Company; You just need to complete a basic order form + provide proof of your ID and residential address. The process can take as little as 48 hours and can cost as little as $US1,000!

 

OCI can also provide guidance in terms of where to domicile (& how to structure) your Offshore Company as/if needed.

 

Would you like to know more? Then please Contact Us:

 

www.offshoreincorporate.com

 

info@offshorecompaniesinternational.com

 

ocil@protonmail.com

 

oci@tutanota.com

 

oci@safe-mail.net

 

ociceo@hushmail.com

 

DISCLAIMER: OCI is a Company/Trust/LLC/LP/Foundation Formation Agency. We are not tax advisers or legal advisers. You are advised to seek local legal/tax/financial advice in regards to your local reporting/tax requirements before committing to set up or use an Offshore Company or other entity.