The Puppet Masters
How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to
Hide Stolen Assets and What to Do About It
Emile van der Does de Willebois
Emily M. Halter
Robert A. Harrison
Ji Won Park
J.C. Sharman

The Puppet Masters

The Puppet Masters
How the Corrupt Use Legal
Structures to Hide Stolen Assets
and What to Do About It
Emile van der Does de Willebois
Emily M. Halter
Robert A. Harrison
Ji Won ParkJ. C. Sharman© 2011 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW
Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000
Internet: www.worldbank.org
All rights reserved
1 2 3 4 14 13 12 11This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The
World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,
denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on thepart of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance ofsuch boundaries.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this workwithout permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission
to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA; telephone:978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of
the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422;
e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org.
ISBN: 978-0-8213-8894-5
eISBN: 978-0-8213-8896-7
DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-8894-5
Cover design: 1127 Graphic Design
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been requested

Contents

Foreword
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations

ix
xi
xv

Executive Summary
A Significant Challenge
The Elusive Beneficial Owner: A Call for a Substantive Approach
Wanted: A Government Strategy
The Advantages of Service Providers
Why Service Providers Should Be Obligated to Conduct Due Diligence
Enforcing Compliance
Attorneys and Claims of Attorney-Client Privilege
A Two-Track Approach
Why Due Diligence Is Not Enough
Enhancing the Skills and Capacity of Investigators
Transnational Investigations
Building a Transnational Case
Conducting Risk Analysis and Typologies

1
1
3
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
9
9
9

Part 1. The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Objective of This Report
1.3 How to Use This Report

11
11
13
15

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Origin of the Term “Beneficial Owner”
2.3 Defining Beneficial Ownership: The Theory
2.4 Applying the Concept of Beneficial Ownership in Practice
2.5 The Service Provider’s Perspective
2.6 Conclusion and Recommendations

17
17
18
19
23
26
29

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Corporate Vehicles: Types and Features
3.3 Conclusion and Recommendations

33
33
33
65

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Company Registries
4.3 Trust and Company Service Providers
4.4 Financial Institutions
4.5 Conclusion and Recommendations

69
69
69
84
97
102

Appendix A. Compliance with Financial Action Task Forceon Money Laundering (FATF) Recommendations
5, 12, 33, and 34
Texts of FATF Recommendation 5 and Recommendation 12
Texts of FATF Recommendation 33 and Recommendation 34

109
109
112

Appendix B. The Five Component Projects: Methodology
and Summary of Findings
Project 1. The Grand Corruption Database Project
Project 2. The Bank Beneficial Ownership Project
Project 3. The Trust and Company Service Providers Project
Project 4. The Registry Project
Project 5. The Investigator Project

117
117
122
134
143
144

Appendix C. Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles
Legal Persons
General Partnerships
Limited Partnerships
Companies
Limited Liability Company
Foundations
Legal Arrangements
The Trust

159
159
159
161
161
164
165
165
165

Appendix D. Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies
Case Study 1: Bruce Rappaport and IHI Debt Settlement
Case Study 2: Charles Warwick Reid
Case Study 3: Diepreye Alamieyeseigha
Case Study 4: Frederick Chiluba
Case Study 5: Jack Abramoff
Case Study 6: Joseph Estrada
Case Study 7: Saudi Arabian Fighter Deals and BAE Systems
Case Study 8: Pavel Lazarenko
Case Study 9: Piarco International Airport Scandal
Case Study 10: Telecommunications D’Haiti

171
171
175
179
183
187
193
198
202
207
212

Appendix E. An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in
Selected Jurisdictions

219

Glossary

265

vi

I

Contents

Boxes2.1
The Origin of the Trust
2.2
Basic Attempt at a Concealment
3.1
Setting Up a Shell Company
3.2
Misusing a Shell Company
3.3
Using Shelf Companies to Conceal Ownership of Bank Accounts
3.4
A Typical Advertisement for “Shelf Corporations and Aged
Corporations”
3.5
Laundering Money through a Front Company
3.6
Setting Up Companies with Bearer Instruments
3.7
Misusing a Bearer-Share Company
3.8
Misusing a Trust
3.9
Hiding the Proceeds of Corruption in a Charitable Foundation
3.10 Receiving Fraudulent Government Contracts by a Partnership3.11 Laundering Money through a Sole Proprietorship3.12 “Chaining” Corporate Vehicles to Conceal Beneficial Ownership3.13 Developing a “Nose” for Inappropriate Complexity
3.14 Setting up Formal Nominee Arrangements for BCP Consolidated
Enterprises (Nevada)3.15 The Opacity Benefits of Using Nominees
3.16 Finding the Front Men: An Insider’s View
3.17 The Control of Corporate Vehicles by a Front Man
3.18 The Experience of the United States
4.1
The Jersey Model
4.2
Tracking Down Disqualified Directors: United Kingdom
4.3
The Directors Index: Hong Kong SAR, China
4.4
Information Sharing and Financial Reporting Systems: Singapore
4.5
Establishing a Legal Entity Involving More Than One TCSP
C.1 The Liechtenstein Anstalt
C.2 The Panamanian Foundation
C.3 The British Virgin Islands VISTA Trusts

18
28
35
36
37
38
40
42
42
46
48
50
51
53
56
59
60
62
63
64
76
80
81
81
86
166
166
169

Figures
3.1
Example of a Complex Legitimate Corporate Vehicle Structure
4.1
Types of Information on Corporate Vechicles Collectedby Registries
4.2
The Balancing Act of the Corporate Registry
4.3
Extensive Online Search Facilities Publicly Available at theCompany Register of Dubai International Financial Centre
4.4
Extensive Online Search Facilities Publicly Available at the ICRISCyber Search Centre in Hong Kong SAR, China
4.5
Types of Information Made Available Online by Registries
4.6
Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies(Sampled OECD Countries)
4.7
Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies (Other Countries)
4.8
Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies (Worldwide)
Contents I

56
72
74
78
79
80
91
92
93
vii

A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
B.1

FATF Recommendation 5
FATF Recommendation 12
FATF Recommendation 33
FATF Recommendation 34
Questionnaire: Financial Institutions’ Rules on Beneficial Ownershipand Their Implementation
Questionnaire: Investigator Project
Composition of Economic Activity Undertaken in the United States
as Ascertained by Internal Revenue Service Tax Data

B.2
C.1

Tables
3.1
Two Examples in Which the Registration of Corporate Directors
Is Addressed in Law
3.2
Examples in Which Nominees Are Addressed in Law
B.1 Grand Corruption Cases Database: Case Summary
B.2 Grand Corruption Cases Database: Corporate Vehicles
B.3 Grand Corruption Cases Database—Key Statistics
B.4 Complete Results of First Audit Study
B.5 Complete Results of Second Audit Study (noncompliant responses
in italics)
B.6 Combined Results
E.1 Companies
E.2 Exempt/International Business Companies
E.3 Limited Liability Companies
E.4 Partnerships
E.5 Limited Partnerships
E.6 Trusts
E.7 Foundations

viii

I

Contents

111
113
114
115
124
147
160

54
61
120
120
121
138
141
142
220
232
239
245
248
252
260

Foreword

Corruption is estimated to be at least a $40 billion dollar a year business. Every day, funds
destined for schools, healthcare, and infrastructure in the world’s most fragile economies are siphoned off and stashed away in the world’s financial centers and tax havens.
Corruption, like a disease, is eating away at the foundation of people’s faith in government. It undermines the stability and security of nations. So it is a development challenge in more ways than one: it directly affects development assistance, but it also
undermines the preconditions for growth and equity.
We need mobilization at the highest level so that corruption is tackled effectively.
This report, The Puppet Masters, deals with the corporate and financial structures thatform the building blocks of hidden money trails. In particular, it focuses on the easewith which corrupt actors hide their interests behind a corporate veil and the difficulties investigators face in trying to lift that veil.
It serves as a powerful reminder that recovering the proceeds of corruption is a collective responsibility that involves both the public and private sector. Law enforcement
and prosecution cannot go after stolen assets, confiscate and then return them if they
are hidden behind the corporate veil. All financial centers and developed countries
have committed, through the UN Convention against Corruption and internationalanti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism standards, to improving the transparency of legal entities and other arrangements.
This StAR report provides evidence of how far we still have to go to make these commitments a reality. Narrowing the gap between stated commitments and practice on the
ground has a direct impact on actual recovery of assets.
As recent history shows, these issues are not hypothetical, they are real. Under the leadership of President Obasanjo, I initiated Nigeria’s efforts to recover stolen assets. I know
firsthand from that experience how corrupt officials hid their assets behind innocent
sounding corporations and trusts.
Similarly, this report is firmly rooted in reality. It is based on documentary research,
interviews with corporate registries, bankers, investigators, and other experts who

confront this issue every day in the course of their work, and a “mystery shopping”
exercise with relevant corporate service providers in multiple jurisdictions. The study
highlights the weaknesses in the system that leave these structures open to manipulation and abuse. It provides a series of practical and balanced recommendations on how
these weaknesses can be addressed.
At a time when the international community is stepping up its efforts to fight corruption and underlining the need for financial transparency, this report comes as a welcome contribution. I hope that policy makers, practitioners, and civil society will makegood use of this analysis.
The popular uprisings in North Africa are a powerful reminder that integrity is a condition for legitimacy. The fact that many financial centers immediately began work toreturn assets allegedly stolen by former leaders is a testimony to how stolen assets havebecome both a symbol of abuse and a rallying point in the calls for justice that are echoing in the international community and among people in the streets.
Let’s work together to respond to their call.
Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
Coordinating Minister of Economy and Minister of Finance, Nigeria
former Managing Director, World Bankx

I

Foreword

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the participation, guidance, andinsights of many individuals, agencies, and organizations around the world who gave
generously of their expertise and time.
This publication was written by Emile van der Does de Willebois (team leader,
Financial Market Integrity/Transparency and Accountability, World Bank), Professor
J. C. Sharman (Griffiths University, Australia), Emily M. Halter (project consultant),
Robert A. Harrison (project consultant), and Ji Won Park (project consultant).
The team is especially grateful to Jean Pesme (Coordinator, Stolen Asset Recovery [StAR]
Initiative, and Manager, Financial Market Integrity/Transparency and Accountability,
World Bank) and Adrian Fozzard (former Coordinator, StAR Initiative) for their ongoing support and guidance of this project. We also greatly appreciated the tireless efforts
by Larissa A. Gray (Senior Financial Sector Specialist, Financial Market Integrity/Transparency and Accountability) in providing us with her counsel and incisive editing andtackling of other tasks, to help us reach the finish line.
The team benefited immensely from the peer review process, which was cochaired by
Jean Pesme and Adrian Fozzard. The peer reviewers were Elise J. Bean (Staff Director
and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations), Frank
Anthony Fariello (Legal Department, World Bank), Agustin Flah (Legal Department,
World Bank), Yves Klein (Partner, Monfrini Crettol & Partners), Andrei Mikhnev(Doing Business, World Bank), Robert Palmer (Global Witness, United Kingdom),Colin Powell (former Chairman, Jersey Financial Services Commission), Chip Poncy(Director, Office of Strategic Policy for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S.
Department of the Treasury), Ric Power (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime),
and Simon Whitfield (Anti-Corruption Team, United Kingdom Department for International Development).
We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the following individuals (as well as thoseunnamed individuals who preferred to remain anonymous) who shared with us theirknowledge, insights, and experiences. These individuals represented a variety of backgrounds and included law enforcement officials, prosecutors, compliance officers fromfinancial institutions, private investigators and attorneys, and academics (please note:country affiliation does not mean that this person’s participation necessarily represented the views of the designated country).
For the Registry Project, Dobromir Christow, Andrei Mikhnev, and Laura Pop; as well
as Lanston Connor and the Registrar of Companies of Anguilla; Kim Holmes and theAustralian Securities and Investments Commission; Gian C. Gandhi and the BelizeCompanies and Corporate Affairs Registry; Cindy Jefferson-Bulgin and the General
Registry of the Cayman Islands; Christos Nicolaou and the Department of Registrar ofCompanies and Official Receiver of Cyprus; Rick Geisenberger and the Delaware
Department of State Division of Corporations; Natella Safar Ali and the Registrar ofCompanies of the Dubai International Financial Centre; Karon Beyer and the Florida
Department of State Division of Corporations; Jennifer C. Wiley and the Companies
House of Gibraltar; Helen Proudlove-Gains and the Guernsey Registry; Ivy Poon and
the Companies Registry of Hong Kong SAR, China; Andrew Le Brun, Barry Faudemer,
Debbie Sebire, and the Jersey Financial Services Commission; Bernd Hammermann
and the Office of Land and Public Registration of Liechtenstein; Yves Gonner, Helene
Massard, and the Register of Commerce and Companies of Luxembourg; Zoong Chin
Tin Loi and the Companies Division of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development of Mauritius; Dilkusheen Jayawardene, Amanda Buttigieg, and the Companies
and Personal Property Security Branch of the Ministry of Government Services of
Ontario; K. Latha and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore; Christa Klokow and the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (formerly CIPRO) of South Africa; Lester Martyr and the Registry of International Business Companies Pinnacle of St. Lucia; Karen Jackson and the International Financial
Services Authority of St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Adrian Tagmann, the Federal
Office of Justice, and the commercial registers of Switzerland; John James and the
Financial Services Commission of Turks and Caicos Islands; and Gail Richards and theCompanies House of the United Kingdom; and Rachelle Boyle (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
For the Bankers Project, Gemma Aiolfi (Switzerland), Todd Bancroft (Hong Kong SAR,
China), Brian Conway (Jersey), Jean-Marc Futterknecht (Switzerland), Shamsuddin Ali
Hussin (Malaysia), Oliver Jost (Germany), Keen Yew Kwan (Malaysia), Vincent Li(Hong Kong SAR, China), Frank Meister (United States), Amanda Parmenter (United
Kingdom), Paul Shevlin (Jersey), Katy Smith (Australia), Vikas Tandon (India), andSusan Wright (United Kingdom).
For the Investigators Project, Emmanuel Akomaye (Nigeria), Victor Charles Banda(Malawi), Maurice Barrett (Jamaica), Robert Broekhuijsen (The Netherlands), Ruben
Carranza (The Philippines), Nikoloz Chinkorashvili (Georgia), Greg Christie (Jamaica),
Martin Comley (United Kingdom), Edward H. Davis, Jr. (United States), Yara Esquivel(Integrity Vice Presidency, World Bank), Andre Luis Felicio (Brazil), Financial Intelligence Office of the Macau Special Administrative Region of China, Leonardo Costa
Franco (Uruguay), Robin Gazawi (United States), Anibal Gutierrez (International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala), Gene Hann (Canada), Tom Hansen (Canada),xii

I Acknowledgments

Latoya Harris (Jamaica), Edward Hosea (Tanzania), Guillermo Jorge (Argentina), Adam
S. Kaufmann (United States), Martin S. Kenney (British Virgin Islands), Bernd H. Klose(Germany), Arnoldo B. Lacayo (United States), Douglas A. Leff (United States), Robert
Lindquist (Canada, United States), Silvio Antonio Marques (Brazil), Peter D. Maynard(Bahamas), Keith McCarthy (United Kingdom), Deborah Morrisey (United States), D.
C. Page (United States), Abdul Razak bin Hamzah (Malaysia), Juan G. Ronderos (formerly Integrity Vice Presidency, World Bank; currently, Inter-American Development
Bank), Wellington Cabral Saraiva (Brazil), Jean-Bernard Schmid (Switzerland), Maria
Schnebli (Switzerland), Galvin Shiu (Hong Kong SAR, China), Craig Sorrie (Canada),
Arnold Tenusaar (Estonia), Richard Weber (United States), Joseph J. Wielebinski (UnitedStates), and Gary Wilson (British Virgin Islands).
Richard Chalmers (The Financial Services Authority, United Kingdom), Professor
Rose-Marie Belle Antoine (Barbados), and Professor Richard K. Gordon (United States)
also provided valuable guidance.
The World Bank Law Library and the U.S. Law Library of Congress provided invaluable
research assistance and support in the collection of legal documents from around theworld.
A special thanks also to Allison Battiste, Jan van Koningsveld, Frederick Lah, Nicolas
G. Troncoso, and Matteo Vaccani, who worked on the study in its early stages and to
Thelma Ayamel, Michael Geller, Maria Orellano, and Miguel Nicolas de la Riva for
their support in the administration of the project.

Acknowledgments

I xiiiAbbreviations

AML
BO
CAC
CDD
CFATF
CFT
CV
DNFBP
ECJ
EIN
FARA
FATF
FCPA
FIU
IBC
IC
IRS
ITA
KYC
LLC
LP
LLP
MLA
OECD
OFC
PEP
TCSP
TIEA
UNCAC
UNODC
VISTA

Anti–Money Laundering
Beneficial Owner
Client Acceptance Committee
Customer Due Diligence
Caribbean Financial Action Task Force
Combating the Financing of Terrorism
corporate vehicle
Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions
European Court of Justice
Employer Identification Number
Foreign Agents Registration Act
Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Financial Intelligence Unit
International Business Corporation
Introducer Certificate
Internal Revenue Service (United States)
International Trust Act
Know Your Customer
Limited Liability Company
Limited Partnership
Limited Liability Partnershipmutual legal assistance
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Offshore Financial Center
Politically Exposed Person
Trust and Company Service Providers
Tax Information Exchange Act
United Nations Convention against Corruption
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
British Virgin Islands Special Trust Act

Executive Summary•

In 2002, the government of Kenya invited bids to replace its passport printing system. Despite receiving a bid for €6 million from a French firm, theKenyan government signed a contract for five times that amount (€31.89
million) with Anglo-Leasing and Finance Ltd., an unknown U.K. shell company, whose registered address was a post office box in Liverpool. The
Kenyan government’s decision was taken despite the fact that AngloLeasing proposed to subcontract the actual work to the French company.
Material leaked to the press by whistle-blowers suggested that corrupt
senior politicians planned to pocket the excess funds from the deal.
Attempts to investigate these allegations were frustrated, however, when
it proved impossible to find out who really controlled Anglo-Leasing.

• In March 2010, Daimler AG and three of its subsidiaries resolved charges
related to a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation in the U.S. In
part, Daimler AG’s Russian subsidiary, DaimlerChrysler Automotive Russia
SAO (DCAR), which is now known as Mercedes-Benz Russia SAO, pleaded
guilty to one count of conspiracy to bribe foreign officials and one count ofbribery of foreign officials. The Statement of Facts agreed to by Daimler aspart of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement in US v. Daimler AG noted that
“DCAR and DAIMLER made over €3 million [US$4,057,500] in improper payments to Russian government officials employed at their Russian governmental customers, their designees or third-party shell companies that provided nolegitimate services to DAIMLER or DCAR with the understanding that thefunds would be passed on, in whole or in part, to Russian government officials.” The Statement of Facts details 25 sets of improper payments involving(in addition to cash payments) payments to bank accounts held in Latvia,
Switzerland, the United States and unnamed jurisdictions; the accounts were
held in the name of some of the 27 involved companies (16 named and
11 unnamed) registered or having addresses in 7 different jurisdictions: theBahamas; Costa Rica; Cyprus; Ireland; Seychelles; United Kingdom; and in
United States in California, Delaware and Florida.

A Significant Challenge
Both the Anglo-Leasing and Daimler AG scandals described above graphically illustrate the central role played by corporate vehicles (companies, trusts, foundations, andothers) in concealing the abuse of public trust for private financial gain. In neither casehas any individual or company been convicted of a corruption offense, despite themillions—even billions—of dollars of illicit payments allegedly involved.

Research carried out for this report shows that these cases of “grand” (that is, largescale) corruption are not untypical. Such cases can be found around the world, in bothindustrial and developing countries, whether as the place that the proceeds originate
from or as the place they eventually end up. A review of some 150 cases carried out aspart of this study showed that they shared a number of common characteristics. In thevast majority of them,• a corporate vehicle was misused to hide the money trail;• the corporate vehicle in question was a company or corporation;• the proceeds and instruments of corruption consisted of funds in a bank account;and• in cases where the ownership information was available, the corporate vehicle inquestion was established or managed by a professional intermediary.
This report casts light on how corporate vehicles are misused to conceal the proceeds ofgrand corruption. It describes how providers of legal, financial and administrative(management) services—including banks, financial institutions, lawyers, accountants,
and other professionals that are known as trust and company service providers(TCSPs)—can be employed to facilitate such schemes. While this report focuses on
the use of front companies and the abuse of corporate opacity to conceal corruption,
the weaknesses highlighted in this report are not specific to corruption. There is evidence of similar misuse of legal entities, legal arrangements as well as charities1 in thecontext of other criminal and illicit behaviors, including escaping international sanctions and the funding of terrorist organizations.
Puppet Masters aims to support countries’ efforts to meet international standards thatwere developed in recent years to help combat financial crime, including grand corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing. The two key standard-setting agreements are the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), adopted in2003 and ratified by 100 countries (as of October 2011), and the 2003 recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), endorsed by more than 170 jurisdictions. As highlighted by these two documents, there is international consensus on theneed to improve the transparency of legal persons and arrangements, and many jurisdictions have already taken steps in that direction.
As the study shows, however, significant hurdles to implementing these standards
remain. To support countries as they work to overcome those challenges, the reportoffers recommendations on how to ensure adequate transparency of corporate vehicles.
There is no lack of theoretical discussion on transparency in the ownership and control
of companies, legal arrangements and foundations. Taking a more practical approach,this report draws on an unprecedented depth and breadth of evidence to show:••

where the challenges of the misuse of corporate vehicles lie;
which laws and standards are effective in practice and which are not; and1. See also Financial Action Task Force Special Recommendation VIII.
2

I The Puppet Masters

• how the shortcomings that currently allow most corrupt officials to successfullylaunder illicit funds through corporate vehicles can be addressed.
Three types of evidence were collected for this research:•a database of more than 150 actual cases of grand corruption from a wide range
of jurisdictions;• extensive interviews with practitioners (both service providers and investigators)
on the difficulties they encounter when trying to determine beneficial ownership;and• evidence from a solicitation exercise, whereby researchers posed as would-be
customers soliciting shell companies and trusts to hide their financial affairs.
Through analysis of these varied sources of evidence, the report identifies a numberof ways in which the misuse of corporate vehicles can be curbed. Specifically, thereport—•makes recommendations regarding the minimum information that corporate
registries should collect and make publicly available about the legal and beneficial
owners of legal entities seeking registration;• explores the role that service providers should be required to play in conducting
greater due diligence of the persons who exercise effective control over the corporate vehicles (that is, the beneficial owners); and• calls for investigative capacities to be strengthened (through better training andgreater resources) so that investigators will be better equipped to undertake theincreasingly complex cross-border investigations required in the 21st century.

The Elusive Beneficial Owner: A Call for a Substantive Approach
Uncertainty and variation exist among jurisdictions about the meaning of beneficial
ownership. This report argues that beneficial ownership should be understood as amaterial, substantive concept—referring to the de facto control over a corporate
vehicle—and not a purely legal definition. To be effective and meaningful, beneficial
ownership must not be reduced to a legally defined position, such as a director of acompany or foundation or a shareholder who owns more than a certain percentage ofshares or legal entitlement/benefit of a trust.
In identifying the beneficial owner, the focus should be on two factors: the control exercised and the benefit derived. Control of a corporate vehicle will always depend oncontext, as control can be exercised in many different ways, including through ownership, contractually or informally. A formal approach to beneficial ownership, based on
percentage thresholds of ownership or designated beneficiary of a corporate vehicle
under investigation, may yield useful information providing clues to the corporate vehicle’s ultimate ownership or control. More generally, it may lead to the identification ofpeople of interest who possess information regarding the beneficial owners. Service
Executive Summary

I 3

providers, however, should be aware of the limitations of such an approach. In suspicious cases, they need to go beyond their basic obligations and find out whether others
are really in control or derive benefit.

Wanted: A Government Strategy
Governments have recognized the importance of curbing the misuse of corporate vehicles to conceal beneficial ownership, and in response, they have adopted certain international standards. We have only to look at the evaluations undertaken by the Financial
Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and similar international organizations, however, to see that compliance with these international standards is poor.
The evidence collected for the present study provides—for the first time—direct insight
into the substantial gap between the rules on paper and the rules as applied in practicewhen it comes to corporate vehicles. On this basis, we argue that a more ambitious
approach is needed, one that involves adopting a detailed set of policies specifically aimed
at improving transparency in the ownership and control and benefit of corporate vehicles. In our view, an effective policy regime will need to address at least five key issues.
Issue 1. The information available at company registries should be improved andmade more easily accessible.

The first source of information mentioned by both investigators and service providers
when seeking information about an incorporated entity (that is, any corporate vehicle,
excluding trusts or similar arrangements) is the company registry.
The vast majority of registries contain information about legal entities that is of some
use to investigators, such as the name of the entity, its address, its articles of incorporation (or charter), and details of its directors. This information should be publicly available in all company registries. In cases in which a director is acting as a nominee foranother person, that fact should be noted in the registry, along with the name of that“shadow director.”
Many registries also hold information on the owners, shareholders, and members of alegal entity. All registries should collect and maintain this information, which should
cover anyone whose ownership stake is sufficiently large to be deemed a controllinginterest. This information should be updated and made accessible in a timely manner
to (at least) law enforcement members in the course of their investigations.
Finally, company registries in some jurisdictions—typically held by a securities
supervisor, regulatory commission, or some other agency with a comparably proactive
approach—are more inclined toward enforcing and supervising legal or regulatory
obligations and have sufficient expertise and resources to do so. In such cases, countries
4

I The Puppet Masters

could consider requiring their corporate registry to also maintain information on beneficial ownership. Currently, however, few countries have sufficient expertise andresources to be able to do this adequately.
In addition to improving the data content in company registries, countries should strive
to make it freely available. Ideally, this would mean providing free online access (without preregistration requirements or subscription fees), complete with search functions
that allow for extensive cross-referencing of the data. Access to historical records on thelegal entities entered in the register also should be included.
The report, however, recognizes that company registries have serious limitations—inboth how they are set up and how they work in practice. Registries are almost invariably archival in nature; they rarely conduct independent verification; and in manycases, they are already stretched for resources. They clearly are not a panacea for themisuse of legal entities. For this reason, although the information supplied by a company registry may be a useful starting point, it needs to be complemented by othersources.
Issue 2. Steps should be taken to ensure that service providers collect beneficial
ownership information and allow access to it.

The Advantages of Service Providers
The most important among these other sources are TCSPs and banks. These providers
have unique insight into the day-to-day operations and the real “financial life” of thecorporate vehicle, that is, the financial flows of funds—which are harder to manipulate
and disguise. As a result, banks and service providers are an essential source of information on control and beneficial ownership of a corporate vehicle. The international standards already call on these institutions to be under an obligation to conduct customer
due diligence (CDD) of the corporate vehicle to which they are providing a service.
Implementation is significantly lagging however. This obligation should extend toestablishing the identity of the beneficial owners, both when the business relationship is
initially established and during its subsequent life cycle. Ongoing monitoring is important because the true economic reality behind a corporate vehicle becomes more difficult to hide during the course of a longer-term business relationship. In the case of
corporate vehicles that are trusts or similar legal arrangements, service providers play aneven more important role as source of beneficial ownership information, as few countries have the functional equivalent of a corporate register for trusts.

Why Service Providers Should Be Obligated to Conduct Due Diligence
The international standard on anti-money laundering, laid down in the FATF 40 Recommendations against Money Laundering, requires the collection of information
Executive Summary

I 5about beneficial ownership. The review, however, carried out as part of this study onwhat information TCSPs collect in practice, coupled with country evaluations carriedout in more than 159 countries, shows that banks (to some extent) and TCSPs (moregenerally) still do not adequately identify the beneficial owner when establishing abusiness relationship. For example, U.S. banks are not generally obligated to collectbeneficial ownership information when establishing a business relationship. At thevery least, an official declaration by the customer as to beneficial ownership could be
useful in improving the situation.
More generally, the imposition of due diligence obligations on service providers isimportant for two reasons. First, it obliges service providers to collect information andconduct due diligence on matters about which they might prefer to remain ignorant.
This obligation is important because in the majority of cases in which a corporate vehicle is misused, the intermediary is negligent, willfully blind, or actively complicit. If a
service provider is obligated to gather full due diligence information, it becomes impossible for the intermediary to legitimately plead ignorance regarding the background ofa client or the source of his or her funds. Second, having all such information duly gathered by the service provider means that investigators have an adequate source of information at their disposal.

Enforcing ComplianceExperience over the past 10 years has shown that imposing due diligence requirements on paper is not enough. Countries need to devote adequate resources to effectively policing compliance, including supervising service providers and imposing civil
or criminal penalties for noncompliance. The evidence analyzed in this study showsthat TCSPs in certain financial centers more typically considered “onshore” actually
exercise less strict due diligence than jurisdictions identified as offshore financial centers (OFCs).

Attorneys and Claims of Attorney-Client Privilege
Policy makers also need to address the problem of gaining access to the information
held by service providers and, in particular, the issue of legal privilege. When investigators seek to access information held by attorneys regarding the establishment andoperation of a corporate vehicle by one or more of their clients, the attorneys frequently
seek to justify their refusal to divulge such information by invoking attorney-client
privilege (or “legal professional privilege”). Investigators should guard against theunjustified use of this privilege. Although the claim of legal privilege is valid undercertain circumstances, a number of jurisdictions around the world have carved out
statutory exceptions to legal privilege in cases in which the attorney is acting as a financial intermediary or in some other strictly fiduciary or transactional capacity, rather
than as a legal advocate.

6

I The Puppet Masters

A Two-Track Approach
Substantial debate is ongoing about which entity, person, or institution would be best
suited to maintain beneficial ownership information. We believe that service providers
and registries both have a vital role to play in enabling law enforcement to access beneficial ownership information, and we acknowledge that this role might differ fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction. Having said that, however, we believe that the service provider generally will be the more useful source of beneficial ownership information. As
noted by one investigator in a country where both the registry and the service providers
maintain beneficial ownership information,
When we receive an international request for beneficial ownership information, we always
refer them to the service provider. The registry would only be able to give you a name, often(though not always) correct; but the service provider will be able to provide so much more—
telephone numbers, family, real estate, and all the other bits of information one gathers overthe course of a business relationship.

We realize that some countries, unfortunately, may not (yet) be able to impose such
CDD regulations on the relevant service providers. The political reality is that pressuregroups or other lobbies (for example, a bar association) prevent the passage of such
legislation.
In countries where intermediaries are not subject to CDD requirements, other ways toensure beneficial ownership identification, although second best, nonetheless may
prove useful and effective. Under such circumstances, the obvious institution to maintain beneficial ownership information is the company registry (under the conditions
described above). How policy makers choose to define beneficial ownership for the
purposes of company registration will depend on the level of expertise of company
registry staff. Disentangling who, in a particularly complicated structure, qualifies as
the beneficial owner may require significant corporate legal expertise, which may notalways be available. In such cases, a formal definition (for example, a natural person
holding more than 25 percent of the shares, or a natural person holding the most shares)
may be more practicable.
Issue 3. All beneficial ownership information should be available within
the same jurisdiction.

Another obstacle to obtaining information about a particular corporate vehicle is thatthe relevant documentation may be deliberately dispersed across different jurisdictions. Collecting information on a particular legal entity that is incorporated orformed under the laws of Country A but administered from Country B often entails
first submitting a request in Country A and then submitting a request in Country B.
To avoid having to obtain information from different countries—with all the loss oftime and resources that entails—countries should ensure that a resident person maintains beneficial ownership information on any entity incorporated under its laws. That

Executive Summary

I 7requirement could be achieved in various ways—for example, by imposing the obligation on a resident director or other corporate officer, or on a resident registered agent
or a service provider. That person should receive all financial documentation relating
to the legal entity. This obligation would not affect the obligation requiring the service
provider (who may well be located in another jurisdiction) to also maintain thisinformation. Certainly, if this service provider is undertaking the daily administration or management of the corporate vehicle, he or she is likely to have more current
information.

Issue 4. Bearer shares should be abolished.

Companies that have issued bearer shares and bearer-share warrants continue to be
problematic in terms of transparency of ownership and control of corporate vehicles.
The person in legal possession of the physical shares is deemed to be their owner andthus the owner of the company. The problem is knowing who owns the shares at any
given point in time. Many countries have immobilized these shares—effectively rendering them registered shares—without disrupting legitimate business. No legitimate
rationale exists for perpetuating bearer shares and similar bearer instruments. We recommend that all countries immobilize or abolish them.

Issue 5. Investigative capacity should be strengthened.

Why Due Diligence Is Not EnoughThe challenge thrown down by those who wish to deceive ultimately calls for a responseby those seeking to unmask that deceit. Efforts to counter the misuse of corporate
vehicles have, in recent years, focused on introducing new laws and regulations.
Although this certainly forms an important part of an effective response to grand corruption, it is by no means enough. Similarly, prevention and information gathering byservice providers or company registries, although vital, on their own are insufficient.
A company registry, after all, often will not contain the most current information, anda service provider can undertake only so much due diligence. As one compliance officer noted, “Any due diligence system can be beaten.”
Enhancing the Skills and Capacity of Investigators
In any complex corruption investigation involving the use of corporate vehicles, animaginative, tenacious, and expert investigator is indispensable. In our research, wehave discerned a wide disparity among investigators in different jurisdictions aroundthe world in terms of their knowledge and expertise, as well as the technological and
8

I The Puppet Masters

budgetary resources made available to them to conduct investigations into corporate
vehicle misuse schemes. Given the transnational nature of such schemes, however, it isimperative that this gap in knowledge and resources be narrowed. Accordingly, we
strongly recommend greater education, development, and training of investigators
regarding (a) the nature of corporate vehicles around the world and their potential for
misuse, and (b) the most effective investigative skills and techniques for “piercing thecorporate veil.” Moreover, as transnational schemes generally involve more than one
jurisdiction, authorities need to make sufficient resources available so that investigators
can respond to requests for assistance from other jurisdictions in an adequate andtimely manner.

Transnational Investigations
A concerted effort is required to improve law enforcement’s understanding of corporate vehicles, their function, and their rationale to enable proper investigation.
Although investigators generally are familiar with some of the basic legal entities andarrangements available under their domestic laws, they are largely unfamiliar withforeign corporate bodies and the rationale for including them in any corporate structure. It is important that these investigators have some basic understanding of common corporate structures under foreign laws and the (often fiscal) rationale for their
existence. In this way, they will be better able to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate uses.

Building a Transnational Case
Being able to identify a corporate vehicle misuse scheme is only the first step, however.
Investigators also need sufficient resources to be able to travel to the jurisdictions
involved and coordinate with local investigators in gathering all the documentary, testimonial, and other forensic evidence that is needed to be able to successfully present
cases in court. Because many corporate vehicle misuse cases are transnational in nature,investigators need to work together. To facilitate this international cooperation at bothformal and informal levels, legal mechanisms and more informal channels are needed.
As one investigator put it, solving a transnational corporate vehicle misuse scheme islike putting together a jigsaw puzzle, with investigators in different jurisdictions eachholding separate pieces of the puzzle. To complete the puzzle, an investigator needs tohave access to all the pieces.

Conducting Risk Analysis and Typologies
Countries should undertake a risk analysis and conduct typology studies of the misuseof corporate vehicles in their own jurisdictions to identify what entities (of whatever
extraction) and arrangements typically are abused. This analysis would give law enforcement (and service providers) useful information on the types of abuse specific to the
Executive Summary

I 9

country. This information should include a succinct overview of legal requirements ofthe corporate vehicles that can be established or that operate within the jurisdiction, therationale for these requirements, and where information may be obtained. The risk
analysis should inform the efforts made by service providers when identifying beneficial
ownership. Publishing the typologies information and the risk analysis and ensuring
accessibility to foreign law enforcement and service providers will be important.

10

I The Puppet Masters

Part 1. The Misuse of
Corporate Vehicles“Even so, I am quite clear that [these distinct legal entities] were just the puppets of Dr. Wallersteiner. He controlled their every movement. Each danced to his bidding. He pulled the strings . . .
they were his agents to do as he commanded. He was the principal behind them. I am of the opinion
that the court should pull aside the corporate veil and treat these concerns as being his creatures.”—Lord Denning1

1.1 Introduction
Suppose you want to give someone some money, and because it is for an illegal purpose,
you do not want anyone else to know about it. What would you do? You could hand it
over in cash—but that might be difficult if it were a large sum of money or if the recipient lived a long way away. Alternatively, you could transfer funds from your bankaccount to the recipient’s—but then your respective banks would know about it. And
they might tell the police, or at least they might offer information if the police came
knocking. So your ideal solution would involve a bank account that you control, butthat no one can link to you—or at least only with the greatest difficulty.
That, in a nutshell, is the starting point for this study: people who are trying to find waysof sending or receiving funds or assets while concealing their involvement. The funds inquestion derive from bribery, embezzlement of public funds, or other forms of corruption. In the past, people hid their involvement with funds through anonymous bankaccounts or accounts in fictitious names. This option, however, is becoming increasingly
less available. So now the preferred method is to use a legal entity or arrangement,
known (in the terminology of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]) as a “corporate vehicle.” This term is mainly used to refer to companies(or corporations), foundations and trusts, and national variations of these. As emerged
from our research, corrupt officials do not normally establish a corporate vehicle on
their own, but rather have others do it for them. Moreover, in many cases, not just one
corporate vehicle is involved but a whole web of vehicles that are linked together acrossseveral different jurisdictions.
Attempts by individuals to conceal their involvement in corruption and create a “disconnect” between themselves and their illegal assets are triggered by the efforts of law enforcement agencies to detect them. As law enforcement becomes more skillful and better
1. Lord Denning in Wallersteiner v. Moir [1974] 1 WLR 99, 1013.

trained in the detection of corruption, so too will corrupt parties find more refined andingenious ways of concealing their ill-gotten gains. Action, in other words, begets a never-ending chain of reactions. It is important to bear this point in mind, for any proposed“solution” to uncovering the concealment, whether through government regulation orotherwise, inevitably will address only the problem as it exists at that point in time. New
forms of deception will be developed in response. The quest for a silver bullet is illusory.
In addition to examining the ways in which corrupt officials misuse corporate vehicles toconceal their interests, this report takes a closer look at the chain reaction that spurs boththe corrupt officials and those seeking to track them down to continuous improvementof their methods. What is law enforcement doing to detect this type of behavior? How
can it discover what natural person or persons are hiding behind a network of entities orarrangements? Or, if it already has its eye on an individual, how can it link that person to
a company holding the suspicious assets? And how can it provide convincing evidenceof that link? What sources of information could be useful to it in its investigations? What
are banks doing to help law enforcement? And what about those who assist in setting up
the corporate vehicles in question—that is, the specialized professional service providers? And what about the corporate registries that hold potentially relevant informationon legal entities? What help could they offer? This report addresses these and similar
questions, with the aim of improving our understanding of (a) what information is currently available to investigators and (b) how that information could be improved andmade more accessible.
This report is not the first to be written on this topic and undoubtedly will not be thelast. In fact, the concern over the misuse of corporate vehicles dates from long before
much of the recent discussion on international corruption, tax havens, and offshore
centers. In a 1937 letter to then U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his secretaryof the treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., wrote the following about a tax haven jurisdiction like Newfoundland:[T]heir corporation laws make it more difficult to ascertain who the actual stockholders are.
Moreover, the stockholders have resorted to all manner of devices to prevent the acquisitionof information regarding their companies. The companies are frequently organized throughforeign lawyers, with dummy incorporators and dummy directors, so that the names of thereal parties in interest do not appear.

As a matter of international policy concern, the misuse of corporate vehicles has beenon the agenda for well over a decade. Since the United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime (UNODC; at that time the UNODCCP) issued its 1998 report titled Financial
Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering, a steady stream of reports on the issue
has been forthcoming, notably Protecting the EU Financial System from the Exploitationof Financial Centres and Offshore Facilities by Organised Crime (the Euroshore report,
2000), a report commissioned by the European Commission; Behind the Corporate
Veil: Using Corporate Entities for Illicit Purposes (2001), commissioned by the OECD;
Towards a Level Playing Field: Regulating Corporate Vehicles in Cross-Border Transactions (2002), commissioned by the International Trade and Investment Organizationand the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners; The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles(2006), by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF); and Money Laundering Using Trust
12

I The Puppet Mastersand Company Service Providers on Money Laundering (2010), a report by the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force.
These reports, and the policy recommendations based on them, have placed the issue
firmly on the international agenda and have contributed to the formulation of international standards on transparency of legal entities and arrangements. The FATF 40
Recommendations on Money Laundering (2003), which represent the international
standard on this issue, note the importance of ensuring transparency of legal entities
and arrangements and of identifying the beneficial owner in various places. According to Recommendations 5 and 12 on customer due diligence (CDD), financial institutions and other economic service providers2 should be required to establish theidentity of the beneficial owner of a legal person or arrangement. Recommendations
33 and 34 oblige countries to ensure that there is adequate, accurate, and timely information on the beneficial ownership and control of legal persons (33) and legal arrangements (34) and to ensure that this information can be obtained or accessed in a timely
fashion by competent authorities. Assessments undertaken by FATF and other bodies
of 159 countries show that the levels of compliance are very low, particularly with
Recommendations 33 and 34 (see appendix A).3
This matter has continued to generate considerable debate. At their summit in Pittsburgh, United Sates, in September 2009, the G-20 leaders issued a statement callingon the FATF to “help detect and deter the proceeds of corruption by prioritizing work
to strengthen standards on customer due diligence, beneficial ownership andtransparency.”4 More recently, in April 2010, a group of leading prosecutors fromaround the world sent an open letter to the leaders of the G-20 requesting they address
this issue as a matter of urgency.5
1.2 Objective of This Report
The objective of this report is to contribute to the international policy debate by providing evidence on (a) how corporate vehicles are misused to conceal the identity of their

2. “Economic service providers” or “service providers” is a working term used throughout this report. It
encompasses the financial and designated nonfinancial service providers referenced in Recommendation
5 and Recommendation 12 of the FATF 40 Recommendations on money laundering. Absent clarifying or
narrowing context, it is used as an umbrella term for the deposit-taking and investment banking institutions, corporate or trust creation and management professionals, and legal and accounting professionals
who interact with corporate vehicle clients.
3. In fact, in more than 70 percent of the countries evaluated, the lack of a clear requirement to identify
the beneficial owner was mentioned as a key factor justifying a less-than-compliant rating for Recommendation 5.
4. “Leaders’ Statement, The Pittsburgh Summit, September 24–25, 2009,” accessed at www.g20.org/documents/
pittsburgh_summit_leaders_statement_250909.pdf (last accessed August 13, 2011).
5. See a copy of the letter urging the G-20 to call on the Financial Action Task Force to report back on
specific actions it has taken to detect and deter the proceeds of corruption by prioritizing work to strengthen
standards on customer due diligence, beneficial ownership, and transparency (http://www.globalwitness.
org/media_library_detail.php/959/en/open_letter_to_heads_of_state_and_finance_minister).
Part 1. The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles

I 13

beneficial owners and (b) the problems that banks, other service providers, and investigators face in attempting to obtain relevant information.
The most significant feature of this report is that its findings and conclusions are
based on highly specific data gathered from a wide range of primary sources. Thesesources include court documents; interviews with investigators, financial institutions,service providers, and corporate registries; and the results of a solicitation exercise.
But in providing information on the extent of this type of criminal behavior and themethods most often used by its perpetrators, the report aims to do more than simply
raise awareness of the issue. Rather, its ultimate objective is to present policy recommendations for the consideration of authorities as they seek ways to deal with misuseof corporate vehicles within their jurisdictions. A comprehensive strategy at bothnational and international levels to address the weaknesses in legal and regulatory
frameworks—with the aim of decreasing the vulnerability of corporate vehicles tomisuse—could contribute toward improving the current situation. Our recommendations are summarized in the Executive Summary and are presented in greater detailin the report.
We choose our words carefully: we do not suggest that policy on its own can provide
a solution to this problem. To do so would be to set oneself up for failure. Grand
corruption is a criminal problem, and it always will require a response from law
enforcement, and certainly, through sheer determination, creativity, and expertise,
law enforcement has successfully investigated and prosecuted many cases involving
the misuse of corporate vehicles. But even so, law enforcement cannot address thisproblem alone: a coordinated approach, from both policy and law enforcement perspectives, is required.
Addressing the challenge of identifying the beneficial ownership of corporate vehicles
is a multifaceted endeavor. To take this into account, we have gathered data from avariety of sources, including court cases, interviews, and reviews of the activities of
relevant institutions:• Court Cases
Compilation and subsequent analysis of a database of 150 grand corruption
investigations involving the misuse of corporate vehicles. The database identifies the types of illicit assets involved (roughly US$50 billion in total), the professional intermediaries and the jurisdictions involved, and the location of thebank accounts (where available). Analysis of actual cases helps to establish thefacts and identifies areas where the genuine problems lie.
•

14

Banks
An analysis examining how, in practice, 25 banks establish the identity of abeneficial owner, including the information and documents they obtain fromtheir customers and the challenges they face in conducting their due diligence.

I The Puppet Masters•

Trust and Company Service Providers
A study of the extent to which, in practice, TCSPs conduct due diligence whenestablishing corporate vehicles.

•

Registries
A review of the information collected and maintained by company registries in
40 jurisdictions.

•

Investigators
An examination of the obstacles and challenges faced by investigators6 ininvestigating the misuse of corporate vehicles and identifying their beneficial
owner(s).

The methods used in the various research activities underlying this study aredescribed in more detail in appendix B. This study makes no claim to assess the full
extent of the problem—that would go far beyond its scope and would require different research methods. Instead, the study builds on expert observations and uses
these observations to identify and analyze problems that merit the attention of policy makers.

1.3 How to Use This Report
In part 1 of this report, we have sketched the background of the misuse of corporate
vehicles and outlined the objectives and scope of this study. The subsequent parts of thisreport deal with different aspects of the problem. Part 2 examines specific concerns
about how we should understand the person hiding behind the corporate vehicle. Then,in part 3, we look at the types of corporate vehicles chosen to hide behind, as well asother strategies used to generate further opacity. Finally, part 4 considers the sources of
information available to investigators tasked with uncovering the person hiding behindthe corporate vehicle.
The diversity of topics addressed in this report means that at least some readers may
encounter unfamiliar content. In that case, they may consult the information provided
in the appendixes, which are useful to fill in any gaps in their knowledge needed forappropriate understanding of the report.
6. The term “investigators” used throughout the report encompasses a broad and diverse group of experts
we consulted in the course of this study. They include investigators in the traditional sense, those whocurrently work or formerly worked in law enforcement agencies or other government investigative bodies, such as national anticorruption commissions and financial intelligence units. It also includes prosecutors, in recognition of the fact that, in some jurisdictions, it is prosecutors who lead investigations (orshare responsibility for doing so with investigators). Forensic accountants and certified fraud examiners
were consulted, as they play critical roles in financial crime investigations. Finally, civil practitioners in
the field of international fraud and financial crimes also were consulted, including those with experiencein successfully recovering stolen assets on behalf of their client governments or other victims.

Part 1. The Misuse of Corporate Vehicles

I 15

Appendix A reviews compliance with FATF Recommendations 5, 12, 33, and 34 andprovides an outline of the main issues. Appendix B describes the five component projects that helped to inform this report, including the Grand Corruption Database, Bank
Beneficial Ownership, Trust and Company Service Provider, Registry, and Investigator
Projects. Appendix C describes the corporate vehicles referred to in this study andAppendix D details ten grand corruption cases. Appendix E provides a detailed comparison of corporate vehicles in selected jurisdictions.

16

I The Puppet Masters

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner“The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.”—Nelson Rockefeller

2.1 Introduction
In Part 2, we focus on the beneficial owner(s)—the person (or group of people) who
have an interest in or control over ill-gotten gains (property or financial assets) and who
are trying to conceal the fact through the misuse of corporate vehicles.
For our purposes, this concealment can be viewed from two angles:••

The narrow perspective of the service provider
The broad perspective of the investigator.

Service Providers
Service providers normally face the question of who is the beneficial owner of certain
assets when first entering into a relationship with a customer. They normally approach
the matter by looking first at the legal structure of the customer’s entity or arrangement.
They have certain facts and documents at their disposal, at least some of which havebeen provided by the customer, but this is only part of the information they need.
Exactly how accurately the information available to them reflects the economic realityof control will become apparent (to a degree) during the course of their business relationship with the customer. In other words, the information available to service providers is highly partial and incomplete.
Investigators
By contrast, when investigators become involved in a case, they already are looking at awider constellation of facts. They know (or at least strongly suspect) that they are looking at a scheme that has been designed to create an appearance of legitimacy, when infact, it is a facade. They no longer are deceived by that appearance.
It is important to remember these two different viewpoints as we examine how thevarious parties approach the problem of identifying the beneficial owners of corporate
vehicles.

2.2 Origin of the Term “Beneficial Owner”
The concept of “beneficial ownership” originated in the United Kingdom (see box 2.1).
During the development of trust law, the following distinction between two types ofownership—“legal ownership” and “beneficial ownership”—was introduced:
The legal ownership of the trust-property is in the trustee, but he holds it not for his own
benefit but for that of the cestui que trustent or the beneficiaries. On the creation of a trust in
the strict sense as it was developed by equity, the full ownership in the trust property was split
into two constituent elements, which became vested in different persons: the “legal ownership” in the trustee, and what became to be called the “beneficial ownership” in the cestui quetrust [that is, the beneficiary].7

Although the term “beneficial owner” currently is applied in a wide variety of situations
that do not involve trusts, the essence of the concept—as referring to the person who
ultimately controls an asset and can benefit from it—remains the same. Indeed, in discussions with investigators, the typical response to the question of how to find the beneficial owner is the simple answer so often heard in criminal investigations: “Find out
who benefits.” The image of someone absent, temporarily abroad but able to retake hislands at any time, provides a helpful illustration of the idea of beneficial ownership,
because it reveals not only that he is the one who benefits but also that he is the one who
exercises control in the end—not directly and overtly, but indirectly and covertly, invisible to the outside world. This characteristic is essential to the concept of beneficial
ownership, certainly as it applies to criminal situations. The beneficial owner may not
be on the scene, and it may appear that the lands belong to someone else. However, inthe final analysis, they are his.

BOX 2.1

The Origin of the Trust

Although the precise historic origins of the trust are uncertain, they were in use
in the 12th century during the time of the Crusades:
Typically the warrior would be away from England for some years and therefore needed his land tended in his absence. It was essential that the person
who was left in charge could exercise all of the powers of the legal ownerof that land, such as deciding who would farm which part of the land andcollecting taxes. However, the crusader wanted to ensure that he would be
able to recover all of his rights of ownership when he returned from thewar. Consequently, the idea of split ownership of the property emerged,
whereby the crusader was treated as the owner of the land by the courts ofequity and the person left in charge was treated by the common-law courts
as being owner of the land.a
Note: a. See Alastair Hudson, Equity and Trusts, 4th ed. (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2005), p. 35.

7. Lord Diplock in Ayerst (Inspector of Taxes) v C&K (Construction) Ltd, H.L. (1975) S.T.C. 345.

18

I The Puppet Masters

2.3 Defining Beneficial Ownership: The Theory
The internationally accepted definition of beneficial ownership, which may usefully
serve as the starting point of this discussion, is the one given by the FATF. It reads asfollows: “Beneficial owner refers to the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a customer and/or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. It
also incorporates those persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement.”8
Before discussing the details and implications of this definition, it is useful to clarify aterminological point, specifically the use of the terms “customer” and “transaction” inthe first sentence of the definition. The FATF definition was developed in the context ofa bank or other service provider dealing with a prospective customer and having an
obligation to establish the identity of that potential customer’s beneficial owner before
carrying out any transactions on its behalf. The definition does not intend to suggestthat the “customer” is a natural person (see section 2.3.1).
2.3.1 Natural Person versus Legal Person
The first noteworthy (and only unequivocal) element in the definition is that a beneficial owner is always a natural person—a legal person cannot, by definition, be a beneficial owner. The definition therefore also speaks of “ultimate” control: A legal person
never can be the ultimate controller—ownership by a legal person is itself always controlled by a natural person.9
2.3.2 Beneficial versus Legal Ownership
The defining characteristic of the beneficial owner of an asset is that he holds a degreeof control over the asset that allows him to benefit from it. Whether he is the legal
owner (that is, holds legal title to it) is irrelevant. The essence of beneficial ownership is
precisely not ownership in the ordinary sense of the word—but rather control. Control
and legal title often will lie in the same hands, but in the sorts of situations addressed inthis report, that often is not the case. It is important, therefore, not to confuse beneficial
ownership with legal ownership. Section 2.3.3 concentrates on the control and ownership of a corporate vehicle.
2.3.3 Control—What Is It and Who Has It?
The definition speaks of “the natural person(s) who ultimately . . . controls a customer.”
The concept of control is a difficult one, given the manifold ways in which it can be
8. See Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, “FATF 40 Recommendations,” p. 15, available
online at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/7/40/34849567.pdf.
9. One cannot quite say the same for ownership, because a foundation, for instance, is not “owned” byanyone.

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 19

exercised. What does exercising control of a corporate vehicle mean, exactly? Who ultimately controls a corporate vehicle? The answers to these questions depend on the situation. The legal form and actual structure of the corporate vehicle provide a usefulstarting point, but they do not give us the whole answer. Let us consider who may besaid to exercise ultimate control in a number of different corporate vehicles.
Control in Companies
Our analysis of 150 grand corruption cases shows that the main type of corporate vehicle used to conceal beneficial ownership is the company, so let us consider this vehicle
first. In a company limited by shares, three groups of people might arguably qualify as
having ultimate control:•

The shareholders, who can exercise the voting rights attached to their shares tomake changes in how the company operates• The board of directors, who generally exercise a more immediate level of control
over the company, according to terms setting forth their powers of control• The executive officers (possibly), who exercise day-to-day control and de facto
engage in the transactions and activities of the company.
All three parties hold some level of control. In most cases, the shareholders may be said
to have the most control over the corporate vehicle. They represent the ultimate level ofpower, in that they are not controlled by others (assuming they are natural persons acting on their own behalf) and they typically can remove the directors and ultimately
enjoy the financial benefits (that is, dividends and net worth) of the company.
Control in Trusts
Companies have a relatively straightforward structure—it is possible to point to theowners (the shareholders). But a significant number of alternative types of corporate
vehicles are more problematic in this regard: they cannot be owned, and simply no
position is equivalent to the shareholder. In the case of a trust, for instance, several
people arguably could qualify as the beneficial owner:•

The trustee,10 because he conducts the day-to-day management of the asset heldin trust and could—if he wanted—dispose of it in any way he liked. He is, however, legally bound to act in the interest of the beneficiary as set out in the deed of

10. The methodology for assessing the FATF recommendations (“the methodology”) stipulates that, whenidentifying the customer who is a legal arrangement (such as a trust), service providers should obtain information concerning the trustees—that is, the trustee qualifies as/is identified with, the customer (see 5.4 (b)of the Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40 Recommendations and the FATF 9 Special
Recommendations, p. 16). When discussing the identification of the beneficial owner of a legal arrangement, the methodology stipulates that this includes identifying those who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal arrangement, which for trusts means “identifying the settlor, the trustee . . . and the beneficiaries.” So the trustee is perceived as being both the customer and the beneficial owner, qualifying both aspart of the trust (the customer) and its ultimate controller. (The same point, incidentally, can be made inconnection with the director and companies. He similarly qualifies as/is identified with both the customer[company] and—arguably—as part of its “mind and management” and thus as its beneficial owner.)

20

I The Puppet Masters

trust. He is not, therefore, an ultimate controller but rather acts on behalf of someone else and is under fiduciary obligations.
• The settlor, because he initiated the trust and contributed the asset to the trustin the first place. He, however, is no longer able to exercise control over thetrust.
• The beneficiary, because he stands to benefit. But he similarly cannot exercise
control over the trust.
The concept of beneficial ownership cannot be applied in a straightforward manner inthese instances without knowing more about the context.
It is interesting to note that, when discussing the applicability of beneficial ownership
obligations to trusts, compliance officers interviewed in connection with this study
generally confirmed that all standard parties to the trust (settlor, trustee, and beneficiary) are relevant and should be considered. One can see why: If one person contributes an asset, another manages it, and yet another will benefit from it, who really is incontrol? In whom should a compliance officer be most interested? When a service provider is dealing with a prospective client, he does not know at that point (at the beginning of a relationship) what the relationship will involve in practice. All he or she has issome information provided by his or her client. In that case, the wisest course is togather information on all parties who could be relevant.
Control in Foundations
The vehicle of the foundation could be subjected to a similar analysis as a trust: It also
cannot be owned by someone else. Although control might appear less problematic inthis case (the director or board of the foundation is the obvious first point to look at),in the context of a private foundation with a private beneficiary, such a first-round
analysis would be too simplistic—the private beneficiary is also of interest.
The Relationship between Ownership and Control
The FATF definition also refers to “the natural person(s) who ultimately owns . . . acustomer.” Because natural persons cannot be owned, the “customer” mentioned as
being “owned” can only refer to a corporate vehicle. But what does ultimate ownershipof a corporate vehicle really mean? The definition stipulates that, in such cases, thebeneficial owner includes all people who have “ultimate effective control.” According
to the FATF methodology, for companies, this normally would entail identifying thepeople who have a controlling interest and those who make up “the mind and management of a company.”11 So the definition moves from someone who owns a corporate entity to someone who holds a controlling interest in it. In other words, ownershipis a proxy for control and, in this context, is only relevant to the extent that control canbe inferred from it.

11. See 5.5.2 (b) of the Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40 Recommendations andthe FATF 9 Special Recommendations, p. 16, available online at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/16/54/
40339628.pdf.

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 21

When Ownership Does Not Automatically Imply Control:
The Company Example
The most common type of owner of a corporate vehicle is the shareholder in a company.
The assumption that control automatically can be inferred from ownership requires
further analysis. In the United States context, Section 405 of the Exchange Act defines
control as “the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership ofvoting securities, by contract, or otherwise.” The clear implication is that it is possible toexercise control in ways other than through owning “voting securities” (that is, shares).
We have mentioned the control that can be exercised by people in certain positions
within the company (for example, board members, executives, and financial officers).
Outsiders (that is, those without legal title) also can exercise control if they possesscertain contractual rights. Creditors, for instance, can exercise control if they have been
given the right to block or approve certain significant transactions of the company or toconvert their debt into stock at the occurrence of a particular event. In addition, options
and other convertible securities may vest a potential for control in certain individuals
without vesting them with actual control.
The converse situation also arises. Just as it is possible to exercise control over a company without having any legal title to it, so too is it possible to have legal title but beunable to exercise ultimate control. For example, suppose only a minority of the directors is up for election in a particular year. A majority shareholder would then not beable to vote out the board of directors at one election. Or suppose the company in question has issued stocks that carry no voting rights but entail certain economic advantages (such as preferred shares).12
In other words, although shareholders with a sizable stake in a company normally may
expect to have a certain amount of control over it, they may find that many other people, for totally legitimate reasons, have an overriding say in the company’s affairs, suchas to render those people, and not the shareholder, the true beneficial owner.
The Ultimate Solicitor: A Hidden Controller
In the FATF definition, the wording “person on whose behalf a transaction is conducted” is intended to ensure that a service provider finds out whether the natural
person with whom he or she engages is acting of his or her own accord or is representing the interests of a third party, who consequently also needs to be identified. It could
be argued that this concept is covered by the earlier wording “person who ultimately
controls the customer.” A different way of reading it, however, is of particular interest in
the context of this study.
12. For a comprehensive discussion of the ways in which control of a corporate entity is distinguished fromownership, see Rafael LaPorta, Florencio Lopez de Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, “Corporate Ownership Around
the World,” Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Paper No. 1840, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=103130. See also J. W. Verret, “Terrorism Finance, Business Associations andthe Incorporation Transparency Act,” George Mason University School of Law, Louisiana Law Review 70,
no. 3 (Spring 2010), pp. 857–910.

22

I The Puppet Masters

In dealing with a multinational company, for example, a service provider may find it
useful to know who ultimately owns or controls the company but is unlikely to posemuch money laundering risk. After all, information about major shareholders and theboard of management is in the public domain. Much more interesting from an anticorruption, anti-money laundering point of view is the identity of the company
employee who, within this big corporate structure, is ultimately controlling this particular business relationship. The transaction in question may be designed to facilitate
payment of a bribe, to set up a slush fund, or (outside the realm of anticorruption) to
defraud the company.
Who ultimately requested it? The answer to this question is not necessarily the beneficial owner of the company as a whole. It may well be someone of much lower rank
within the management structure. We may call this person the “ultimate solicitor.” Inthat sense, then, this part of the definition expands the original circle of persons tobe identified.
Effective Control
The final element in the FATF definition refers to “those persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement.” The focus is not on the
obligation of service providers to identify the beneficial owner of a vehicle as such,
but rather on those people who exercise ultimate effective control over a corporate
vehicle—that is, the parties who, regardless of any service provision, control what
happens to the assets.

2.4 Applying the Concept of Beneficial Ownership in Practice
Fortunately, in the majority of cases, identifying the beneficial owner is easier than thetheoretical discussion would suggest. Normally, anyone incorporating a company toengage in business or forming a legal arrangement for legitimate purposes is going toensure that how control is to be shared is predetermined and understood, and thenthat it is further delegated, in relation to specific functions, to employees or agents.
Each of the relationships mentioned in the previous section often involve an individual
or a small group of people, and a service provider consequently will not have too muchdifficulty in establishing the identity of the beneficial owner or owners. This report,
however, focuses on the area of greatest risks—the small proportion of cases in which
corporate vehicles are established for illegal purposes—and explores how, in suchcases, outsiders may find information about what really is going on.
2.4.1 Two Approaches to Meet Different Needs
How can a service provider whose only dealings with a corporate vehicle are to open
a bank account, or to provide some other financial service, obtain sufficient information to be able to say with any degree of certainty who the beneficial owner is? The
provider may be able to obtain documents showing the corporate structure (such as
the register of shareholders and constitutional documents), and he or she may be able
Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 23

to see management board decisions and inspect identification and trust-related documents. Such a service provider, however, generally will have access to less information
than an investigator. Of necessity, the service provider will have to rely on representations by the client and cannot be expected to verify all the information presented. The
provider can verify whether the information corresponds with the account activity ofa corporate vehicle, but that is about the limit of what the provider can be expected to
do.13 A well-resourced and expert criminal can circumvent any due diligence program, no matter how sophisticated.14
To help service providers implement due diligence obligations and to ensure that
institutions undertake due diligence of similar scope, many countries have adopted a“formal” approach to beneficial ownership, allowing for the inference of beneficial
ownership in cases in which a person fulfills a predefined criterion. In contrast, theapproach taken by investigators can be termed a “substantive” approach.
A Formal Approach to Beneficial Ownership
A formal definition of beneficial ownership is one that strictly delineates a set of sufficient conditions that qualify certain owners, controllers, and beneficiaries unequivocallyas the beneficial owners of a corporate vehicle. This definition is formed on the basis of
the assumption that, in the vast majority of situations, to be able to exercise ultimate
effective control over a corporate vehicle, an individual will require a measure of legally
acknowledgeable authority. Under this approach, the express focus is not the person who
actually is exercising ultimate effective control of the corporate vehicle, but rather the
person who normally would have legal authority to do so. The “sufficient condition” mostfrequently used to qualify someone as a beneficial owner is quantitative—for example,
with companies, possession of a certain percentage of ownership or voting rights to a
corporate vehicle.
Of the 40 countries surveyed for the purposes of this study, a significant number (14)were found to apply just such a quantitative understanding of beneficial ownership.
This understanding took different forms. In some cases, it involved owning a standard
minimum percentage of shares (varying from 10 to 25 percent), whereas in one country, an adaptive concept was applied, namely, “ownership amounting to voting rights
significant enough to elect a majority of the directors,” which (absent any peculiar
bylaws indicating to the contrary) one typically would assume to be a much higher
threshold (51 percent). In part because of its place in the European Union Third AntiMoney Laundering Directive, a quantitative threshold of 25 percent appears to be rapidly becoming the standard for many nations, both within and outside of Europe, that
employ this formal approach.15
13. Many financial institutions use databases supplied by companies such as World-Check and Factiva tocheck the background of the people they are dealing with, and in this way gain leads to a potential criminal.
The point, however, is to show that for service providers the scope for far-reaching verification measures islimited.
14. As was also recognized by some of the compliance officers interviewed for this study.
15. Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005, article 3 (6).
“Beneficial owner means the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls the customer and/or the24

I The Puppet Masters

A Substantive Approach to Beneficial OwnershipWith its focus on ultimate control, the FATF definition is a good example of a substantive approach. “Beneficial ownership” pierces through the parties, who (like the corporate vehicles) merely represent the mode by which the will of the final actor is being
effected.16
This focus is echoed by the Wolfsberg Group of banks:
The term “beneficial ownership” is conventionally used in anti-money laundering contexts torefer to that level of ownership in funds that, as a practical matter, equates with control oversuch funds or entitlement to such funds. “Control” or “entitlement” in this practical sense is
to be distinguished from mere signature authority or mere legal title. The term reflects a recognition that a person in whose name an account is opened with a bank is not necessarily the
person who ultimately controls such funds or who is ultimately entitled to such funds. Thisdistinction is important because the focus of anti-money laundering guidelines—and this isfundamental to the guidelines—needs to be on the person who has this ultimate level of control or entitlement.17

Although oriented toward the beneficial ownership of bank accounts, which may beeasier to deal with conceptually than that of corporate vehicles, this approach places theemphasis on determining who actually is guiding the relevant activity, rather than who
theoretically possesses enough of a legal claim to be able to do so. The Wolfsberg Groupof banks has aligned itself with the substantive approach to beneficial ownership on the
grounds that this approach is more in line with the intention of disrupting money laundering, because it includes those persons who might effect their ultimate control of acorporate vehicle outside of the legal strictures of a more formal definition.
natural person on whose behalf a transaction or activity is being conducted. The beneficial owner shall at
least include:(a) in the case of corporate entities:(i) the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity through direct or indirectownership or control over a sufficient percentage of the shares or voting rights in that legal entity,
including through bearer share holdings, other than a company listed on a regulated market thatis subject to disclosure requirements consistent with Community legislation or subject to equivalent international standards; a percentage of 25% plus one share shall be deemed sufficient to meetthis criterion;(ii) the natural person(s) who otherwise exercises control over the management of a legal entity;(b) in the case of legal entities, such as foundations, and legal arrangements, such as trusts, which administer and distribute funds:(i) where the future beneficiaries have already been determined, the natural person(s) who is the beneficiary of 25% or more of the property of a legal arrangement or entity;(ii) where the individuals that benefit from the legal arrangement or entity have yet to be determined,
the class of persons in whose main interest the legal arrangement or entity is set up or operates;(iii) the natural person(s) who exercises control over 25% or more of the property of a legal arrangement or entity.”
16. Such natural persons that this description alludes to include the class of nominees, trustees, agents, or
any other “front men” who wield legal authority, which may extend to full legal control, authority, or ownership of a corporate vehicle (for example, a TCSP-provided nominee shareholder who legally owns 100
percent of the shares in a company, but only on behalf of the beneficial owner, as his trustee).
17. See http://www.wolfsberg-principles.com/faq-ownership.html.

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 25

2.5 The Service Provider’s Perspective
Consultations with service providers during this study confirm that they typically use
the “shareholders owning the company” understanding of beneficial ownership, because
it is the one that applies in most of the situations they are confronted with. This perspective is not surprising, given that the majority of any jurisdiction’s corporate vehicles
will be companies. Furthermore, such a focus on companies is justifiable when one
looks at patterns of misuse. From the review of the 150 grand corruption cases undertaken for this study, three-quarters of all the corporate vehicles that were misused wereprivate companies or corporations. This suggests that ownership is at least a useful criterion, even if it does not always lead to the identification of the person who is (orshould be) the object of further investigation.
Banks
When conducting business with another financial institution (for example, transferringmoney or receiving introduced business), a bank may feel uncomfortable about relying
on the other institution’s customer due diligence. Although the institution in question
may be in good standing and be considered by its jurisdictional authorities to haverobust client identification and verification procedures, the institution and the bankmay differ in the depth to which they believe they should drill down to establish thebeneficial owner. In these circumstances, the bank is faced with three less-than-ideal
options: (a) turning down the business, (b) compromising its own internal standards byaccepting the other’s due diligence at face value, or (c) undertaking its own customer
due diligence at its own expense. The costs in terms of potential lost profit, increased
exposure to risk, or additional expense are potentially high. These costs can be reduced,
however, if the use of quantitative standards becomes widespread and financial institutions use comparable methods and criteria for determining customer due diligence(CDD), creating a level playing field.
This approach has two further benefits. First, it instills confidence in the institutions
when asserting to clients that they need to comply with the disclosure demands madeon them. And second, the more jurisdictions adhere to the same threshold standard, theless effective institution-shopping and jurisdiction-shopping strategies become—strategies that often are employed by corrupt clients seeking to circumvent beneficial ownership disclosure.
Not all banks are created equal, however. Certain banks engage predominantly inbusiness that generally is considered to present minimal anti-money laundering andcombating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) risk. Quantitative standards allow
such institutions to show that their CDD efforts have been made to the requisite
degree and in good faith, even if some residual risk may persist. The converse holds
as well. When a bank believes it is at risk of becoming a party to money laundering,then it has to adopt a more substantive approach. The bank needs to go well beyond
simply scrutinizing the formal positions in a corporate vehicle and must undertake a

26

I The Puppet Mastersmore thorough investigation of all of the particulars of a corporate vehicle before
agreeing to undertake business on behalf of that vehicle.
For that reason, certain banks interviewed for this study questioned the value ofusing the percentage-threshold method. Although it may be a perfectly adequate way
to identify the beneficial owner in the overwhelming majority of situations, in casesof abuse (they argued) it is unlikely to be helpful in identifying the real beneficial
owner. Banks refer to a typology sometimes called the “foot in the door” approach: A
corporate account is classified as low risk at the beginning of the relationship. Threemonths after the account is opened, a previously unknown party appears on thescene, as a beneficiary of certain transactions or as vested with signatory powers to
the account. This person has no ostensible connection to the corporate vehicle: heoccupies no formal position of control and does not possess any relevant shareholding. A focus on percentage shareholdings or formal control thus would fail to identify this person as being of interest. It is therefore imperative that financial institutions
be aware of the shortcomings of such an approach and “dig deeper” when circumstances so dictate—as well as maintain effective ongoing monitoring of business
relationships.
The Problem of “Close Associates”
Anxious to secure their ill-gotten wealth, many corrupt parties seek to maintain a measure of control over the corporate vehicles involved in their scheme. To do this, theyoften use means that, although they would not be revealed under the strictly formal
approach, nonetheless are legally enforceable. Fortunately, this legal enforceability
enables an investigator to construct a “path” of control, however circuitous and oblique,from the asset to the corrupt official. In other instances, however, that path of legally
enforceable control may stop short of reaching the official. Instead, it may stop at one ormore “close associates”—that is, individuals in the circle of relatives, friends, and trusted
associates and professionals around the corrupt official who can, in some way, exert
legal control on his or her behalf. The more powerful the official, the wider the circle
may be.18 And although identifying the primary corrupt official as beneficial owner
may be a difficult enough task, determining whether a person belongs to this circle ofclose associates is even more problematic.19
This involvement of other parties in the chain of control is confirmed by our review of
three decades of corruption cases (1980–2010). This review demonstrated that thestructure of control has trended toward the removal of the primary actor from the legal
framework of misused corporate vehicles and the more frequent use of close associates.
18. Such a “path of legally enforceable control” cannot always be established. See, for example, the discussion on the use of shell companies, which notes that, in some cases, a criminal is able to use a certain corporate vehicle while having no legal ownership or control of it.
19. For a wider discussion of this topic, see Theodore S. Greenberg, Larissa Gray, Delphine Schantz, Carolin Gardner, and Michael Latham, Politically Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010).

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 27

One investigator commented on his firsthand experiences with this phenomenon: “TheAbacha case, in which the connection between the asset and the principal (that is, thebeneficial owner) was relatively easily established, was a crime of the 1990s; corruption
cases we see now tend to be significantly more complicated.”
One way in which a corrupt official can exert control without revealing himself is byhaving signatory authority over the corporate vehicle’s financial accounts. This authority can be justified to the bank by deceptively listing the corrupt party as a low-level
financial employee (see box 2.2). Financial institutions have identified this typology
and it features in the case studies (see appendix D). Another strategy is to vest theownership and control of the corporate vehicle in the hands of a front man who (outof loyalty or fear or on account of a financial incentive) is prepared to do the corrupt
party’s bidding. As such cases show, under the formal approach, it is perfectly possible
for a corrupt party to achieve control of a corporate vehicle, both from within andoutside the vehicle’s structure, without running the risk of being identified as the beneficial owner.

BOX 2.2

Basic Attempt at a Concealment

The Case of Sweet Pink Inc. and Unlimited Horizon Inc.a
From 2004 to 2008, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the son of Teodoro
Nguema Obiang Mbasogo, the president of Equatorial Guinea, used U.S. lawyers,
bankers, real estate agents, and escrow agents to move over US$110 million insuspect funds into the United States. George Nagler was one of the lawyers
who, from 2005 to 2007 helped him purchase and manage property in Malibu,
California, and incorporated shell companies for him.
According to a U.S. Senate investigation report, Nagler began working for Obiang in September 2005, after being contacted through the Internet by Obiang’s
executive assistant, Rosalina Romo. Nagler told the Subcommittee that he was
asked at that time to form a corporation to “employ individuals at the home the
Client maintained before he purchased the Malibu property and to handle payroll
and other matters related to the employment of those individuals.” In an e-maildated September 15, 2005, Nagler asked Romo to provide him with two or threenames for the corporation. Later that same day, the requested articles of incorporation were filed with the California Secretary of State for “Sweet Pink Inc.” The
Statement of Information for Sweet Pink Inc. listed Romo as the company’s chief
executive officer, secretary, and chief financial officer. Obiang is listed as “assistant treasurer,” but in a letter by his legal counsel to the Senate subcommittee,
Nagler conveyed that it was his understanding that Obiang “was the sole owner”
of the corporation and was the “sole source of funding for the corporation.” A few
days later, Nagler was told that Eve Jeffers, a hip-hop musician and Obiang’s thengirlfriend, would become the president of the corporation.
(continued next page)28

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 2.2(continued)

On September 29, 2005, a checking account in the name of Sweet Pink Inc.
was opened at Union Bank of California. Jeffers was a signatory, along with fourother persons. Obiang was not on the signature card. During October 2005, twowire transfers, each for nearly US$30,000, were deposited into the account fromone of Obiang’s Equatorial Guinea companies. Union Bank told the Senate subcommittee that it first became aware of Obiang-related account activity in 2004,
after the bank deemed Equatorial Guinea to be a high-risk country and conducteda search for Equatorial Guinea wire transfers. The search identified one large wiretransfer in 2001of US$6.2 million and seven smaller wire transfers from 2003 to
2004. On October 27, 2005, less than one month after the Sweet Pink accounthad been opened, the bank closed it.
The Senate report also noted that over a 10-month period from 2006 to 2007,
Equatorial Guinea wire transfers totaling more than US$1.7 million were deposited into the law office account of another attorney, Michael Berger, who was“instrumental in opening the shell company [Unlimited Horizon Inc.] and law
office accounts, moving Obiang funds through them, and masking Obiang’s
financial activities from the bank.”b The US$1.7 million in Equatorial Guinea wiretransfers sent to the Berger law office account triggered internal bank AML (antimoney laundering) alerts, but the bank was in the midst of negotiating a deferred
prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department for order deficiencies
in its AML program. In June 2007, the bank finally reviewed the transactions andconcluded that the Equatorial Bank wire transfers were suspicious, raising bothfraud and AML concerns and subsequently closed all three accounts.
Note: a. U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Majority and Minority Staﬀ Report, “Keeping Foreign
Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories,” Released in Conjunction with the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations February 4, 2010, Hearing, pp. 49–50, citing as the source an August 1, 2008, letter from Nagler’s legal counsel tothe subcommittee, PSI-Nagler-02-0002. Id. at fn. 215. According to the Senate report, Nagler provided documents in response
to a subcommittee subpoena and answered written questions from the subcommittee. Id., p. 48. Union Bank of California
information from same report at pp. 31–32.
b. Id., p. 31.

2.6 Conclusion and Recommendations
Beneficial ownership is a concept that is relatively straightforward in theory but difficult to apply in practice. The essence is to identify the person who ultimately controls acorporate vehicle. This identification always will be a highly context-dependent, defacto judgment; beneficial ownership cannot be reduced to a legal definition. Even
when a service provider takes a substantive approach (that is, goes further than a purely
formal approach would require), the provider can do only so much to determine control. With few exceptions, service providers do not have the resources or the access to
information they need to really investigate a corporate vehicle. Certainly, they can ask
questions, search databases for information, and compare whether a vehicle’s financial
conduct matches its profile. But they cannot do much more than that. In the end, any
due diligence system can be beaten.

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 29

The difference between the substantive and formal approach is that the substantive
approach remains open-minded about who the beneficial owner may be, and it takes
the outcome of the formal approach as a working hypothesis rather than as a final, definitive conclusion. In addition, the substantive approach goes beyond making inquiries
about office holders and shareholdings, important as these are. The approach requires all
economic realities to be considered when determining beneficial ownership—when
taking on a new customer and thereafter—constantly reviewing whether this information is coherent with everything else known (or thought to be known) about thecustomer.
That said, having information on the 25 percent shareholder still has merit. Even if
the shareholder is not the beneficial owner, the shareholder certainly is going to be a
person of interest in any due diligence and normally would constitute a further sourceof information.
The above conclusions lead us to make the following four recommendations:

Recommendation 1. Countries should ensure that, whatever definition of
beneficial ownership they employ, the beneficial owner is always a natural
person.
Without adherence to this basic principle, the concept of beneficial ownership is
virtually useless. Every legal entity and arrangement is ultimately controlled by anatural person. A policy that does not require a service provider to penetrate tothis level is deficient in terms of efficacy, deterrence and justice.
Recommendation 2. Countries should consider introducing an alternative
term for those persons currently described under formal approaches as
beneficial owners.
Formal approaches, such as those based on percentage thresholds of ownershipof legal entities, are certainly able to provide actionable information on persons
of interest to law enforcement in a corruption or money laundering investigation.
A term that clarifies this distinction will facilitate communication on the topic.a
Recommendation 3. Countries should develop a clear formal standard for
identifying standard parties likely to be the beneficial owner but should
require deeper inquiry in high-risk scenarios.
To maintain the focus on the substantive, economic meaning of beneficial ownership, countries that have adopted a formal approach should make it clear in legislation and guidance that the pertinent threshold is a minimum standard. They
should also make it clear that reporting institutions (financial institutions, trustand company service providers, and others) have a legal obligation when confronted with suspicious circumstances to undertake further inquiry to identify
and record information on other parties who appear relevant.

30

I The Puppet Masters

Recommendation 4. Ongoing due diligence should be used to bridge thegap between the formal and substantive approaches toward collecting beneficial ownership information.
Service providers should be aware of the dangers of relying on evadable standards, confirmed only by client-provided information and public records. They
should employ ongoing verification practices to determine whether the information clients provide is consistent with the services requested and the transactions taking place. In suspicious cases, they should dig deeper to find out whether
other natural persons (beyond the formal, legally declared power holders) reallyare in control.
Note: a. The participants in this study used various terminology schemes to describe the distinction between the “formal” and“substantive” beneﬁcial owners referred to here. These included “Nominal/Legal/Registered Owner v. Beneﬁcial Owner,”“Beneﬁcial Owner v. Ultimate Beneﬁcial Owner,” “Persons of Interest v. Beneﬁcial Owner,” and “Beneﬁcial Owner v. Ultimate
Controller.” None of these proposed dichotomies is without its problems, however: “nominal,” “registered,” and “legal” are notsynonymous, and each has shades of meaning that invite criticism if chosen; the idea of a beneﬁcial owner not being anultimate beneﬁcial owner seems to be splitting hairs; “persons of interest” is vague and possibly accusatory.

Part 2. The Beneficial Owner

I 31

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial
Owner Hide?

“Vice knows she’s ugly, so puts on her mask.”— Benjamin Franklin

3.1 Introduction
This study revealed that, in the vast majority of grand corruption cases we analyzed,
corporate vehicles—including companies, trusts, foundations, and fictitious entities—
are misused to conceal the identities of the people involved in the corruption. Of these
corporate vehicles, the company was the most frequently used. Investigators confirmed
this misuse, noting that locating information about the person who is in control of acorporate vehicle was essential to any large-scale corruption investigation, and indeed,to almost any large-scale organized-crime investigation. Despite the widespread misuseof corporate vehicles for criminal purposes (including corruption, financing terrorism,
money laundering, and fraud), most countries have no coherent strategy to tackle thisproblem. This chapter identifies the types of corporate vehicles used to conceal theidentity of the person involved in the corruption and other obstacles that investigators
may face. An overview of each of these corporate vehicles is given in appendix C.

3.2 Corporate Vehicles: Types and Features
This section describes the various types of corporate vehicles that have been used in
grand corruption schemes. We distinguish four distinct categories:• Companies• Trusts• Foundations• Fictitious entities and unincorporated economic organizations.
(Fictitious entities is an outlier category, encompassing sole proprietorships, the various forms of partnerships, and other functionally effective equivalents.) We provide an
overview of the main characteristics of these corporate vehicles. Their precise nature,
the ways in which they are misused for criminal ends, and the extent to which they aremisused vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; nonetheless, our study revealed a number of global similarities.

3.2.1 Companies
Companies were used to hide the proceeds of corruption in 128 of the 150 cases ofgrand corruption reviewed. The legal characteristics distinguishing public from private companies, as well as limited liability companies and more recent offshoots, aregiven in appendix C. The more relevant distinction made to tackle corruption relates
to each company’s purpose rather than to their legal definition. In this part of thereport, we consider both companies that are intended primarily to hold assets or liabilities and companies that are intended primarily for the purpose of engaging in business activity in some industry.20
Shell Companies
In more than half of the cases analyzed that involved any sort of company,21 that company was a “shell company.” For our purposes, a shell company can be defined as a
non-operational company—that is, a legal entity that has no independent operations,significant assets, ongoing business activities, or employees.22 In a case study on money
laundering involving Riggs Bank, a U.S. Senate report declared that, “In many instances,a private banker will set up [a] shell corporation for a client and open accounts in thename of that shell corporation, in order to disguise the client’s ownership of theaccount or certain assets.”23 Box 3.1 describes how a shell company is set up.
Nonetheless, as long as compliance officers have access to trustworthy information for due
diligence, they are generally comfortable providing financial services for nonoperational
20. The terminology used in this section includes some working definitions that at times may be ambiguous. The demarcation between types of companies often is not clear-cut. One type of entity may simultaneously fall into several of the categories distinguished in this part of the report. We have offered industry
usage terminology when possible and to clearly contrast our usage with other common usages.
21. For roughly a quarter of the investigated cases involving companies, we were unable to determine withcertainty whether the involved corporate vehicles were shell companies; it is at least possible that a numberof the unknowns were in fact shell companies.
22. The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) Recommendations make no use of theterm “shell company” per se, but do mention “shell banks” in Recommendation 18, and the glossary
definition, “[. . .] a bank incorporated in a jurisdiction in which it has no physical presence and which isunaffiliated with a regulated financial group,” comes closer to our intended usage by focusing on tangibility rather than illicit intent. In “Behind the Corporate Veil” (Paris: OECD 2001), p. 17, shell companies
are defined as follows: “Companies, which are entities established not to pursue any legitimate businessactivity but solely to obscure the identity of their beneficial owners and controllers, constitute a substantial proportion of the corporate vehicles established in some OFCs [offshore financial centers].” Thisdefinition was unsuitable for our needs because it implies an illicit purpose. Ambiguities remain, as certain businesses necessitate the existence of a holding company that holds the shares in one or more operational companies. Given historical usage, referring to such a company as a “shell” may have a pejorative
connotation. As a final point of clarification, “significant assets” refers to operationally necessary assets
meant primarily to benefit the company rather than its owners (for example, office space, furniture, computer or industry-specific equipment). The major concern raised by shell companies is that they often
possess financial assets—cash, stock, titles to property, and so on.
23. U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Money
Laundering and Foreign Corruption Enforcement and Effectiveness of the Patriot Act, Case Study Involving
Riggs Bank, July 15, 2004, p. 13.

34

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.1

Setting Up a Shell Company

Interviews with trust and company service providers (TCSPs) conducted in thecontext of this study showed that it is not expensive or time-consuming to establish
an anonymous shell corporation. A company-formation agent’s fees range from
US$800 to US$6,000 as an upfront cost, followed by a slightly smaller amount on
an annual basis. Costs may vary, depending on whether the service provider
provides additional services, such as nominee director or shareholder arrangements,
filing of any annual documentation, or phone and mail forwarding. At the upper endof this price range, in six cases, service providers (perhaps perceiving deceptive
intent) recommended holding the ownership of the shell company in an overarching
trust or foundation that undoubtedly would present additional obstacles toinvestigating authorities seeking to identify the beneficial owner.
(For more information see the Trust and Company Service Providers Project inappendix B.)

company clients; as such, “hollow” companies are commonly formed to serve a variety oflegitimate economic functions. One such function is to facilitate a merger: two companies
will structure this transaction so that they merge under a third, neutral shell company.
Companies entering into a joint venture also use shell companies. In a multinationaltransaction, many companies prefer to seat their international joint-venture company ina neutral jurisdiction to ensure that no one company receives preferential legal treatment.
In addition, shell companies are also used to sequester liabilities, to create distinctive
equity or debt tranches in a single asset, to serve as a personal holding company, or toserve as a company holding personal or family assets for ease of inheritance or as protection against attachment by creditors.
One specific type of shell company structure is the international business corporation(IBC) (see appendix C). IBCs are typically used for shell companies set up by nonresidents in offshore financial centers (OFCs). By definition, IBCs make ideal shell companies, because they are not permitted to conduct business within the incorporating jurisdiction and generally are exempt from local income taxes.
Unlike normal companies, shell companies have no economic activity, which makes it
difficult to find out much information about them. A normal company that is engaged
in business will typically market itself, join a chamber of commerce, build a website,
buy space in the phonebook, sponsor youth sporting events, and purchase supplies andequipment. It will have employees who can be interrogated, keep meeting minutes that
may be consulted, and produce financial data that can be compared with normative
industry benchmarks. A non-operational company like a shell company may do someof these things (companies are often obligated to hold a meeting of shareholders once ayear), but it probably does not have to.
This study’s review of grand corruption cases reveals that shell companies, when usedillicitly, are generally used in combination with additional mechanisms to obscurePart 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 35

beneficial ownership. The mechanisms include exercising control surreptitiously
through contracts (rather than “standard” ownership and control positions), adding
layers of corporate vehicles, hiding behind bearer shares, and ensuring that the beneficial owners are located (or the identifying information is stored) in another jurisdiction. See box 3.2 for an example of how a shell company was misused.

BOX 3.2

Misusing a Shell Company

The Case of Anthony Seminerio (United States)
On February 4, 2010, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New Yorkannounced that Anthony Seminerio was sentenced to six years in prison for
defrauding the people of New York of his honest services as an assemblyman in
the New York State legislature. Seminerio was also ordered to pay US$1 million
in forfeiture.a As described in the Government’s Sentencing Submission ofNovember 6, 2009, from about 1998 through about September 2008, Anthony
Seminerio engaged in a scheme to defraud the public of his honest services
through the use of a purported consulting firm, named “Marc Consultants.”
Seminerio used Marc Consultants to solicit and receive payments of hundreds ofthousands of dollars from persons and entities, in exchange for which Seminerio
took official action for the benefit of those entities, resulting in favorable treatment for those entities in the Assembly and by New York state officials.
Moreover, because New York’s Public Officers Law permits a member of theAssembly to report income in the name of a business, rather than in the namesof the individual clients of that business, Seminerio used Marc Consultants toconceal these corrupt payments from public scrutiny. In fact, Seminerio did little
or no consulting work.b The government stated that “bank records demonstratethat Marc Consultants was a shell company.” The records for an account held in
the name of Marc Consultants demonstrate that Seminerio used the Marc Consultants bank account not to handle payments and receipts relating to a genuine
consulting business, but rather as an account through which to receive corrupt
payments in connection with official acts and to fund his personal expenses.
According to bank records,• the address listed on the Marc Consultants bank account is the home addressof Seminerio,• the sole individuals with signature authority for the Marc Consultants bankaccount are Seminerio and his wife, and• no disbursements from the Marc Consultants bank account were made to any
employees or to any payroll companies.c
Note: a. Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Oﬃce Press Release, “Former New York State Assemblyman Sentenced
to Six Years in Prison for Public Corruption Crimes,” released February 4, 2010; available at http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/nyfo020410.htm.
b. US v. Anthony Seminerio, Case No. 1:08-cr-01238-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), Sentencing Submission of the USA, ﬁled on November 6,
2009, at 1.
c. US v. Anthony Seminerio, Case No. 1:08-cr-01238-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), Sentencing Submission of the USA, ﬁled on November 6,
2009, at 5.

36

I The Puppet Masters

Shelf Companies24
The term “shelf company” is typically (although not uniformly) applied to a company
that (a) is incorporated with a standard memorandum or articles of association;(b) has inactive shareholders, directors, and secretary; and (c) is left dormant—that is,sitting “on a shelf ”—for the purpose of later being sold (see box 3.3). When the shelfcompany is sold, the inactive shareholders transfer their shares to the purchaser, andthe directors and secretary submit their resignations. Upon transfer, the purchaser
may receive the company’s credit and tax history. It is possible that the company
director(s) will continue in function as nominees, in which case, the outside world
only sees a change of ownership—assuming, that is, that the change in ownership is
actually registered somewhere, which is not necessarily the case. Until such time as
the purchaser may choose to start up operational activity using the shelf company, italso may be considered a shell company.
BOX 3.3

Using Shelf Companies to Conceal Ownership of Bank Accounts

The Scheme of Raul Salinas (Mexico)a
Raul Salinas, brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, transferredto the United States US$100 million in questionable assets using a private banking relationship formed with Citibank. Between 1992 and 1994, Citibank assisted
Salinas’s transfers and effectively disguised the source and destination of thefunds by employing shelf companies. Upon setting up the offshore private investment company, Trocca Ltd., to hold Salinas’s assets, Citibank appointed three
Panamanian shelf companies—Madeline Investments S.A., Donat Investments
S.A., and Hitchcock Investments S.A.—to serve as Trocca’s board of directors. All
three of these companies had been incorporated in 1979, nearly 15 years before
Trocca’s incorporation. In addition, another shelf company from the Cayman Islands,
Tyler Ltd., incorporated in 1984, was named as a principal shareholder. With thehelp of Citibank, Salinas avoided his name being connected to the scheme bycircumventing the incorporation process, and thus no documentation identified
Salinas as beneficial owner of the accounts.
Note: a. U.S. General Accounting Oﬃce (now known as Government Accountability Oﬃce), Report to the Ranking Minority
Member, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Aﬀairs, U.S. Senate, “Private Banking: Raul
Salinas, Citibank and Alleged Money Laundering,” GAO/OSI-99-1 (October 1998); United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, S. Hrg. 106–428, “Private Banking and Money Laundering: A Case Study of Opportunities and Vulnerabilities,” November 9 and 10, 1999, Government Printing Oﬃce, available at http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate12sh106.
html.

24. It was not possible to determine the exact number of shelf companies involved in the cases in our grandcorruption database. We were able to establish that a shelf company was involved in a small number ofcases (six) in which a considerable amount of time lapsed between the company being established and it
being used in a scheme (see, for example, the Salinas case in box 3.3). Because a lot of shelf companies arebought just after having been incorporated, however, the time lapse may be only a few months. It is consequently difficult to know whether one is dealing with a shelf company or a company incorporated by aservice provider and sold on, especially when it proves impossible to trace the company’s establishment
history.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 37

The typical advertisement in box 3.4 mentions the benefits for shelf corporations andaged corporations. The price of an “aged” shelf company available for immediate purchase tends to vary depending on how long it has existed. For example, for a company
less than five years old, one might expect to pay US$1,000 per year that the company
has existed. In the case of a company more than 10 years old, this sum might increase
to US$35,000. Costs increase in cases in which the shelf company offers additional benefits, such as pre-existing lines of credit, maintained records, and bank accounts.
Service providers may hold a stock of shelf companies, purchased in bulk from a company wholesaler. Shelf companies have the advantage that one does not need the timeto set up a new corporation. In some jurisdictions, incorporation procedures can betime-consuming, so it is often easier, quicker, and less expensive to transfer ownershipof a shelf company than it is to incorporate a new one. In some countries, however, theformalities of setting up a company have been so reduced—in some cases to just completing a simple form online—that the difference in terms of timing between buying ashelf company and setting up a new one are minimal. Consequently, the typical justification for buying a shelf company—“I need a company now, not in six weeks”—is losing validity.
Law enforcement authorities are concerned about shelf companies, because
criminals can easily throw investigators off the trail by purchasing shelf companies and thennever officially transferring the ownership [i.e., registering with the authorities] . . . [I]n such
BOX 3.4

A Typical Advertisement for “Shelf Corporations
and Aged Corporations”

Establish Immediate Corporate History
Companies Incorporated holds a list of “pre-filed,” off-the-shelf companies
that you can acquire. By owning a pre-established corporate identity, you are able
to take advantage of the following benefits:
1. Instant availability and fast delivery
2. Immediately own a company with a corporate history
3. Show longevity and enhance your image with customers and lenders
4. Easier to obtain business credit cards and business credit lines
5. Often, lenders require a business to have been in existence from six months
to two years or more before lending it money
6. Ability to borrow money from banks
7. Ability to secure bids on contracts. Many agencies will only sign contracts
with a business that has been in business for at least two years.
All entities are in good standing through maintenance, reinstatement, revival, orthe equivalent. Your company name can be changed for a small fee.
Source: CompaniesIncorporated®, “Shelf Corporation & Aged Corporations,” http://www.companiesinc.com/corporation/aged(accessed July 20, 2011).

38

I The Puppet Masters

cases the investigation often leads to a [dead-end] formation agent who has long ago sold thecompany with no records of the purchaser and no obligation to note the ownership change.25

Operational Entities
The misuse of legal entities is often regarded almost exclusively as being a problem of
non-operational companies. This study’s analysis of the grand corruption cases, however, reveals that a significant proportion of the schemes (approximately one in seven)misuse operational companies (that is, “front companies”). Operational entities haveinflows and outflows of assets, which enables streams of illicit assets to be mingledwith legitimate funds and thereby laundered. Thus, substantial amounts of money
can be transferred without raising suspicion. One supervisory authority interviewed
for this project indicated that the misuse of operational entities for money laundering
purposes is a significant and growing problem. The case described in box 3.5 demonstrates the lengths to which criminals will go to gain control of operational entities(in this case, a bank) that will allow them to pass off their illicit assets as something
less malignant.
Front companies may be involved in the giving and receiving of bribes. Although unaffiliated individuals may offer bribes to public officials to court favor, the most financially significant instances of bribery, kickbacks, and self-dealing26 are undertaken by
persons working for big corporations.
The case studies of grand corruption investigations identify two schemes that are typically used in cases in which the bribes or kickbacks take monetary form. In one case,the giver of the bribe either creates or contracts with a consulting company to receiveand pass on funds to the bribe receiver, thereby obscuring the chain of payment andcreating a plausible explanation for the payments. In the second case, the recipient of
the bribe creates a corporate vehicle to hide the assets and any connection that he may
have to them. In cases in which the official is given a concealed stake in the venture or
the company offering the bribe, these corporate vehicles become the opaque link
between the corrupted party and the wealth acquired.
Those responsible for active bribery (that is, giving the bribe) sometimes hide behindthe fact that although they are in a position to authorize transactions, they are not
the beneficial owner of the company. In at least one-third of the cases in our database, bribery or kickback investigations led to operational companies entering into
25. Statement of Jennifer Shasky, then Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney before the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, “Business Formation and Financial Crime:
Finding a Legislative Solution,” presented November 5, 2009; available at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhsgac.senate.gov%2Fpublic%2Findex.cfm%3FFuseAction%3DFiles.View%26FileStore_id%3D1c13f428-29f0-47fa-b5d3-6334f51aac0a&ei=86l
yTKbmG8WBlAf3ls2cDw&usg=AFQjCNEx1wZRRI_e49v-45Nk6QOWWgmNoQ&sig2=lbwTpXbVzgf
N8oyynXTrzg.
26. The hiding of beneficial interests given to or belonging to those public officials tasked with the award ofcontracts.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 39

BOX 3.5

Laundering Money through a Front Company

The Case of Pavel Lazarenko, Former Prime Minister (Ukraine)
The European Federal Credit Bank (EuroFed) featured prominently in the U.S.
prosecution and conviction of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko
on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.a In
early 1997, when Lazarenko faced corruption allegations in Ukraine and believedthat he soon would lose his post, he and his coconspirator Peter Kiritchenkob
learned that EuroFed, an offshore bank domiciled in Antigua, was for sale andagreed to buy it.c According to an opinion issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, “Lazarenko opened his own personal account at
EuroFed, and in August 1997, Lazarenko and Kiritchenko purchased a 67 percent
interest in the bank.” The indictment against Lazarenko had alleged that “It was
further part of the conspiracy that in May of 1997, Kiritchenko and Lazarenko
began negotiations to purchase, and by August 7, 1997, purchased, a [67 percent]dshare of European Federal Credit Bank in St. John’s, Antigua, in order to facilitate
the transfer of money and to further conceal and disguise the nature, origin, location, source, ownership and control of the money that was paid for the benefit ofLazarenko.”e The indictment added that “[B]etween May and September 1997,
Lazarenko transferred approximately US$70 million into accounts he and Kiritchenko controlled” at EuroFed.f In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil
asset forfeiture case to seize Lazarenko’s assets, including approximately US$85.5
million alleged to have been formerly on deposit in accounts held for his benefit
at EuroFed.g
Note: a. US v. Lazarenko, No. 06-10592, 564 F. 3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009). Lazarenko was prime minister from May 1996 to July 1997.
b. Lazarenko was convicted in the United States of having extorted US$30 million from Peter Kiritchenko, a Ukrainian
businessman, who ﬁrst approached Lazarenko in 1992. However, Kiritchenko soon turned from victim of extortion toco-conspirator, playing a key role in the former prime minister’s money laundering scheme, a role that continued after his
move to San Francisco in 1994. US v. Lazarenko, 564 F. 3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).
c. US v. Lazarenko. Case No. 00-cr-00284-CRB, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71387 (N.D. Cal), Opinion issued on
August 22, 2008, at 1141.
d. US v. Lazarenko. Case No. 00-cr-00284-CRB, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71387 (N.D. Cal.), Opinion issued on
August 22, 2008, at 1141.
e. US v. Lazarenko, Case No. 00-cr-0284-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Indictment ﬁled May 18, 2000, Count 1 Conspiracy to Commit Money
Laundering, at para. 21.
f. Ibid at para. 22. The purchase took place a month after Lazarenko was pressured to step down as prime minister in July 1997.
US v. Lazarenko, 564 F, 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal.), Opinion issued on August 22, 2008. In the fall of 1999, acting on a request by the
Ukrainian authorities, the Antiguan government began an investigation of EuroFed for alleged money laundering activities andfroze its assets.
g. US v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Company, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00798-PLF (D.D.C.), First Amended Veriﬁed
Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, ﬁled June 30, 2005.

settlements with or without being convicted by the authorities. In one typical case,
IBM accepted a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission whenpeople at IBM’s Argentina subsidiary—without the knowledge or approval of U.S.
employees or IBM shareholders—engaged in a relationship with a subcontractor topass along millions of dollars for distribution to directors of Banco de la Nacion.27
27. In the Matter of International Business Machines Corp., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-13097,
Rel. No. 34-43761, Dec. 21, 2000 (settlement), pp. 2–3. In instances such as this, the corporations

40

I The Puppet Masters

In these instances, the company provides an essential veil, but the overarching legitimate activities of the company are what truly provide the cover for transactions used tobribe officials. These transactions are usually small enough not to attract the attentionof internal control, management, or shareholders. Therefore, it is not the beneficial
ownership of the legal entity as a whole that is important, but rather the control over
specific transactions.
Companies with Bearer Shares or Share Warrants
Bearer shares often come up for discussion in the context of anti-money laundering(AML) measures because they allow for anonymous transfers of control. Bearer sharesare company shares that exist in certificate form, and whoever is in physical possessionof the bearer shares is deemed to be their owner. Transfer requires only the delivery of
the instrument from person to person (in some cases, combined with endorsement on
the back of the instrument). Box 3.6 shows just how easy it is to set up a company withthis type of instrument. Unlike “registered” shares (for which ownership is determinedby entry in a register28), bearer shares typically give the person in possession of thecertificate (the bearer) voting rights or rights to dividend. Almost identical in terms offunction are unregistered “share warrants.”29 A share warrant may be thought of as avoucher entitling the holder to the right to acquire shares. Concerns have been raisedin AML forums that companies that issue bearer shares are used extensively for illegal
activities, such as tax evasion and money laundering (see box 3.7).30
In most jurisdictions, bearer-share statutes have generally been undergoing a process ofreform and elimination, typically being phased out through “dematerialization” or“immobilization.” Dematerialization requires bearer shares to be computerized andregistered in company ledgers, thereby negating their status as an “unregistered” instrument.31 Immobilization requires the bearer share to be placed with a custodial agent,themselves (for example, IBM and others) are not included in our database because, unlike the intermediate companies, they were not themselves used to conceal payments.
28. Although the register may have a certificate of the security evidencing title, possession of this certificate is
not relevant to legal ownership. Transfer of a registered security is effected by an amendment of the register.
29. “There is a slight distinction between ‘share warrants to bearer’ and ‘bearer shares’. The former give thebearer an entitlement to the share therein specified, whereas the latter refer to negotiable instruments that
accord ownership in a corporation to the person who possesses the bearer share certificate.” Tax Cooperation 2009: Towards a Level Playing Field (Paris: OECD, 2009), p. 213.
30. Without doubt, such a reputation arises in part from the terms by which some businesses market these
entities, for example: “The trick behind Bearer Shares, however, is that they must be issued properly by aqualified and knowledgeable corporate director. As long as you do not have them in your possession at thetime you are questioned, you can legally and truthfully say under oath, ‘I am not the owner of that corporation.’ [. . .] If your nominee officer is ever questioned about your corporation, he can say the same thing:‘Bearer shares were issued, I don’t know who owns the company, and I can prove it.’ [. . .] it is impossible toknow for certain who the shareholders of the company are. Because a transfer of the shares can be made bysimply handing them to another person, bearer shares can be transferred more easily than non-bearer
shares” (italics added). Coddan Companies Formation Worldwide, http://www.coddan.co.uk/
s-9-uk-bearer-shares-company-formation.html (accessed July 22, 2011).
31. For example, a Belgian law of December 14, 2005, provides for the phasing out of bearer shares in all
domestic companies.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 41

BOX 3.6

Setting Up Companies with Bearer Instruments

André Pascal Enterprises (England and Wales)
André Pascal Enterprisesa was an England and Wales Private Company Limited
by Shares (with bearer-share warrants) set up by a U.K. corporate service provider.
Upon payment and submission of the order to set up the company, the provider
electronically lodged the application with U.K. Companies House. The provider
became the initial shareholder of the company and subscriber to the Memorandum
and Articles of Association for the purposes of government records. Upon receipt
of signed documents from the client—but without requiring or requesting theclient to provide any supporting identification—the provider issued bearer-share
warrants, erasing the provider’s name from the share registry without substituting
any other. André Pascal Enterprises had a nominee director and nominee
secretary (courtesy of the provider), again providing separation from the beneficial
owner. The incorporation process took less than a day, filling out the online forms
took 45 minutes, and the total cost was £515.95.
Note: a. This company was set up as part of the TCSP project.

BOX 3.7

Misusing a Bearer-Share Company

The Case of Former President Frederick Chiluba (Zambia)a
Iqbal Meer, a London-based solicitor, was among the defendants in a private
civil asset recovery action brought by the Zambian attorney general in the U.K.
High Court against his law firm and others for their role in assisting President
Frederick Chiluba and his director general of the Zambian Security and Intelligence Services (ZSIS), X. F. Chungu, to funnel funds stolen from the Zambian
government. In his judgment delivered on May 4, 2007, Mr. Justice Peter Smith
held that Meer had incorporated a British Virgin Islands International BusinessCompany, Harptree Holdings Ltd., with the company’s bearer shares held in trust
by a nominee at Bachmann Trust Company Ltd. Harptree Holdings had been
formed to purchase real estate in Belgium—a block of flats and an apartment
hotel—to pay off one of the co-conspirators in the case, Faustin Kabwe, who
was identified in the court’s judgment as a close friend and financial adviser to
Chiluba and Chungu. This involved the transfer of funds from Zambia’s ministryof finance to an account in London (referred to as the Zamtrop account) and fromthat account to a Zambian financial services company, in which Kabwe was oneof the main controlling officers. Suspicions of Meer’s involvement in this Zamtrop
conspiracy (as it later became known) resulted in the U.K. Office for the Supervision of Solicitors paying Meer a visit in April 2003. They asked him specifically
about the ownership of Harptree. He responded, “I have no idea whether Kabwe
is holding the bearer shares in his hands or whether somebody else is holding(continued next page)42

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.7(continued)[the] bearer shares”—demonstrating clearly how a bearer-share construction
can allow someone to easily and accurately deny knowledge of ownership of alegal entity.
Mr. Justice Smith concluded:
In my view it is obvious. The (. . .) purchase was FK’s [Faustin Kabwe’s] payoff for his role in the conspiracy. IM [Iqbal Meer], whilst he did not know theoverarching conspiracy details, took instructions from FK on behalf of Harptree, because he believed it belonged to him beneficially. Yet he knew that thepurchase was funded by government monies via the Zamtrop account but did
not question FK’s entitlement to them. That failure (even if his case that it wasa ZSIS purchase is to be believed) and the failure to record that matter in any
document are actions again which an honest solicitor would not do. Such alarge purchase of a block of flats and an apartment hotel cannot conceivably
have been regarded as a purchase for ZSIS operations. Equally, the labyrinthinerouting of the ownership of the properties—via a BVI holding company withnominee directors and bearer shares and a Luxembourg company interposed—shows that the whole operation was to hide things.
Source: Supplemented by additional details from the Approved Judgment of Justice Peter Smith in the matter of AG of
Zambia v Meer Care & Desai and Others, [2007] EWHC 952 (Ch). Case No: HC04C03129. Dramatis Personae, ¶¶593–601.
Note: a. While Iqbal Meer was originally found liable for dishonest assistance, this portion of the ruling was overturned on
appeal on the grounds that only negligence had been demonstrated (Zambia v Meer Care & Desai [2008] EWCA Civ 1007).

who holds the share for the beneficial owner, thereby preventing the holder from making unrecorded transfers.32
Financial compliance officers and company service providers report that bearer shares
have generally been frozen out of the financial sector even if they are still permitted by
the laws of a particular jurisdiction. No bank with any sort of due diligence standards is
willing to conduct business with a company that has free-floating bearer shares. Companies that are not required under their own laws to have bearer shares immobilized
will typically have to place the share in the trust of an agent of the bank, as a conditionof being accepted as a customer.
Some jurisdictions require the involvement of intermediaries in the transfer of bearer
shares for the transfer to be lawful and thus ensure that each change in ownership is
32. In the British Virgin Islands, companies incorporated since January 1, 2005, had been required tolodge bearer-share certificates with custodians. Companies incorporated before that date had not been
subject to such immobilization procedures, but as of 2010, they became subject to more stringent regulations: they generally would be deemed to no longer have any ability to issue bearer shares, and any existing bearer shares had to be deposited with a recognized or authorized custodian. Furthermore, thedeposit with the custodian would not be deemed valid until a registered agent had received notificationor proof of the deposit from an authorized custodian. See BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act
2005, Sections 67–77.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 43

registered. Panama remains a noteworthy exception to this trend, because thus far, it
has not implemented any policy to immobilize or dematerialize bearer shares.33 Investigators noted, however, that Panamanian banks generally refuse to conduct businesswith companies with bearer securities, and the director of such a company must sign anotarized declaration of knowledge of the beneficially interested shareholder to be able
to conduct business with a bank.
Given the legislative reforms of the past decade and the fact that bearer shares or share
warrants featured in roughly 1 percent of the grand corruption cases we reviewed, one
might be inclined to consider bearer securities to be a problem of the past. Investigatorsinterviewed for this study from Latin America and the Caribbean disagree, however.
They maintain that bearer-share companies are still a problem for money laundering
investigations, that their anonymity prevents detection and impedes prosecution, andthat corrupt individuals still can gain access to financial systems and undertake anonymous transactions involving considerable sums.
In practice, there is scant business rationale for the continued use of bearer securities.
The claims that bearer securities are necessary to facilitate transfer of ownership andenhance liquidity no longer hold for the vast majority of countries. An electronic system of registered shares is clearly a more efficient platform for transferring equity interests. In this case, the risks outweigh the benefits.
3.2.2 Trusts
Our review of grand corruption investigations suggests that trusts are used infrequently.
In fact, only 5 percent of the corporate vehicles identified were trusts, appearing in only
about 15 percent of the investigations. The misuse of trusts was found in schemes originating with corrupt government officials in all parts of the world. It appeared most in
Latin America, the Caribbean, and high-income nations. Unfortunately, in most cases,
the legal documentation available failed to identify the jurisdiction of origin (that is, thecountry under whose laws the trusts were organized). In cases in which the jurisdiction
could be identified, however, these schemes were found predominantly in the U.S.
states, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, and Jersey.

33. “Decree 524 of 2005 establishes the registration requirement for associations and non-profit foundations. Except for this development, none of the actions recommended in the evaluation report have beentaken: (a) corporate services providers (mostly lawyers) are not subject to an adequate AML/CFT [antimoney laundering/combating the financing of terrorism] regime; (b) no measures have been taken to
avoid the possible use of bearer shares for unlawful purposes; (c) no obligation has been imposed to
update information on the ownership of legal persons in the public registry of property, or for the strengthening of registration to enable more timely and accurate information to be provided; and (d) corporate law
has not been revised to ensure that operators of justice and other authorities can access useful informationon the beneficial ownership of legal entities established in Panama.” Caribbean Financial Action Task
Force, “Panama: Follow-up Report to Mutual Evaluation Approved September 2006,” February 2009, p. 4,
available at http://www.cfatf-gafic.org/.../Panama_1st_Follow-Up_Report_(Final)_English.pdf (accessed
July 21, 2011).

44

I The Puppet Masters

In principle, a trust service provider will serve as trustee and thereby have effective
control over the trust. In practice, the originator of the trust (“the settlor”) may share inthese responsibilities or exert influence through other mechanisms. Although it wasonce considered to be a guiding principle of trust law that a settlor must give up effective control of any assets placed into a trust, many jurisdictions have fundamentally
modified this requirement.34 These modifications make it possible for a settlor not only
to be listed as a beneficiary, but also to maintain control over the trust by serving as aco-trustee or protector, with the power to veto trustee decisions or even to replacethem.35 The modifications also make it possible for a trust to be created by a settlor but
funded by some other party (the “economic settlor”), whose name need not appear on
any documents pertaining to the trust.
The relatively small numbers of grand corruption investigations in this study involving
the abuse of trusts seemingly contradicts a popular perception that those perpetrating
illicit activities find trusts and similar legal arrangements particularly useful and frequently misuse them for that purpose.36 Indeed, service providers approached for theaudit studies often recommended the use of stand-alone trusts or a combination of acompany and a trust for holding assets. The design of trust laws in many jurisdictions
may make it difficult for creditors to sue, prevail in court, or collect awarded monies.
For example, authorities may not recognize the laws of other jurisdictions, may notrecognize and enforce foreign judgments,37 and may fail to apply laws against transferring assets to avoid creditors.
Investigators interviewed as part of this study argued that the grand corruption investigations in our database failed to capture the true extent to which trusts are used.
Trusts, they said, prove such a hurdle to investigation, prosecution (or civil judgment),
and asset recovery that they are seldom prioritized in corruption investigations.
34. “[O]ne ought not control and benefit from property and at the same time shield it from one’s creditors.”
Elena Marty-Nelson, “Offshore Asset Protection Trusts: Having Your Cake and Eating it Too,” Rutgers L.
Rev. 47, no. 11 (1994–95), p.15.
35. See, for instance, the Nevis International Trust Ordinance. Initial legislative assessment efforts foundonly two nations (out of 40 reviewed) that, by statute, restrict a settlor’s powers in trust administration.
36. “[T]rusts which hide the identity of the grantors and the beneficiaries have become a standard part ofmoney laundering arrangements.” Jack A. Blum, Esq., Prof. Michael Levi, Prof. R. Thomas Naylor, andProf. Phil Williams, Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering (United Nations Office forDrug Control and Crime Prevention, Global Programme Against Money Laundering, 1998), p. 95. See
also European Commission and Transcrime, University of Trento (Italy), Euroshore: Protecting the EU
Financial System from the Exploitation of Financial Centres and Off-shore Facilities by Organized Crime(January 2000), p. 46: “Trusts can be easily exploited for money laundering purposes, considering therules governing them,” such as those that do not require the disclosure of the identity of the beneficiary orof the settlor, those which do not require any governmental license to operate. Some jurisdictions allow
for a “flee clause,” “pursuant to which “the trustee is able to move the trust from one jurisdiction toanother in the event of criminal investigation.” See also the FATF Typologies Report on the Misuse of
Corporate Vehicles (2006), p. 61: “Responses to the questionnaires [sent out for the purposes of thisstudy] support the conclusion that Trusts and Private companies are the vehicles that are most susceptible
to abuse.”
37. See, for example, Anguilla Trusts Act, Bermuda Trust (Special Provisions) Amendment Act 2004,
Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007, and Nevis International Trust Ordinance.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 45

BOX 3.8

Misusing a Trust

The Case of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, Former Governor of Delta State (Nigeria)
In May 2001, on the advice of UBS bank (UBS), Diepreye Alamieyeseighasettled a Bahamiana trust—the “Salo Trust”—for the benefit of himselfb and his
family.c He contended that, because the UBS account, although legally in his
name, was a trustee account for the benefit of his wife and children (he waspurportedly unaware of his own status as a trust beneficiary), he did not list theaccount on his Declaration of Assets form that all Nigerian state governors areconstitutionally required to submit.d Alamieyeseigha thus admitted to being (a)the settlor; (b) the trustee (insofar as the UBS account, legally opened and controlled in his own name, was held to be a trustee account); and (c) a beneficiary.
Clearly, this was a trust in name only, with no effective legal separation between
himself and the asset.
In the first claim made against Alamieyeseigha and his companies in early
2007, Mr. Justice Lewison held that it was established by documentation that, in
1999, Alamieyeseigha opened a London account with UBS with an initial depositof US$35,000 and a balance in 2005 of US$535,812 from various sources (economic settlors), often recorded simply as “Foreign Money Deposit.”e Alamieyeseigha claimed such funds were “contributions from friends and political associates towards the education of my children,” which Mr. Justice Morgan would
later find dubious in light of the governor’s inconsistent and changing explanations.f
Notably, this account received suspect funds of at least US$1.5 million in two
2001 deposits by Aliyu Abubakar. Those funds were immediately converted into
bonds,g which were transferred to the portfolio holdings of the Bahamianh company Falcon Flights, Inc. (purchased or incorporated by the trustees of the Salo
Trust, pursuant to the trust agreementi) in January of 2002, burying Alamieyeseigha’s control over the assets within a nested corporate vehicle structure.j
Note: a. Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 437 (Ch) (07 March 2007), ¶¶13 and 39. See
also Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 3053 (QB) (03 Dec 2007), ¶34(3).
b. Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors, Case No. HC 05C 03602, Defence of the Third Defendant [Dieprey (sic)Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha], served May 3, 2007, ¶¶10.1 and 37.
c. Id, ¶10.1.
d. Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 437 (Ch) (07 March 2007), ¶39.
e. Id. , ¶¶26 and 38.
f. Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 3053 (QB) (03 Dec 2007), ¶70.
g. Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 437 (Ch) (07 March 2007), ¶¶26 and 28.
h. Judgment, in Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 3053 (QB) (03 Dec 2007).
i. Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors, Case No. HC 05C 03602, Defence of the Third Defendant [Dieprey (sic)Solomon Peter Alamieyeseigha], served May 3, 2007, ¶10.2.
j. Judgment, Nigeria v. Santolina Investment Corporation & Ors [2007] EWHC 437 (Ch) (07 March 2007), ¶¶26, 28 and 38.

Investigators and prosecutors tend not to bring charges against trusts, because of the
difficulty in proving their role in the crime. Instead, they prefer to concentrate on more
firmly established aspects of the case. As a result, even if trusts holding illicit assets may
well have been used in a given case, they may not actually be mentioned in formal
charges and court documents, and consequently their misuse goes underreported.
Unless a clear trail exists, with the proceeds of corruption going into a clearly identified
46

I The Puppet Masters

trust account (or unless someone involved in the scheme with knowledge of the trust
misuse furnishes sufficient evidence), investigators find it difficult to acquire, throughnormal legal channels, even the most minimal evidence required to pursue an investigation (and gain a judgment). The extent to which the investigation and prosecution oftrusts constitutes a real obstacle may depend on the jurisdiction involved. For example,
in jurisdictions where trustees are regulated for AML purposes and the provision of
information by such individuals to law enforcement is a well-established practice, atrust may not prove unduly problematic. As one investigator in such a jurisdiction put
it, “If you’ve identified a trust in your investigation, you’ve hit the jackpot.” The perception that trusts are impenetrable may not always reflect the reality of the situation.
Conversely, using trusts to conceal assets does have some potential drawbacks, which
may contribute to its low incidence. Professional trustees (who are required to follow
standard financial compliance practice) tend to be more inquisitive about the source offunds to be vested in a trust than they would be if establishing a company. They are
inquisitive because they face the risk of exposure to legal action, either by outside parties arguing claims against the trust or trust assets, or by settlors and beneficiaries forbreach of fiduciary duties. Defending the trust from a suit can prove a costly undertaking for a trustee. Consequently, professional trustees may have a stronger incentive thana company service provider38 to avoid suspicious clients and ensure that the assets to beplaced in trust are indeed owned by the settlor and are of legitimate origin. Furthermore, most service providers nowadays request proof of the source of the funds (forexample, a copy of a will or a letter from an attorney for an inheritance, a receipt of salefor funds derived from property or shares, or pay slips).
3.2.3 Foundations
Foundations are a form of “unowned” economic entity, in which asset contributors
cede rights of ownership, control, and beneficial interest to the foundation.39 This corporate form is often used for nonprofit and charitable undertakings. Some jurisdictions
have specific laws governing foundations, notably the Liechtenstein Anstalt and the
Panamanian Private Interest Foundation (see appendix 3). In many other jurisdictions,a foundation is merely a naming convention used for any corporate vehicle (usually acompany or a trust) that is intended to benefit a cause,40 rather than to provide a returnon investment to contributors.
38. A service provider is unlikely to face such liability when establishing a company. Legal action would betaken against the assets and the beneficial owners of the company itself, rather than the provider whoestablished the company. The service provider’s liability is likely to be limited to its capacity as a nominee
director. Consequently, such service providers have less incentive to determine whether or not the client islegitimate.
39. As in the case of trusts, such a cession of rights proves to be more theoretical than concrete, as in practice it may be circumvented to varying degrees by allowing the foundation’s council to be composed of theasset contributors themselves (or corporate persons controlled by them) or by specifying that the object of
the foundation is to financially assist the asset contributors (through wealth management or estate distribution and others).
40. This cause need not always be charitable in nature. See the discussion of the Panamanian Private Interest Foundation in appendix C.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 47

The compliance officers interviewed for this study did not point to foundations as anarea of concern, although in a small number of jurisdictions, certain banks indicated areluctance to enter into financial relationships with foundations, largely because of alack of familiarity with this kind of corporate entity.41
Roughly 13 percent of the grand corruption investigations studied involved (in aggregate) the misuse of 41 foundations, Anstalten, or other nonprofit corporate vehicle types
that were identified as foundations in court documents. Approximately half originatedin Liechtenstein, although this number was skewed by the scheme of Ferdinand and
Imelda Marcos of the Philippines, which alone accounted for 15 Anstalten.
With the exception of the Marcos case, most of the schemes involving the misuse offoundations did not use a foundation as a shell entity to hold illicit assets, but instead
purported to be operational charitable or public interest foundations. This false appearance of doing good may have been intended to discourage close scrutiny of the use offunds. In some cases, funds actually may have been used for the stated object of thefoundation, but corrupt officials nonetheless were able to collect assets (especially bribe
payments) into foundations and then divert funds elsewhere (see box 3.9).
BOX 3.9

Hiding the Proceeds of Corruption in a Charitable Foundation

The Case of Former President Joseph Estrada (Philippines)
In 2000, Joseph Estrada, then President of the Philippines, set up the Erap
Muslim Youth Foundation Inc. to “foster educational opportunities for the poor
and underprivileged but deserving Muslim youth and students of the Philippines
and support research and advance studies of youth Muslim educators, teachersand scientists.”a Indeed, according to its website, the foundation had provided
many scholarships for students to attend universities in the Philippines.b In its
September 2007 decision in Estrada’s Plunder case, the Sandiganbayan (thePhilippines’ antigraft court) held that US$4.3 million of the US$11.6 million in protection money that Estrada had collected from illegal “juteng” gambling operators were secretly deposited into the foundation’s bank accounts. According to
the Sandiganbayan, the protection money had initially been hidden away in secretbank accounts set up by his auditor, Yolanda Ricaforte. When Estrada came underinvestigation for corruption by the Philippine Congress, however, he directed thatsome of the funds be deposited into the account of the Erap Muslim YouthFoundation.c
Note: a. See http://muslimyouthfoundation.com/about.htm.
b. See http://muslimyouthfoundation.com/scholars.htm.
c. People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, et al., Sandiganbayan Criminal Case No. 26558 [for Plunder], September
12, 2007 Decision.

41. Dealing with nonprofit companies, however, is more standard fare for compliance officers, becausesuch companies are considered to be a primary concern in relation to the financing of terrorism (addressedin FATF Special Recommendation 8) and the source of the contributed assets tends to be carefully scrutinized by bankers.

48

I The Puppet Masters

3.2.4 Fictitious Entities and Unincorporated Economic Organizations
Although all legal persons (including incorporated companies) are “fictitious” in the
broadest sense, the category of corporate vehicle referred to in this subsection includes
only those with the most tenuous separation of personality from their controllers: They
exist entirely as an alternative name under which persons conduct business. The glossary of the FATF 40 recommendations clarifies that guidance given in Recommendation 33 on the need for transparency of legal persons is meant to extend beyond entities
that have undergone a formal incorporation process to include “partnerships, or associations, or any similar bodies that can establish a permanent customer relationshipwith a financial institution or otherwise own property.”
These types of fictitious entities provided opacity in a small number of the grandcorruption investigations studied. The typical purposes of misuse included serving as
the name of a business-class bank account (used to launder or store illicit proceeds)
or as a name on a contract (for example, listed as a vendor on a government project),spiriting away funds into foreign bank accounts or putting through cash withdrawals
before the fraud was discovered. The benefit of misusing these economic forms isclear: authorities are less aware of the existence of the entity,42 while the criminals
face no more liability43 than they already were exposed to because of the illicit natureof their activities.
Some of these misused entities were originally legitimate, operational businesses thatthe owners then misused (see Berry Exports in Case Study 2, Charles Warwick Reid, inappendix D). Others, although devised with criminal intent, were intended to stand up
to some level of scrutiny (as in the Hollis Griffin case, see box 3.10, in which the misused general partnership that was created was registered44 with local authorities). Stillothers proved to be blatant falsehoods even at the most cursory of checks (for example,
several cases involved nonexistent companies that were purportedly incorporated insome jurisdiction but that did not appear—even as shell companies—in any company
registry45).

42. The legitimate benefit of conducting business through an unincorporated entity is that less bureaucratic
red tape is involved—such an entity need not be “created” through official government processes.
43. The economic argument against conducting business in such a manner is that these economic forms
offer no protection in law against unlimited liability. Although this is a concern that needs to be taken into
account by legitimate business owners, it is less so for those whose entire purpose is criminal in nature,
because criminal liability is never “limited,” regardless of business form.
44. “Registration” consists of providing the business names and parties to the local authority, and it is not
to be confused with “incorporation.”
45. Although they did not really exist, such “companies” often received government contracts for projects
that were (a) vehicles for fraud (the project authorizers never intended the project to be completed, merely
using it as a cover-story for paying out funds to the corrupt contractor or recipient); (b) legitimate but
never performed (funds were received but performance of the contract was either faked or neverattempted); or (c) legitimate but subcontracted out to others (the recipient of the contract hired others tocomplete it, with the contract recipient’s only involvement being to profit from a percentage of the contract
value).

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 49

BOX 3.10

Receiving Fraudulent Government Contracts by a Partnership

The Case of Hollis Griffin, Environmental Protection Director (U.S. Virgin Islands)
One of the only clear instances in which a general partnership was found tohave been created for anonymity purposes to launder the proceeds of corruption
occurred when Hollis L. Griffin, along with three other unidentified officials of thegovernment of the U.S. Virgin Islands, authorized and awarded more than US$1.4
million in contracts, in exchange for bribes and kickbacks.a Less than a year after
being appointed director of the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning andNatural Resources (DPNR), Division of Environmental Protection,b Griffin andothersc formed a fictitious business partnership and association under the name“Elite Technical Services” (Elite I).dIn May 2000, several of Griffin’s conspirators registered Elite I with the Officeof the Lieutenant Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands under the trade name “Elite
Technical Services.” The Certificate for Registration of Trade Name declared theintended nature of the partnership business to be “Computer Consulting and
Systems Consulting” and further contained a forged signature of another highranking government official, falsely stating that the official was a partner ofElite I.e Several months before registration, the partnership was awarded a no-bid
contract by DPNR relating to a building-permit request. Without fulfilling its
terms, Elite I was paid US$125,755.34, with approximately US$80,000 cash payments being delivered to Hollis and other officials.f Payment was received via
two checks paid into a First Bank account, following which the funds were
removed from the account in structured cash withdrawals.g After this first illicit
contract was completed, the Elite I partnership was converted into a U.S. Virgin
Islands corporation “Elite Technical Services, Inc.” in February 2001.h
Note: a. US v. Hollis L. Griﬃn, No. 2006 cr-35 (District Court of the Virgin Islands, St Thomas & St John). Complaint. ¶16(C).
b. Id. ¶2 (3).
c. Id. These others included separately charged co-conspirators Esmond J. Modeste (President and CEO of GBS, Ltd., an accounting ﬁrm incorporated and principally conducting business in the state of Georgia [¶¶13-14]) and Earl E. Brewley (a local US
Virgin Islands Fire Service ﬁreﬁghter and self-employed taxi driver [¶4]). Griﬃn, Modeste, and Brewely all pled guilty to thecharges. See Press Release: US Department of Justice. “Former Government Oﬃcial Is Third to Plead Guilty in $1.4 Million Virgin
Islands Bribery Scandal,” September 26, 2006 [Last accessed 08/20/2010: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/September/06_
crm_649.html] and were sentenced to jail time, and (ﬁtting for a general partnership) found jointly and severally liable for
US$1.1m. Press Release: US Department of Justice. “Two Virgin Islands Commissioners Convicted in $1.4 Million Bribery andKickback Scheme.” February 28, 2008.
d. Id. ¶5.
e. Id. ¶¶5-6, 17 A(2).
f. Id. ¶17 B(4),(5),(6).
g. Id. ¶17 J(1),(2). From the ﬁrst check of US$43,455.34, the sum of US$33,000 was removed within nine days in four transactionsof between US$7,500 and US$9,000 each, while from the second check of US$82,300, the sum of US$59,400 was removed overthe course of the following two weeks, US$9,900 at a time, twice a day on three separate occasions.
h. Id. ¶7.

In some cases, access to the financial services for these types of entities was the result of
dishonest collusion or negligence on the part of bankers. In other instances, the financial
institutions were presented with plausible (although false or forged) evidence that justified the creation of the account and gave what was, for their purposes, a satisfactory
explanation for the resulting transactions that occurred through the accounts. Most
unincorporated businesses were able to open financial accounts under the protocols
that banks allow for dealing with sole proprietorships, partnerships, or the “trading as”(or “doing business as”) names that are often used by (natural or corporate) persons
50

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.11

Laundering Money through a Sole Proprietorship

The Case of Plateau State Governor Joshua Dariye (Nigeria)a
The Federal Republic of Nigeria engaged in civil asset recovery attempts in the
United Kingdom in the hopes of recouping £762,000 that had found its way into
the U.K. financial system from £2.6 million of Plateau State public funds that
represented either misappropriated public funds or secret profits obtained by
Gov. Joshua Dariye through the abuse of his position as a public officer.b As
noted by the U.K. High Court,“On or about 16 December 1999, in Nigeria, Mr. Dariye applied to the Abuja
branch of Allstates Bank Pic to open an account in the name of ‘Ebenezer Retnan Ventures’. Mr. Dariye signed the application form as ‘Ebenezer Retnan’,
this name being an alias adopted by him. As he admitted to the Metropolitan
Police in an interview on 2 September 2004, the Ebenezer Retnan account
was his account. Mr. Dariye did not register Ebenezer Retnan Ventures with
the Nigerian Corporate Affairs Commission and he requested the managementof the Allstates Trust Bank Pic to waive all account-opening requirements
beyond completion of the application form. The Ebenezer Retnan account was
opened as account no. 2502012136 on 22 December 1999, with the first transaction taking place on 1 March 2000. Mr. Dariye used the Ebenezer Retnan
account to receive large sums from Plateau State, of which he was Governor. . . . Mr. Dariye thereby transferred naira (N) 53.6 million from public funds
to [the Ebenezer Retnan account].”c
Nigeria’s Particulars of Claim stated that Mr. Dariye “wrongfully transferred
N438.6 million (about £2.6 million) from public funds to his Ebenezer Retnan
account.”
Note: a. Particulars of Claim filed by the Government of Nigeria in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Joshua Chibi Dariye andValentina Dariye, Claim No. 07 C00169 filed on 25 Jan 2007; “Case-study: the Dariye proceedings in the United Kingdom. Written
by Case Practitioner.” <Accessible at: http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/4710f64d-c5fb-11dd-b3f1-fd61180437d9.html>
noting that on June 7, 2007, the High Court ordered judgment in favor of Nigeria and against Dariye and his wife for US$5.7m,
plus interest (totaling US$8m), aﬃrmed as fact in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Dariye and Another [2007] EWHC 0169 (CH) 7
June 2007 Approved Judgment.
b. Federal Republic of Nigeria v Dariye and Dariye EWHC 0169 (CH), Particulars of Claim, 25 Jan 2007. ¶47
c. Id., ¶¶26-37.

engaging in trade. Generally speaking, it is not mandatory for basic information onsuch entities to be maintained at the state level, although there are exceptions.46
3.2.5 Other Ways to Use Corporate Vehicles to Obscure
Control and Hide Money Laundering Activities
Grand corruption schemes involving corporate vehicles often involve the use of additional
strategies to add layers of “legal distance” between the corrupt beneficial owner and his
46. Nigeria’s strict business naming law (see Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1990, Chapter 59, Companies and Allied Matters Act [CAMA], Part B, Section 656, Business Names) is one such example in which
compelling government interest in preventing corruption has resulted in more strict information-gathering
policies being implemented. If a natural or corporate person in Nigeria does business under a name otherthan their natural, full, legal one, it must be registered with the authorities.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 51

assets. These multiple layers render the beneficial owner’s connection to money laundering less apparent to investigation. These layers may also allow the owner to plausibly denyownership or control of such assets if they are discovered. Investigations are particularlycomplicated when such layers are placed strategically in multiple jurisdictions, because no
investigating authority will have the legal compulsory power to procure evidence fromall parties involved. This may be accomplished in many different ways. This section discusses the two most commonly used strategies: legal fiction and the use of surrogates.
Separating the Beneficial Owner from Formal Control via a Legal Fiction
In a tiered corporate vehicle structure, layers or “chains” of legal entities and/or arrangements are inserted between the individual beneficial owner(s) or controller(s) and theassets of the primary corporate vehicle. The use of tiered entities affords a beneficial ownerfurther opportunities to pocket integral pieces of relevant legal ownership, control, andassets across multiple jurisdictional boundaries. All this makes it easier for him or her (a)to access financial institutions in the names of different entities, which serve the same
ultimate end, and (b) to maintain control over the primary corporate vehicle (that is, thevehicle holding, receiving, or transferring the asset). Tiered entities enable the beneficial
owner to meet these goals while remaining wholly obscured by a convolutedly indirect
hierarchy.
This type of tiered approach appeared most commonly in our grand corruption database in situations in which legal entities were listed as (a) the legal shareholders or(b) the directors of companies or (c) both. When discussing such cases, the investigators we talked to said that their efforts to ascertain who truly controlled a suspect entity
were frequently frustrated, especially when they were pursuing such information outside their own jurisdictions. Despite having gathered considerable information about
an entity, the investigator may still not have been able to reconstruct the control framework; on the contrary, a new layer of opacity may have appeared. For example, if, as partof a money laundering investigation, the authorities in Country A manage to successfully cooperate through the appropriate formal channels with the authorities of Country B to discover the shareholders of a corporation registered in that jurisdiction, they
may well find that the listed shareholders of that corporation are in fact corporations
registered in Countries C and D.
It is a widely held view that corrupt officials particularly like to hide away their illgotten gains using corporate vehicles established in offshore centers. It is true that mostof the cases reviewed did involve schemes in which corrupt officials used corporate
vehicles established under laws other than their own. Offshore jurisdictions by nomeans have a monopoly of this type of business, however. Corporate vehicles established under what are normally considered “onshore” jurisdictions (such as the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom) also feature prominently in the database. The complex,
transnational nature of some of the grand corruption schemes analyzed for this study isclearly illustrated by the case of Pavel Lazarenko of Ukraine (See box 3.5). Twelve jurisdictions were implicated, and criminal charges were filed in Ukraine and criminal
convictions were obtained in Switzerland and the United States. Lazarenko and his

52

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.12“Chaining” Corporate Vehicles to Conceal Beneficial Ownership

The Case of Former New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno (United States)a
From 1993 to at least 2006, Joseph L. Bruno defrauded the State of New Yorkby exploiting his position as New York senate majority leader for personal enrichment, using his ability to influence official action in return for personal benefit.b
He also filed faulty annual financial statements about his consulting work for acompany called business consultants. This company was used to disguise Bruno’s
identity.c The whole scheme was effected through several corporate vehicles.
One of these was Capital Business Consultants LLC, a company incorporated by
Bruno, which never performed any real function other than to serve as an alternate name for the bookkeeping of his outside financial activities.d The payments
for fictional services actually were made out to Capital Business Consultants LLC
and Business Consultants, Inc., a fictional subsidiary that never had been formally incorporated.e Bruno further used Capital Business Consultants LLC to“purchase”—and thus conceal—his ownership interests in Microknowledge,
Inc. (a company holding contracts with the State of New York), which he andFassler had acquired in 2000.f
Note: a. Details taken from Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) and conﬁrmed in: Federal
Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Oﬃce Press Release. “Former New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno
Convicted of Scheming to Defraud the Citizens of New York of His Honest Services,” December 7, 2009. [Last accessed July 5, 2010:
http://albany.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/alfo120709a.htm]
b. Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) ¶¶18-21.
c. Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) ¶57(b)(1)(d).
d. Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) ¶39
e. Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) ¶¶41, 43
f. Indictment. US v Joseph L. Bruno. (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) ¶¶46-48

associates were found or alleged to have formed corporate vehicles, held illicit proceeds,
and conducted transactions in Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cyprus, Guernsey,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Ukraine, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States.47 Not every case, however, involves this degreeof complexity. A little more than one-third of the cases we reviewed involved officials
using corporate vehicles established under the laws of their primary place of residence.
The ability to chain within and across jurisdictions has few restrictions. In all countries,
legal persons are allowed to own shares in companies. Additionally, in a majority of the
40 jurisdictions whose registry systems were reviewed as part of this study, legal persons may be registered as the directors of companies. Twelve jurisdictions were foundto prohibit corporate directors of this sort outright, whereas five jurisdictions restrict
the use of corporate directors in some way—for example, by requiring that a legal person that is a corporate director not itself have any corporate directors but only natural
persons; that the corporate director be licensed; or that the corporate director not
47. US v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer, et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-00798-PLF (D.D.C.). First amended
verified complaint for forfeiture in rem (June 30, 2005).

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 53

TABLE 3.1

Two Examples in Which the Registration of Corporate
Directors Is Addressed in Law

Guernsey

Hong Kong SAR, China

An application for incorporation of a company shall

A person who wishes to form an incorporated

be made to the Registrar, and shall include withcompany shall apply to the Registrar in therespect to directors,a where a director is not an

specified form, which shall contain the following

individual, the following particulars that must be

particulars with respect to each person who is toentered in the register—(a) its corporate or firm

be a director of the company on its incorporation,

name and any former such name it has had withinin the case of a body corporate, its corporate

the preceding five years; (b) its registered officename and registered or principal office.c(or, if it has no registered office, its principal
office); (c) its legal form and the law by which it isgoverned; and (d), if applicable, the register inwhich it is entered and its registration number inthat register.b
Note: a. The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, 17(1)–(3), Application for incorporation.
b. The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, 143(5), Register of directors.
c. Hong Kong Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32, §4A(2)(h) and (i), Incorporation form.

include any foreign company or trust.48 See table 3.1 for two examples in which theregistration of corporate directors is addressed in law. Additionally, in cases in which
prohibitions were noted, they did not necessarily hold across all legal entity types: ajurisdiction that requires natural persons to undertake the management of one legal
entity type (thus disallowing corporate directors in that role) might not do so in thecase of another type.49
Of course, the chaining of corporate vehicles (in either ownership or control capacities)
does not necessarily imply a risk of money laundering activity. The most elaborate
tiered-entity ownership and control structure may still seem simple in comparison towhat happens in practice in legitimate undertakings.

48. For example, in the United Kingdom, since 2008, at least one director of a legal entity must be a natural
person, such that directors of an entity may not all be corporate directors. Companies Act 2006, Part 10,
Paragraph 155.
49. For example, in Antigua and Barbuda, the International Business Corporations Act (IBCA), at Section 61, only requires resident natural person directors in a limited context (“. . . in the case of banking,trust or insurance corporations, . . . at least one director must be a citizen and resident of Antigua andBarbuda . . . and, in the case of banking, trust or insurance corporations, all directors must be natural
persons . . .”). At the same time, a corporate trustee is required for organization of a trust under the International Trust Act (ITA). An international trust is one in respect of which at least one of the trustees iseither a corporation incorporated under the IBCA or a licensed trust company doing business in Antigua
and Barbuda.

54

I The Puppet Masters

Neither does the chaining of corporate vehicles together necessarily obscure the beneficial ownership of a corporate vehicle. For instance, the use of corporate vehicles asowners and controllers is a common feature of government-owned and -operated corporate vehicle structures set up to engage in either public or commercial business onbehalf of the state. Similarly, a family business may be an operational company whose
ownership and control is vested in further companies, representing the stake of eachindividual family member. And a publicly traded company may be listed as the owneror controller of as many subsidiaries as allowable by law and operating agreement. In
all these examples, a banker, lawyer, accountant, or other service provider can readily
ascertain the true beneficial ownership of the corporate vehicle structure. These kindsof tiered entities have virtually no risk of being misused to conceal the identities of
any unknown beneficial owner(s). Instead, identification of money laundering risks
will depend on the reputations, intentions, and activities of the known end users andagents of the client—in other words, it will depend on where the corporate vehicle’s
assets come from and go to, on whose orders, and why.
When confronted with a multilayer corporate vehicle structure, most service providers will need to ensure that they understand why such a complex structure makes
sense in the circumstances. This assurance is necessary because the absence of aplausible explanation often implies a money laundering risk for economic service
providers conducting business with this type of organization. As a number of compliance officers indicated, a complex corporate vehicle structure “passes the smell
test” only when there are (a) legitimate business reasons to justify the form of thestructure and (b) significant arguments against using less complex options thatmight have been available.
Excessive complexity in a corporate vehicle structure can be a good “red flag” indicator of risk—but only if one has a good grasp on what constitutes “excessive.” Bankers
find it difficult to explain to others exactly what excessive is in such cases: it is grasped
only through years of experience. Younger, more junior staff may struggle to understand excessive complexity and miss warning signs. Conversely, investigators withlimited background in corporate vehicle structures may tend to overestimate complexity; and a tendency to eye all multilayer structures with suspicion may be just as
dangerous, as it can potentially result in the inefficient allocation of law enforcement
resources. An example of a complex structure that is nonetheless perfectly legitimate
can be seen in figure 3.1.
From our discussions with various service providers, we have distilled four good practices (see box 3.13) that will aid staff in developing a good sense of what level of complexity is appropriate and what may be suspicious.
Such measures are virtually useless, however, unless one drills down to natural persons. Compliance officers in countries where institutions are not required to identify
beneficial ownership said they did not feel that they were under any obligation topierce through layers of corporate vehicle structures when conducting due diligencePart 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 55

FIGURE 3.1

Example of a Complex Legitimate Corporate Vehicle Structure

Protector Committee:-Family members-Professional advisers

Directors:-Family member(s)-Professional advisers-Service provider
representative(s)Trust A

TRUSTContractforservices
Private Trust Company

Trust

Act as Trustee for…

Protector “A”

Investment Company
Directors:-Family members-Investment professionals

Trust B

Trust C

Protector “B”

Operating Company
Directors:-Family members-Business managers

Source: Authors’ illustration based on material presented by a member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners(STEP) at the STEP Caribbean Conference CC10 in Bridgetown, Barbados, May 25, 2010.
Note: This example of a complex corporate vehicle structure was devised by a member of the Society of Trust and Estate
Practitioners (STEP). It is designed to implement perfectly legitimate goals: to provide segregated asset pools for different
investment assets and different family members while ensuring that investment operations be guided by specificinstructions (typically of the grantor) with the assistance of outside experts. Clearly, however, unraveling the complexity ofthis structure would require specific expertise.

BOX 3.13

Developing a “Nose” for Inappropriate Complexity

Following are four good practices to develop the ability to recognize inappropriate
complexity:•

The three-layer test. One compliance officer suggested an informal “threelayer complexity test” as a quick-and-dirty rule of thumb. Whenever morethan three layers of legal entities or arrangements separate the end-user
natural persons (substantive beneficial owners) from the immediate ownership or control of a bank account, this test should trigger a particularly
steep burden of proof on the part of the potential client to show the legitimacy and necessity of such a complex organization before the bank willconsider beginning a relationship.
(continued next page)56

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.13(continued)•

Expert opinion. In most legal situations, the rationale for a complex corporate vehicle structure is that it is the most economically advantageous.
Often, an expert opinion will certify the legal validity and fiscal appropriateness of the structure. Compliance officers can ask for a copy of that legal
opinion (and larger banks can have that opinion validated by their own legal
departments).
• Training. Many of the bankers who took part in our study asked if the database of grand corruption investigations compiled as part of this study could
be made available to them so that they could incorporate sample cases into
in-house training sessions with junior staff. The time spent exposing juniorstaff to novel and atypical instances of corporate vehicle misuse hidden inlayered complexity (from formal training sessions to the trading of war stories) is an exceptionally effective way to help investigators develop a keennose for suspicious indicators.
• Partnering with professional organizations. To recognize “excessive”
complexity, one needs a good understanding of day-to-day practice and therationale underlying reasonable (that is, economically sensible and legal)
complex corporate vehicle structures. To help to “demystify” the services
and products of TCSPs, professional organizations, such as the Society ofTrust and Estate Practitioners, are seeking active partnerships with law
enforcement and other possible investigators.

in relation to clients.50 In such cases, they said their financial institution would do no
more than simply determine the legitimacy of the corporate vehicles making up thefirst level of ownership or management, typically by checking the validity of any
customer-provided documents by searching in a company registry or using any confirmation materials that could be found online.
Corporate vehicle layering represents a significant problem for investigators. No standard rules of registration make a distinction between (a) a corporate vehicle that owns
or controls another (as part of a larger, multi-vehicle structure) and (b) a corporate
vehicle that is merely a professional nominee provider. In the absence of clear (or atleast suggestive) evidence that a corporate vehicle falls into one or other of these categories, an investigator may find it difficult to know how to proceed. If the jurisdictionof the shareholding entity does not regulate professional nominees, it may not have an
immediate way to ascertain the entity’s status. If the investigator approaches the entity

50. Certain contributors to the project pointed out that the current domestic industry interpretation of
beneficial ownership statutes in their jurisdiction allows for the term to be understood as a natural or a
corporate person, despite having been implemented to address FATF Recommendation 33, which specifically references natural persons.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 57

for information, will the service provider be cooperative—or will it tip off a participant in the scheme?
If an investigator believes that the owners or controllers of the corporate vehicle
under investigation are part of some larger, multi-vehicle structure, then he or she
will want to analyze the ownership and control of this larger structure, in the expectation that it will bring him or her closer to the beneficial owner(s). To that end, theinvestigator will seek to obtain evidence that genuinely documents the owners andcontrollers and the activities of this larger structure. However, if instead the investigator manages to determine that the corporate directors or shareholders are professional nominees, then he or she will give priority to finding out who contracted thenominee services. Relevant evidence will be the trust deeds, indemnification-ofagents contracts, and power-of-attorney declarations whereby the nominee(s) agreed
to take legal possession of the shares or to act as the director(s) of the company inquestion. The investigator can check with the service providers’ jurisdiction to see
whether it is a regulated business. This will help the investigator decide how best toproceed.51
Separating the Beneficial Owner from Formal Control
through the Use of Surrogates
In many instances, parties to corruption have found it useful to arrange for other persons (whose names will attract less attention than their own) to be declared the party
responsible for a corporate vehicle in some capacity. Out of the 150 grand corruption
cases in our database, more than two-thirds involved some form of surrogate—be it inownership or in management. The use of a surrogate is a particularly effective way of
increasing the opacity of a scheme. For example, a legal entity will usually be subject toa registration regime, in which case at least information on management and control ispublicly available or accessible to the authorities. The principal actor in a corruption
scheme can plant evidence that leads to the surrogate and thereby conceals his or her
own connection to the entity.
Most financial institutions consulted for this study said that, in cases in which theysuspected that someone else was involved, they did no more than check whether thenatural person wishing to enter into a business relationship with them was acting on
behalf of some other person. From the names of natural persons or chained corporate
vehicles, the number and identification details of directors, or even self-disclosure, it
quickly becomes obvious, they say, which accounts are suspect. When pressed on
this issue, certain institutions said they adopted a more consistent approach by using
a jurisdiction-mandated beneficial ownership disclosure form. In such cases, the51. If the corporate nominee is a regulated TCSP, it probably falls under AML or regulatory regimesthat require the company to collect (and make available to the authorities) beneficial ownership information and identification documents, while being legally prohibited from tipping off suspects during
an inquiry. If it is a TCSP from an unregulated jurisdiction, however, a more cautious approach would
be warranted.

58

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.14

Setting up Formal Nominee Arrangements for BCP
Consolidated Enterprises (Nevada)a

BCP Consolidated Enterprises was a Nevada corporation set up by a Nevada
service provider with a nominee director (officially based in Panama) andnominee shareholders. The name of the beneficial owner appears nowhere on
the incorporation documents. With the help of the service provider, BCP
Consolidated then opened an online bank account with a major U.S. bank. The
cost of establishing the company and the bank account was US$3,695. Neither
the original service provider nor the bank required more than an unnotarized
scan of the client’s driver’s license (which happened to show an outdated
address).
Note: a. This was undertaken in the context of the TCSP project on company service providers.

institutions are always apprised of the beneficial owners of the corporate vehicle’s
accounts (unless the parties before them are prepared to perjure themselves).
Two different classes of persons actively engage in shielding the beneficial owners orcontrollers of a corporate vehicle from scrutiny: (a) formal nominees (acting professionally) and (b) front men (acting informally).
Formal Nominees
A nominee is essentially a person who holds a position or assets in name only on behalfof someone else. Nominee participation in a corporate vehicle can be devised by trust(typically when holding shares) or by civil contract (typically when registering as acompany director) between the nominee and the actual end user.52 A typical exampleof how easily formal nominees can be arranged is shown in box 3.14.
Although the reasons for permitting nominee shareholding are apparent in the case of
publicly held companies (for example, to facilitate the clearing and settlement of tradesby brokers), compelling reasons in a private company context are more debatable.
Suppose an individual wants to acquire complete shareholder control of a company
that by statute or by law requires two shareholder members. This can, of course, be
effected by incorporating a second legal entity to be that second member, or indeed byfundamentally altering the company (in terms of jurisdiction, organization, or bylaw).
But it is actually often much cheaper and simpler to hire a company service provider
to acquire a negligible “in name only” stake in the company. Service providers mostfrequently advertise nominee services as a standard component of establishing legal
52. Jack A. Blum, Esq., Prof. Michael Levi, Prof. R. Thomas Naylor, and Prof. Phil Williams, Financial
Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering (United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime
Prevention, Global Programme Against Money Laundering, 1998), p. 30.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 59

BOX 3.15

The Opacity Benefits of Using Nominees

As Described in Typical Advertisements
Nominee Director Service. Who is a Nominee Director?a
A nominee director is someone who in fact is renting his or her name to you.
In other words, the name of this person is used and not yours for the incorporation documents. They are also taking the positions on paper of the company
directors. The term of straw man or front man has been used to describe someone who is acting as the nominee. Legally, according to the incorporation documents, the nominee is responsible for the company or entity. In addition, if it is
the case of a nominee that is also listed as the nominee shareholder, then theyin effect also have the related ownership responsibilities as well.
The basic function of the nominee director is to shield working executives oflimited and other companies from the public disclosure requirements thatexist in the UK and other jurisdictions. It is a perfectly legal device, which
preserves the privacy of an individual. It is designed to help a person who
would rather not disclose their interest or association with a given corporate
body. Anyone performing a company search on a company with a nominee
director would be unable to discover in whose name the nominee director was
registered.
Note: a. See http://www.ukincorp.co.uk/s-23-uk-nominee-director-advantages.html.

entities, as a way to ensure that the names of the entity’s true owners are nowhere to
be found on the entity’s paper record, thus ensuring privacy. For examples benefits
typically cited in advertisements, see box 3.15.
All the national jurisdictions examined for the purposes of this study either explicitly
allowed or did not expressly prohibit nominee participation in a legal entity. Guernsey
was the only jurisdiction that directly addressed the fact that persons other than those
occupying the declared legal management roles of a company may in reality be controlling its activities (although Hong Kong SAR, China, has a provision that perhaps
could be interpreted as addressing this matter).53 See table 3.2 for two examples inwhich the registration of nominees is addressed in law.
53. The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008, § 132: “(1) In this Law, ‘shadow director’, in relation to a company, means a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company
are accustomed to act. (2) A person is not to be regarded as a shadow director by reason only that thedirectors act on advice given by him in a professional capacity. (3) For the purposes of sections 160 and
162 to 166, a shadow director is treated as a director.” Hong Kong Companies Ordinance, § 53(B): “(1)Where the articles of a company authorize a director to appoint an alternate director to act in his place,then, unless the articles contain any provision to the contrary, whether express or implied: (a) an alternate
director so appointed shall be deemed to be the agent of the director who appoints him; and (b) a director

60

I The Puppet Masters

TABLE 3.2

Examples in Which Nominees Are Addressed in Law

Turks and Caicos Islands

CyprusSection 4: Nominee or trust firms, etc: “Where a53(1) Where a firm, individual or corporation isfirm, individual or corporation having a place of

required by paragraph (d) of section 50 to bebusiness in the Islands carries on the businessregistered, such registration shall be effected bywholly or mainly as a nominee or trustee of or

sending or delivering to the Registrar, within one

another person, or other persons, or anothermonth of the data the business therein provided

corporation, or acts as a general agent for any

has commenced, a statement in writing, in theforeign firm, the first-mentioned firm, individual

prescribed form, signed by all the partners of theor corporation shall be registered in manner

firm or the individual or corporation, as the caseprovided by this Ordinance, and in addition to themay be, and containing the following particulars,

other particulars required to be furnished and reg-that is to say, the present Christian name oristered, there shall be furnished and registered innames and surname, any former Christian namethe Schedule to this Ordinance [. . .]or names and surname, nationality and usual

Schedule (Section 4): The present Christian or fore

residence or, as the case may be, the corporatename and surname, any former name, nationality,

name, of every person or corporation on whose

and if that nationality is not the nationality ofbehalf the business is carried on:

origin, the nationality of origin, and usual

Provided that if the business is carried on underresidence or, as the case may be, the corporate

any trust and any of the beneficiaries are a classname of every person, or corporation on whoseof children or other persons, a description of thebehalf the business is carried on: Provided that ifclass shall be sufficient.

the business is carried on under any trust and any

53(2) The particulars required to be furnished andof the beneficiaries are a class of children or

registered under subsection (1) shall be inother persons, a description of the class shall be

addition to any other particulars required undersufficient.”athis Law to be furnished and registered.ba. Turks and Caicos Islands, Business Names (Registration) Ordinance, §4. Nominees or trust firms, etc and Schedule(§4), available at http://www.tcifsc.tc/Templates/Legislations/Business%20Names%20(Registration)%20Ordinance.pdf(last accessed August 17, 2011).
b. Partnership and Business Names Law, 53(1) and (2), Particulars of registration in case of nominees or trustees.

The grand corruption investigations analyzed for this study show the regular use of
professional surrogates in corruption schemes. Often, these were TCSP companies specializing in offering nominees and trustee services; lawyers were also found to fulfill
such roles. The consequence of such nominees being registered as a corporate vehicle’s
owners and controllers is that the identities of the beneficial owners remain concealed.

who appoints an alternate director shall be vicariously liable for any tort committed by the alternate director while acting in the capacity of alternate director.” The Hong Kong SAR, China, provision may work inreverse of the Guernsey provision on shadow directors. In schemes in which a TCSP director hands overcontrol to a bad actor through a power of attorney or other means, the potential exists that both parties
incur liability on the basis of the bad actor’s actions.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 61

“Front Men”
Unlike a hired nominee, a front man cannot be said to be just renting his name to an
enterprise. Hired nominees acting in a professional capacity may be selected at random, based on cost and the level of secrecy offered. They will seek to insulate themselves by plausible deniability and indemnification agreements. By contrast, a front
man is specifically selected, is more likely to be connected to the principal by biographical data than by a contractual paper trail, and usually purports to be the beneficial owner of the corporate vehicle (until legal proceedings are brought against it or
the front men). The personal links between the front man and the beneficial owner
may be very varied (see box 3.16).
Barring the existence of any exculpatory evidence that proves otherwise, front men face
all the risks and liabilities associated with being the true end-user parties in relation toa corporate vehicle, even though they may be doing so for another person. Nearly halfof the grand corruption investigations reviewed for this study involved the use of theseinformal front men. Typically, they appear when the corrupt party holds some public
office: he will place the rights to his illicit-asset-holding corporate vehicles in the nameof trusted associates or family members (see box 3.17).
One of the ways in which financial institutions are required to identify possible front
men is by conducting enhanced due diligence on politically exposed persons (PEPs)
and their family members and close associates (FATF Recommendation 6). The latter
addition was included precisely to identify people in the corrupt person’s circle who
may be fronting for him or her. Experience shows that, in practice, it is difficult for

BOX 3.16

Finding the Front Men: An Insider’s View

My experience has taught me that these individuals generally have known someone in the criminal organization for a long period of time, often from school days.
There is a strong bond, and the element of trust, between the front man and thecriminal, [which are] often reinforced by large and continuing payments and anunderstanding that the front man will derive financial independence from thearrangement. I have actually looked at high-school yearbooks, and real-estate
block records, in order to ascertain who were childhood friends, and/or living inthe same neighborhood, as criminal targets. When I was a money launderer, I
lived near a major client, which facilitated late-night meetings.a
Source: Kenneth Rijock, “From a Diﬀerent Angle: Money Laundering through Securities and Investments,” March 31, 2010, http://
www.world-check.com/articles/2010/03/31/money laundering-through-securities-and-investment.
Note: a. This quote, taken from Rijock, a World-Check ﬁnancial crime consultant, speaks to the people that we include in thissection under our working deﬁnition of front men.

62

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.17

The Control of Corporate Vehicles by a Front Man

The Case of Former President Augusto Pinochet (Chile)a
Former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet funneled illicit proceeds throughforeign corporate vehicles that named his family members and other close
associates as the owners and controllers. For instance, Meritor Investments
Ltd., Redwing Holdings, and a trust numbered MT-4964 were foreign corporate
vehicles beneficially owned by Pinochet’s son, Marco Antonio Pinochet Hiriart
and his daughter Ines Lucia Pinochet. Bank accounts were also opened under
the names of these two persons, as well as another daughter of Pinochet,
Maria Veronica Pinochet. Oscar Custodio Aitken Lavancy, an attorney who hadties to Pinochet, controlled six other corporate vehicles involved in the scheme.
Pinochet’s family members and Aitken effectively served as front men for
Pinochet, allowing him to disassociate his name from the scheme while maintaining control over the assets.
Note: a. Facts conﬁrmed in U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Aﬀairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,“Money Laundering and Foreign Corruption: Enforcement and Eﬀectiveness of the Patriot Act, Case Study Involving Riggs
Bank,” Report prepared by the Minority Staﬀ of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (July 15, 2004), available at
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/ﬁles/ACF58.pdf (last accessed August 14, 2011).

compliance officers to identify all family members.54 Commercially available databases
may help an institution identify a public official, but it is much harder to find out who
belongs to this “circle of trust.”
Investigators consulted as part of this study indicated a preference for policies thatmake corrupt persons more likely to turn to front men for help than professional service providers. A front man cannot hide behind bank secrecy laws or professional
privilege because he is ostensibly conducting his own business. As a result, they findthat front men usually give up, confess, and cooperate when the police come after
them. “It’s not like they’re under a Mafia code,” as one investigator put it. If an investigator wishes to build a case against the ultimate head of a money laundering conspiracy, then catching a front man is an effective move, because it provides the investigatorwith an informant who can identify the main perpetrator and assist in building thecase against him. When family members and close associates own the shares (or performthe management duties) in a network of money laundering companies, it is easier tomake a case that the corrupt individual is the “common thread” between all such parties; and when (as is often the case) the beneficiaries are the corrupt individual’s spouseand children, it again makes it harder for the corrupt person to argue that he has noconnection to the vehicle.
54. For further discussion of the point, see Theodore S. Greenberg, Larissa Gray, Delphine Schantz, Carolin
Gardner, and Michael Latham, Politically Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010).

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 63

BOX 3.18

The Experience of the United States

The United States is one of the world’s preeminent providers of corporate
vehicles to both domestic and foreign beneficial owners. As such, the strength of
its AML regime is of critical importance in the global efforts to counter the misuse of corporate vehicles.
As described in the introduction to this report, concerns in the United States
about the misuse of corporate vehicles formed in jurisdictions off its shores canbe traced back to a 1937 report by then–Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Nearly 70 years later, Secretary Morgenthau’sson, then–District Attorney for New York County Robert Morgenthau would
endorse U.S. Senate Bill 569, “Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement
Assistance Act.”a The key difference, however, was that this proposed legislation(S.569) sought to address the increasing problem of misuse of corporate vehicles
formed within U.S. borders.
The U.S. Government’s National Money Laundering Strategy calls for increasedtransparency of beneficial owners of legal entities.b A 2006 report by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury examined the role ofdomestic shell companies in financial crimes and money laundering.c The Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of the U.S. Congress, also issued
reports on the misuse of domestically formed companies for money laundering,and the lack of beneficial ownership information collected by virtually all of thecorporate registries operated by the fifty U.S. states.d
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Sen. Carl
Levin, held hearings on the issue in 2006, and the Senate Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs Committee held hearings on S. 569 in 2009. District Attorney Morgenthau and representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice andDepartment of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement testified that the bill had the support of U.S. law enforcement.e A common theme intheir testimonies was that the lack of beneficial ownership information collected
and held by state corporate registries impeded their investigations as well as
their ability to respond to requests for investigative assistance by foreign law
enforcement agencies.
Corporate registries in the U.S. typically come under the purview of eachstate’s Secretary of State. At the June 2009 hearings, the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS), represented by the co-chair of the Company Formation Task Force testified, “NASS and a number of other prominent organizations
are currently on record in opposition to this bill, including: the Uniform Law Commissioners, the American Bar Association (ABA), and the National Conference ofState Legislatures (NCSL).”f The opposition by NASS centered around what it
described as the bill’s effort to move corporate registries beyond their current
ministerial role and the financial costs that states would have to bear to implement the bill’s record-collection and record-keeping obligations.
The United States has no legal requirement that companies be formed througha company service provider. Individuals may form and register companies on
their own. Moreover, U.S. Trust and Company Service Providers—including attorneys, accountants, and other professionals who perform such services –- are not(continued next page)64

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 3.18(continued)

considered covered entities under the U.S. AML regime, subject to such requirements as client due diligence and suspicious activity reporting beyond what isalready required under criminal law. The ABA, in particular, has been a strong
opponent of efforts, including by the Financial Action Task Force’s Gatekeeper
Initiative, to impose AML regulations on lawyers. Instead, in 2010, the ABA issued
a “Voluntary Good Practices Guidance for Lawyers to Detect and Combat Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing.”gS. 569, which did not pass in the 111th Congress, was reintroduced in the112th Congress, in August 2011.h
Notes: a. Robert M. Morgenthau, “Tax Evasion Nation,” The American Interest Online, September-October 2008, available at
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=465 (last accessed on July 20, 2011); Written testimony by the
Honorable Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney for New York County, Delivered by Assistant District Attorney Adam
S. Kaufmann, Chief of Investigation Division Central, New York County District Attorney’s Oﬃce, before the United States Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Aﬀairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Washington, D.C.,
June 18, 2009), http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=465. The text of S. 569 can be accessed at thewebsite of the U.S. Library of Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.569:, last accessed on July 20, 2011).
b. U.S. 2007 Money Laundering Strategy, available at http://ﬁncen.gov/news_room/rp/ﬁles/nmls_2007.pdf, at 8 (last accessedon July 20, 2011).
c. U.S. Department of Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “The Role of Domestic Shell Companies in Financial
Crime and Money Laundering: Limited Liability Companies,” available at http://www.ﬁncen.gov/news_room/rp/ﬁles/
LLCAssessment_FINAL.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2011).
d. Government Accountability Oﬃce, “Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available”(GAO-06-376, April 2006), accessed at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06376.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2011); “Suspicious
Banking Activities: Possible Money Laundering by U.S. Corporations Formed for Russian Entities” (GAO-01-120, October 2000),
accessed at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01120.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2011).
e. Testimonies of Mr. Morgenthau (delivered by Adam Kaufmann), Jennifer Shasky Calvery (Department of Justice), and Janice
Ayala (Department of Homeland Security) available at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.
Hearing&Hearing_ID=ef10e125-2c1d-4344-baf1-07f6061611c1 (last accessed on July 20, 2011).
f. Testimony of the Honorable Elaine F. Marshall, Secretary of State, State of North Carolina and Co-chair, National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS) Committee Formation Task Force, available at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.
cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=ef10e125-2c1d-4344-baf1-07f6061611c1 (last accessed on July 20, 2011).
g. Various Committees of the American Bar Association, “Voluntary Good Practices Guidance for Lawyers to Detect andCombat Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing,” April 23, 2010, available at http://www.acrel.org/Documents/
PublicDocuments/voluntary%20good%20practices%20guidance%20ﬁnal%2009142010.pdf (last accessed on July 20, 2011).
See also, Statement of Kevin L. Shepherd, Member, Task Force on Gatekeeper Regulation and the Profession, on behalf of theAmerican Bar Association, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, on S. 569, November 5, 2009, available at
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Search.Home&site=hsgac&num=10&ﬁlter=0&q=kevin+shepherd (lastaccessed on July 20, 2011).
h. Summary and text of the bill, “Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Act,” available at http://levin.senate.gov/
newsroom/press/release/summary-of-the-incorporation-transparency-and-law-enforcement-assistance-act.

3.3 Conclusion and Recommendations
Corporate vehicles, of whatever form, are an essential part of the economy. They are theinstruments through which individuals choose to invest or run an enterprise, manage
wealth or pass it on to their children and collect funds for charitable activity. As withany instrument, the use that is made of them depends on the person using them. In the
overwhelming majority of cases, this use will be legal, but corporate vehicles can also be
used for illegal ends. It is that very small proportion of cases that concerns us here. We
draw the following conclusions:•

In cases where the ownership information was available, most cases of large-scalecorruption involve the use of one or more corporate vehicles to conceal beneficial
ownership.
Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 65

•
•

•
•
•
•

•

The precise patterns of misuse vary from country to country, although the corporate vehicle most commonly used globally is the company.
Shelf companies pose a particular problem, as they provide criminally inclined
individuals with a company history and set of company officials, all entirely unrelated to the corrupt individual.
Most companies used to conceal beneficial ownership are non-operational,
although operational companies are also used, particularly for paying bribes.
The use of professional nominees and front men increases the lack of transparency of corporate vehicle structures.
Bearer shares, although still used to conceal beneficial ownership, are being usedless frequently than they were in the past.
A tiered structure of corporate vehicles owning or controlling others can be particularly effective in hiding beneficial ownership. Information about the beneficial owner will be either unavailable or accessible only at a specific location. Bitsof information will need to be pieced together from different sources in different
jurisdictions. This significantly increases the cost, time, and risk of achieving a
successful outcome in a corruption investigation.
To be able to identify suspicious, economically unsound structures, law enforcement needs to understand the rationale behind legitimate structures. At the
moment, law enforcement’s understanding of corporate law is limited.

On the basis of our examination of the use of corporate vehicles to conceal beneficial
ownership, we make five specific recommendations:

Recommendation 1. Jurisdictions should perform a systematic risk analysisof the cases in which corporate vehicles are being used for criminal purposes
within their jurisdiction, to determine typologies that indicate a heightenedrisk.
This risk analysis—identifying the risk associated with types of entities, specificjurisdictions, specific service providers, and so on—should inform the guidance
provided by the authorities to those dealing with corporate vehicles on a daily
basis (whether investigating them or providing services) so that they becomeaware of possible misuse and are better able to assess the risks.aRecommendation 2. Countries should attempt to develop a consensus definition as to what constitutes a shelf company, and should take measures
to render this type of company more visible to the authorities and lessdesirable to illicit actors.
Given that the time and effort required to incorporate a company have been
reduced substantially in all relevant jurisdictions, the legitimate advantages of
having shelf companies available have all but disappeared. Fraud risks are highestwith those shelf companies that are “aged,” as they give a false sense of continued existence. Countries should attempt to identify shelf-type companies incorporated under their laws and pinpoint them as higher risk (for example, throughirregular business activity, such as unexplained simultaneous changes in key

66

I The Puppet Masters

positions or prolonged periods of no account activity). It will probably not be possible to prohibit the trade in shelf companies as such, because it is essentiallymerely the transfer of shares in a company.
Recommendation 3. Jurisdictions should require that registered membersof a legal entity disclose (be it in documents disclosed to the registry or heldby the registered agent) whether they are acting on their own behalf or in
the interests of another, undisclosed beneficial owner. A “Declaration ofBeneficial Ownership,” made by the client to a financial institution or service provider, is a useful tool to identify the possible involvement of hidden
beneficial owners and should be required universally.
By taking this small step, authorities will be able to determine at a glance whether
a listed member of a legal entity is a nominee.
For a more thorough discussion on the benefits of beneficial ownership declaration forms, we refer to the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) publication Politically
Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector.b Jurisdictions
may consider requiring such a form to be kept on file with their registrar, a licensed
TCSP, or domestically registered agent of the legal entity. This would mean thatthe jurisdiction would need to have developed a clear formal definition of beneficial ownership for the vehicle type. Such a declaration could not, of course, beseen as providing conclusive evidence of the identity of the substantive beneficial owner.
Recommendation 4. Countries that have not taken measures to immobilize,
dematerialize, or abolish bearer shares (and share warrants) should do so.
For most countries, the initial rationale for the use of bearer shares is no longer
valid, and consequently the abolition or dematerialization would not cause any
adverse economic consequences.
Recommendation 5. Countries should develop a platform to bring together
law enforcement and TCSPs to serve as a framework within which relevant
service providers and specialized units in law enforcement can be educatedon the types of corporate vehicles and constructions used, and the rationale for them.
This framework would help investigators and service providers to distinguish moreeasily between what is and what is not suspicious. It also would help to dissipate
the deep distrust of the TCSP sector that is common among law enforcement.c
Note: a. Although such responsibilities should be extended to all service providers, the ﬁnancial sector’s responsibilities
concerning high-value and PEP ﬁnancial accounts—even speciﬁcally addressing corporate vehicles—are already enshrined in
the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), Article 52 (“Prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds ofcrime”) at 2(a): “[State Parties shall] Issue advisories regarding the types of natural or legal person to whose accounts ﬁnancial
institutions within its jurisdiction will be expected to apply enhanced scrutiny, the types of accounts and transactions to which to pay
particular attention and appropriate account-opening, maintenance and record-keeping measures to take concerning suchaccounts.”
b. Theodore S. Greenberg, Larissa Gray, Delphine Schantz, Carolin Gardner, and Michael Latham, Politically Exposed Persons:
Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010). pp. 35–39. This report provides particularly
instructive advice on the ways in which beneﬁcial ownerships forms give service providers a benchmark against which to test
subsequent (ﬁnancial) conduct of an accepted customer as well as incontrovertible evidence of a customer’s statements incriminal and civil proceedings.
c. In many criminal cases, investigators tend to regard TCSPs, as a group, not as neutral service providers but as parties who areat least negligent in the conduct of their due diligence and at worst complicit in criminal behavior.

Part 3. Where Does the Beneficial Owner Hide?

I 67

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner“You may seek it with thimbles—and seek it with care; You may hunt it with forks and hope; You
may threaten its life with a railway-share; You may charm it with smiles and soap—”—Lewis Carroll (“The Hunting of the Snark”)

4.1 Introduction
In this part, we describe the relevant actors and institutions that can (a) help toidentify the corrupt persons behind a corruption scheme once it has been discovered or (b) establish a link between a known target and certain assets. We deal inturn with company registries (and other repositories of information), trust and corporate service providers, and financial institutions.

4.2 Company Registries
4.2.1 The Role of Company Registries and the Services They Provide
When corporate vehicles that have a separate legal personality (that is, excluding
trusts) are formed and registered, they are granted the legal individuality that allows
them to be controlled, owned, financed, and otherwise used for either legal or illegal
purposes—in the latter case, often by unacknowledged beneficial owners. It is the taskof central company registries to collect and store information on the structural makeup
and particulars of such registered entities.
A company registry’s main functions are four-fold:• To record the “birth” of a new legal entity• To compile the information required by the registry or by law (see section
4.2.2)• To keep the registry up to date
• To make certain information available to the public.
The information on companies held by the registry serves multiple purposes:• To identify tax contributors• To provide statistical information for the government and the public• To protect consumers and investors against fraudulent entities55 and• To allow potential business counterparts to verify the powers and competences ofthe person they are contracting with.
Several international associations of registries (also called registers) exchange informationand ideas concerning the role of corporate registries at both national and global level:
•
•
•
•
•
•

International Association of Commercial Administrators (IACA) (http://www.iaca.org/)
Corporate Registers Forum (CRF) (http://www.corporateregistersforum.org/)
European Business Register (EBR) (http://www.ebr.org/section/4/index.html)
European Commerce Registers’ Forum (http://www.ecrforum.org/)
Canadian Association of Corporate Law Administrators (CACLA)
Association of Registrars of Latin America and the Caribbean (ASORLAC)(http://www.asorlac.org/ingles/portal/default.aspx).

Unlike most other potential sources of information on beneficial ownership, corporate
registries typically have no specified functions under AML legislation. Their actual
function in this regard—as a source for due diligence or investigation—is purely aby-product of their well-established place in the corporate and financial sectors. Nonetheless, both the investigators and the compliance officers interviewed for this study
indicated that registries are generally the most valuable and accessible sources of information for investigations, for due diligence, and for identifying trends or recurring
patterns (such as cases in which one individual, who is not a service provider, is listed
as director for a large number of companies).
The importance of company registries was mentioned frequently during the consultations undertaken for this study. Many financial institutions, for example, reported thatthey keep track of which registries they trust as a source of certain types of information,and the extent to which they are accurate.
The value of company registries has its limitations. For example, most registries aregovernment depositories and inherently archival in nature. Indeed, all the registry representatives with whom we spoke were involved in almost exclusively receiving andlogging information, rather than undertaking any quality controls or verifying theinformation received from incorporators. Registries have limited scope. With very few
exceptions, they do not cover non-incorporated corporate vehicles (that is, legal
arrangements such as trusts). Such arrangements are not registered in company registries, and they do not have another equivalent register. Finally, the information available at registries may well be incomplete and out of date.

55. Liliana de Sa, Business Registration Start-Up: A Concept Note (Washington, DC: International FinanceCorporation and World Bank, 2005), p. 3, available at http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/
BizRegistrationStart-Up_ConceptNote.pdf.

70

I The Puppet Masters

4.2.2 What Information Can Company Registries Usefully Gather toFulfill Their Duties?
Adequate Information
The type and amount of information on a legal entity captured in a central registry
varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally it is a combination of thefollowing:• Almost always: The legal status and existence—name, legal entity type (corporation), registration date and (where applicable) date of dissolution or date when
the company was struck from the registry, and formation documents, such as thememorandum or articles of incorporation, and related bylaws• Almost always: The addresses of a registered office (which could be a trust orcompany service provider) or the physical location or principal place of businessof the legal entity itself• Almost always: The names and addresses of a registered agent, person authorized
to accept service of process, or a resident secretary• In the majority of cases: The names and addresses of persons in positions of legal
control within the legal entity (directors and officers);• Sometimes: The names and addresses of persons in positions of legal ownership(shareholders or members);• Very Rarely: The name of the beneficial owner.
As part of this study, legislation establishing company registry requirements wasreviewed in 40 jurisdictions. From these 40 jurisdictions, a total of 325 different formsof legal entities (hereinafter “LE types”) were aggregated for analysis to determine theinformation that was required upon registration and that subsequently would be available to banks and authorities (see figure 4.1).
About one-quarter (26 percent) of all LE types file information on the physicallocation of the place of business, more than half (63 percent) file the address of aregistered office, and more than one-third (38 percent) file the address of a registered agent. A little more than half (59 percent) file particulars of a formal positionof control (management), and just over one-third (36 percent) file particulars offormal positions of ownership (legal ownership). In cases in which the register ofshareholders is not kept at the central registry, it is often found with the legal entity
or with the registered office, agent, or representative service provider, whose locations are always required to be recorded in the registry and regularly updated. Thiscan give authorities a quick way to pinpoint who to approach and where to findthem.
Of the 40 jurisdictions reviewed, only one—Jersey—requires the beneficial owner
to be identified and recorded by a government body, the Companies Registry within
the Financial Services Commission, which is responsible for the regulation andPart 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 71

FIGURE 4.1

Types of Information on Corporate Vechicles Collected by Registries

100

Percentage of CV types

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

p

Be

ne

fic

ia

O

th

lo

er

w

ne

co

nt

rs
hi

ro

l

n
lo

Ph

ys

ic

al

w
lo
ga
Le

st
gi
Re

ca
tio

p
ne

ag
ed
er

ag
an
M

rs
hi

en

en
em

of
ed
er
st
Re

gi

t

t

fic
e

0

Types of information
No, not required to be filed in the registry
Yes, required to be filed in the registry
Source: Authors’ illustration.

supervision of the financial services industry. Generally registries do not maintain beneficial ownership information, but they do record relevant particulars of legal entities,
such as the registered office, the name of the agent, and the management, all of which
enhance the potential usefulness of the registry in providing leads to the beneficial
owner.
A significant obstacle, however, to the usefulness of the registry is the existence of nominee arrangements, whereby individuals assume a management or ownership position
on behalf of an unnamed principal. The majority of registries maintain information
about the use or existence of nominee arrangements in the case of but a few LE types:
Only a small minority of LE types examined were required to disclose the existence or
use of nominee shareholdings, and only a subsection of those were required to disclosethe existence of nominee directors.
Accurate and Timely Information
Besides the question of whether information about legal entities is recorded and documented, it is also important to consider the quality and accuracy of that information.
Registries rarely verify information or ensure that it is kept up to date. The responsibility for verifying information, notifying changes in particulars, and submitting all theappropriate forms always lies with the legal entity.

72

I The Puppet Masters

Registries generally take information on good faith, with most documents and filings
being accepted “as is” unless an omission of information is blatant. On-site visits anddata verification fall well outside the typical duties of registries. The information is usually in the form of self-declarations by applicants and subscribers. Quality assurance
and updating are the responsibility of the legal entity, and this obligation is reinforcedby the threat of sanctions. Providing misleading information is an offense under the
relevant regulations in almost all jurisdictions; and in an instance of misuse, this may
constitute corroborative evidence in building a criminal case. Nonetheless, registries
consulted for this study reported that some companies still fail to comply, simply
because they have not understood their requirements and responsibilities. In suchcases, they are either asked to amend their information or are referred for enforcement
to the respective authorities.
Most registries require changes in information to be updated within 14 days. Requirements vary significantly, however, and the requirements are often formulated vaguely(for example, from “immediately effective upon filing” and “promptly” to “at least every
three years” and “from time to time”). Although most registries do take some type ofadministrative action in the event a company is found to be non-compliant with updating requirements (for example, by revoking registration), they generally cannot actively
enforce such compliance.
Because the responsibility to update information lies with the legal entity and compliance tends to be poor, information in the registry may be out of date. Typically, mostregistered legal entities submit annual returns that allow the registry to note the changes
in information or the entity’s activities. Almost all registries reported frequent delays inprocessing and updating information in their databases, however, because of the sheer
quantity of companies being registered each year, the high volume of changes filed daily,
and the lack of staff to process them.
One of the registries surveyed, for instance, is accountable for a growing register ofmore than 800,000 existing companies, in addition to 100,000 companies newly registered each year. Although companies remain primarily responsible for complying with
their statutory obligations, the registry is continuing its efforts to promote complianceand ensure that up-to-date information is recorded for public search. Similarly, anotherregistry processes and stores such a high volume of paper documents that (as it pointedout) providing access to such information is ineffective and costly for customers and forthe registry. Another registry also mentioned that competition with the private sector
makes it difficult to recruit and retain qualified, competent, and skilled personnel. For
many registries, this combination of large processing quantities and low humanresources is preventing them from providing a prompt turnaround of information.
Most registries said they have to strike a balance between maintaining the integrity of
the register and running a cost-effective operation (see figure 4.2). When seeking information from registries, both financial institutions and investigators should carefully
bear these trade-offs in mind. As one investigator put it, “One must take registry information with all its limitations.”

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 73

FIGURE 4.2

The Balancing Act of the Corporate Registry

The balancing act of thecorporate registry• Company compliance• Up-to-date information• Accessibility

Integrity of theregistry• “Good faith” policy• Large processing quantity• Low human resources

Cost-effective
operation

Source: Authors’ illustration.

4.2.3 Capacity and Resources—Registering Beneficial Ownership
Several parties56 have suggested that company registries should expand the information
they maintain on corporate vehicles to include beneficial ownership. Clearly, that information would be a potentially useful tool for investigators and service providers alike. To
be useful in practice, however, some guarantee is needed that the information is accurate. We therefore believe it will be possible to expand registry information to include
information on beneficial ownership only if steps are taken ensure that accuracy.
A Hands-On, Well-Funded Registry
In current practice, registries are archival and passive in nature. Information supplied
by applicants is logged, not verified. To ensure that any information on beneficial ownership that it receives is correct, the registry should verify that information (either for
every application or on a risk-sensitive basis). For most registries, this would require asignificant change in approach and funding. In the course of this study, the 40 registries
were asked what effect such an expansion of registered information would have on theiroperations—assuming equal allocation of resources. Overall, they considered inadequate resources to be a major impediment.
Financial constraints are a pervasive concern, of course, but challenges to resource allocation vary among jurisdictions, depending on the size of the economy, the level ofdevelopment of the jurisdiction, and the regulatory functions particular to each regis56. Among many others, the London-based nongovernmental organization Global Witness, the Tax Justice
Network, and, in an open letter to the G20, several high-profile public prosecutors. Letter available at
http://www.globalwitness.org/library/open-letter-heads-state-and-finance-ministers-g20-renews-calleffective-anti-money (last accessed August 16, 2011).

74

I The Puppet Masters

try. For most registries, verifying registry information would require significant extra
human and capital resources. Given resource allocation as it currently stands, we do notbelieve that most registries are in a position to be able to verify information supplied bya malevolent legal entity or someone acting on its behalf.
In a few exceptions, however, sufficient resources are in principle available for improving operations and meeting additional mandates. This category might include agencies
that have a broader range of functions than just business registration (for example, asecurities regulator). In addition, some registries generate significant revenues fromincorporation fees. A 2007 Delaware report, for instance, indicated that the state’s registry had raised US$700.8 million from incorporation activities at an operating expenseof US$12 million, providing a significant portion of that state’s annual revenue.57 If thecost of acquiring accurate beneficial ownership information was viewed in the context
of helping investigators to better fight financial crime, then high-profit registries might
be inclined to devote more resources to enforcement priorities.
Apart from such exceptions, if registries are required to obtain beneficial ownership
information, then they will need more government funding to be able to verify the
information supplied to them. To effect such an increase in funding, countries could
consider adding AML (or more generally crime prevention) to the statutory objectivesof a registry.
Credible Enforcement Policy
The ability of a registry to verify the information supplied to it is useful only to theextent that it has the legal power to impose sanctions in cases in which it is provided
with inaccurate or incomplete information. And because such a power is credible only
to the extent that it is actually used, the imposition of sanctions on those who have supplied inaccurate information needs to be routine. Moreover, the sanctions must be
applicable to the person supplying the information, which means that the registry musthave jurisdiction over that person.
Sufficient Expertise
Finally, discovering the identity of the beneficial owner in a complicated corporate
structure is by no means a routine administrative procedure. It can be demanding,and it requires a good understanding and knowledge of corporate law. Not all registries have this expertise available, and therefore they would not be able to verify
beneficial ownership information in every situation. As an alternative, such registries could consider applying a simplified or formalized definition of beneficial
ownership.
We believe that it makes sense to have a registry collect beneficial ownership information
on incorporated entities only if it is sufficiently expert, well-resourced, and proactive,
coupled with a credible enforcement policy (see box 4.1 for an example from Jersey).
57. Delaware Department of State Division of Corporations, 2007 Annual Report, available at http://corp.delaware.gov/2007DivCorpAR.pdf.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 75

BOX 4.1

The Jersey Model

Conditions under which the company registry can be considered a viable option
for providing beneficial ownership information
Condition 1. The registry is active and alert, that is, it verifies the information
supplied to it, or checks it for accuracy (can be based on risk).
••

Beneficial ownership information provided at the time of application ischecked against an external database (see World-Check, http://www.
world-check.com/) and an internal regulatory database. Applicants often
need to be (and in practice frequently are) asked to provide additional
information.
Jersey publishes a list of activities that they consider to be “sensitive.” They
make it clear that, in cases in which a company intends to be conducting
any of these activities, more information must be provided at the time of
application for incorporation. This policy is currently being reviewed, and its
scope is likely to be extended to take account of the countries in which thecompany will conduct its activities and the parties with whom the company
will be engaging in those activities.

Condition 2. The registry enforces compliance with legal registration requirements and with updating requirements when information changes.
Trust companies that fail to provide adequate information and that otherwise fail to comply with obligations set forth in the Companies Law arebrought to light in the extensive dialogue that takes place between theRegistry and the Trust Company Business division. Only trust companies
regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission and Jersey-resident
individuals are able to file applications to incorporate a Jersey company.
Condition 3. The registry (particularly the staff responsible for reviewing andapproving information for acceptance into the registry) is sufficiently expert andknowledgeable on the concept of beneficial ownership and knows how to identify, in a complex corporate structure, the natural person who is the beneficial
owner. If the registry is unable to internalize such specialized experience, a simplified definition of beneficial owner (focusing on percentage shareholding or
possibly the natural person with the largest share or controlling stake) might bepreferable.
• Applications for registration can be approved only at the director level,
where there is sufficient experience to understand beneficial ownership.
Jersey recently created a new deputy director post in the Registry tostrengthen experience within the division.
Sources: Authors’ interview with Jersey Financial Services Commission. See also Companies (Jersey) Law 1991, available at
http://www.jerseyfsc.org/registry/legislation/index.asp.

76

I The Puppet Masters

4.2.4 Online Accessibility
Various parties consulted for this study expressed a particular preference for online
registry databases. The registry databases currently online vary in sophistication and in
the amount of information they make available. The simplest allow you to search withina given jurisdiction by entity name, and they show whether the entity is registered inthat jurisdiction or not. By contrast, the most developed online databases have extensive search-engine capabilities, with the ability to search by numerous categories. Suchadvanced registries also store PDFs and document scans relating to the company, which
are available for viewing either free of charge or for a fee.
Although many registries can be searched only by a few categories of information (forexample, entity name and entity registration number), others make it possible to apply
search criteria for all types of information collected by the registry. See, for example, thenumerous search facilities made available to the public by the Company Register ofDubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) (figure 4.3) and the ICRIS Cyber SearchCentre in Hong Kong SAR, China (figure 4.4).
4.2.5 Information Recorded in Registries
In the registries we studied, the information most commonly recorded per jurisdiction was company name, date of incorporation, entity type (for example, partnership)and status (for example, active) (see figure 4.5). Almost half the registries also mademanagement information publicly accessible, although few made information on legal
ownership available. Many registries maintained historical data on inactive, dissolved,
or struck-off companies, either in the form of archived documents, name history, or
dates of changes in addresses, managers, or officers (see examples in boxes 4.2, 4.3,
and 4.4). The amount of information available without requiring a fee or user login
also was found to vary.
4.2.6 Access to Information
When capacity and resources allow, access can and is being improved. Many registries,
for instance, have begun to upgrade their systems to take advantage of recent developments in digitalization and electronic processing. This is expected to improve efficiency
in a number of important respects: accelerating the process of receiving and retrieving
information, facilitating timely disclosure, enabling instantaneous incorporation, andgenerally improving access to corporate registries. These are all important in making
the registry an even more useful tool in combating money laundering, as rapid, efficient
access to information can save valuable time in a criminal investigation.
4.2.7 Other Repositories of Information
Other repositories of corporate vehicle information that may be useful for investigatorsand compliance officers include commercial databases, tax databases, and land andproperty registries.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 77

78
I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE 4.3

Extensive Online Search Facilities Publicly Available at the Company Register of Dubai International Financial Centre

Source: Available at www.difc.ae/difc-registers/company-register/.

FIGURE 4.4

Extensive Online Search Facilities Publicly Available at the ICRIS Cyber Search Centre in Hong Kong SAR, China

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner
I 79
Source: Available at www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/.

FIGURE 4.5

Types of Information Made Available Online by Registries
Registry information online

100

Percentage of registries

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

e
ar

s/

al

da

te

F
PD

ch

ag

iv

es

p
hi

im

rs

ct
ga

lo

w

ire
D

s/

ric
to
H

is

er
ag
an
M

Le

in

ne

or

s

rs
ce

ce
O

ffi

t
ci

pa

lo

ffi

e

en

ag

fic

ed

gi

st

er

er
gi

st
Re

Re

Pr

us

of

at

ed

y
tit
En

En

tit

y

st

ty

pe

ss
ne

te
of

bu

tio
lu
Pu

rp

os

e

so
is

D

si

da
n

n
io

at
or

rp
co

In

Le

ga

le

nt

ity

na

da

m

te

e

0

Available gratis in the registry
Source: Authors’ illustration.

BOX 4.2

Tracking Down Disqualified Directors: United Kingdom

Company directors may be disqualified in the United Kingdom if, for example,
they continue to trade after going bankrupt (to the detriment of their creditors), or
if they have not kept proper accounts or submitted tax returns. The disqualification means they can no longer be a director of a company, set up a company, or
participate in a company. Some disqualified directors ignore the disqualification,
however, and continue in business—and therefore form a threat to the public.
Companies House, the U.K. company registry, offers a handy search feature
whereby one can search by name or by town of residence to track down someone who has been disqualified as a director.
Source: www.companieshouse.gov.uk; “Disqualiﬁed Directors Register,” available at http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/98864a
4843Oc353f0286633918c43a0c/dirsec.

In contrast to the depository nature of the central (that is, government) registry, commercial databases, such as Dun and Bradstreet (www.dnb.com), Bureau van Dijk
(www.bvdinfo.com), and others, are designed specifically for business solutions, risk
management, and client prospecting, and they actively gather their data from a variety
of sources. Investigators in several jurisdictions also mentioned the existence of company registries that were wholly maintained by business federations, such as the local
chamber of commerce.
80

I The Puppet Masters

BOX 4.3

The Directors Index: Hong Kong SAR, China

Information about all companies registered in Hong Kong SAR, China, is available
online for public search, 24/7. Moreover, information regarding directors of limited
companies can be obtained by conducting a search in the Directors Index, throughthe Registry’s Cyber Search Centre (www.icris.cr.gov.hk) or at the Public SearchCentre of the Registry (13th floor, Queensway Government Offices, 66 Queensway, Hong Kong SAR, China). Hence, anyone wishing to know which companies a given person currently directs, for instance, can simply conduct a searchin the Directors Index.
Source: www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/DS_SearchType.jsp

BOX 4.4

Information Sharing and Financial Reporting Systems:
Singapore

Information Sharing—The BizFile Service
Singapore’s Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) has streamlined and standardized the data file formats it uses to register information aboutbusiness entities (companies, businesses, limited liability partnerships [LLPs],
limited partnerships [LPs], and so on) and developed a highly effective and efficient system to facilitate information sharing with both private and public agencies. Previously, users had to purchase the complete documentation relating to acompany to see the item of information they needed. In the new system, individual items of data (such as registered office address, business activities, ordirectors’ particulars) are extracted from the database and are prepackaged intoa variety of information products. One-time purchases can be obtained from
iShop@ACRA, while government agencies can obtain secure information in bulk
through the BizFile subscription system. Interested parties can see what information is available and immediately access only what they need, thus eliminating
unnecessary cost. This transformation has made it much easier, both for government agencies and the private sector, to obtain information that meets their business and operational needs.
Financial Information—Using XBRL Data
As of November 2007, companies in Singapore have had to file their annual
accounts with ACRA in XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) format,
rather than PDF. XBRL allows data to be read by machines and extracted for analysis. In this way, the business community has an extra source of information atits disposal. These data have a number of important advantages over data in traditional formats. They can be analyzed dynamically to assist in decision making;they are available for analysis as soon as the accounts are filed; and the system
conducts validation checks, ensuring the accuracy of the data. Several interactive

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 81

BOX 4.4(continued)

web-based tools are available for use with ACRA’s XBRL data, including OpenAnalytics and Singapore Financials Direct. In addition to making a useful service
available to businesses and banks, the use of XBRL makes it easier for authorities and investigators to scrutinize companies’ financial information for regulatory
and surveillance purposes.
Sources: Authors’ compilation. See also www.acra.gov.sg, BizFile at https://www.psi.gov.sg/NASApp/tmf/TMFServlet?app=RCBBIZFILE-LOGIN-1B, and XBRL available at https://www.fsm.acra.gov.sg.

Tax databases can prove useful for investigative purposes. The nature of tax information available about a given corporate vehicle will depend on the type of tax regime
operating within the jurisdiction. For instance, the tax information available in a tax
haven jurisdiction may consist of no more than a certification of continued exemption
status. Even in that case, however, a filing will have been made claiming the exemption,and that in itself can provide useful information. The degree to which tax authorities
will have developed sophisticated knowledge of and intimate familiarity with corporate
vehicles will probably depend on their tax regime. In jurisdictions that offer blanket
exemptions from taxation to entice foreign customers to incorporate in their country,
the tax authorities may possess little practical knowledge of corporate vehicles. In otherjurisdictions, which pursue a more aggressive stance toward enforcement of their taxation laws, much more extensive information may be present.
In addition, if a bilateral tax information exchange agreement is in place, investigators
may obtain tax information held by authorities in another jurisdiction.58 A briefing
paper by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of
August 2010 describes the significant progress that has been made in this area, notingthat some 600 bilateral tax conventions have been entered into by both OECD and nonOECD member countries.59 The standards for the exchange of information in such
conventions include, among other points, “Exchange of information on request, where
it is ‘foreseeably relevant’ to the administration and enforcement of the domestic lawsof the treaty partner” and “No restrictions on exchange caused by bank secrecy ordomestic tax interest requirements.”60 As the briefing paper explains,
The scope of the information that may be requested, however, is extremely broad. Where theinformation requested is ‘foreseeably relevant’, then this will cover any and all informationthat relates to the enforcement and administration of the requesting jurisdiction’s tax laws,
including information relating to interest, dividends or capital gains, bank information, fiduciary information relating to trusts, or ownership information of companies.61
58. In addition to Tax Information Exchange Agreements, Double Tax Conventions typically achieve thesame goal.
59. OECD, “ The Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes: Information Brief ” (OECD, August 10, 2010), at 3, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/45/43757434.pdf.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.

82

I The Puppet Masters

Land and real estate registries also may be valuable sources of information. These registries can be perused for records of title transfers when trying to connect assets possibly hidden in property to a certain party of interest.
4.2.8 Asset Disclosures
An additional source of information that can be consulted in the event of an investigation is a jurisdiction’s asset disclosures, in which public officials (for example, membersof parliament, heads of state, cabinet members, or senior civil servants) declare theirfinancial and business interests.62 Although asset disclosure systems are not a recent
governance development, the adoption of disclosure provisions has gained rapid
momentum in the past two decades. These systems have been found to be widespread
across countries and regions, and their prevalence is growing as the importance oftransparency also increases. Currently, more than 120 countries around the world
implement disclosure regulations. Although their content varies, asset disclosure forms
often require registration of shares and securities. Frequently, the company name andthe value of all types of stocks, whether held domestically or abroad, have to be disclosed. In other cases, only shares in local companies will need to be disclosed. In certain instances, only the value of the stock or only the name of the company will be
required.
As with corporate registries, access to asset disclosures may vary. In many cases, asset
declarations are published in an official gazette, or in the media. They also may be madeavailable through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and in some cases, they
may be available online through the official websites of anticorruption agencies, parliaments, or the like. Frequently, the public is permitted only partial access to the contentsof the disclosure statement, while investigators and financial institutions may request
full access from the agencies responsible for collecting or verifying them. Asset disclosure systems can be an important supplementary tool to help investigators make appropriate links and discern trends or patterns in an investigation: They are available andnot all are confidential.63
4.2.9 Unique Identifiers
Another useful tool that can facilitate the gathering of information across different government agencies and institutions and help to eliminate false positives generated bycorporate vehicles having similar names, is the assignment of unique identifiers. This isparticularly useful in the case of entities that are operational, because typically they willinteract with a wider range of government agencies than would mere shell entities.

62. Asset disclosures may be collected, verified, and held by a variety of agencies (for example, anticorruption commissions, commissions that focus exclusively on asset disclosures, tax authorities, parliamentarycommissions, supreme courts, ombudsmen, and so on).
63. See Djankov, Simeon, Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer, “Disclosure by
Politicians,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2, no. 2 (2010): 179–209, available at http://
www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.2.2.179.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 83

4.3 Trust and Company Service Providers
TCSPs are businesses that create and provide administrative services for corporate
vehicles.64 In some jurisdictions, TCSPs are the only means for those looking to establish certain kinds of vehicles, such as international business corporations (IBCs),
although in certain countries, customers can choose to form a legal entity through a
TCSP or directly through the registry (via an application for incorporation). In certain
civil law countries, corporate entities (such as companies and foundations) require anotarial deed for their establishment, meaning that the founders need to enlist the services of a notary. In most of the cases examined in this study, an outside service provider was used to establish or manage (administer) the corporate vehicle.
TCSPs are crucial actors in both the legitimate and the illicit use of corporate vehicles,
and, as such, it is essential that investigators and regulators know how they work. These
service providers perform a variety of administrative procedures necessary for establishing a company or other corporate vehicle. These procedures include checking forthe availability of the desired name, lodging the required documents, and paying fees.
Assuming the vehicle is to be maintained for more than a year (about a quarter to onethird are not), TCSPs will handle renewal fees accordingly and fulfill any required
annual reporting obligations on behalf of the company. They may also provide services
such as mail-forwarding or virtual office facilities. As part of their typical package,
many TCSPs routinely act as registered agents or resident secretaries for foreign anddomestic companies, as well as provide nominee services (such as nominee directors or
shareholders, trustees, or foundation council members). In addition, TCSPs will commonly act as the intermediaries or introducers between their clients and the respective
financial institution or bank where the customer wishes to establish the corporate
account. A simple transaction—setting up a single company—might cost US$1,000–$2,000, depending on the options, of which US$100–$300 would be the government fee
for registering the company.
Although some TCSPs may only offer corporate vehicles domiciled in their local jurisdiction, it is not uncommon for TCSPs to be able to furnish customers with vehicles
from a wide menu of foreign jurisdictions. At the moment, for instance, large TCSPs
can act as registered agents for companies incorporated under the laws of the British
Virgin Islands (BVI). This means that they form BVI companies (typically IBCs) for
clients, but keep clients’ due diligence information on file elsewhere. This makes it moredifficult for BVI regulators to access that information. The BVI regulator does conduct
random assessments, however, asking TCSPs for beneficial ownership information on

64. According to the FATF definition, TCSPs provide any or all of the following services: acting as a formation agent of legal persons; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a director or secretary of acompany, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other legal persons; providing a
registered office, business address or accommodation, correspondence, or administrative address for a company, a partnership, or any other legal person or arrangement; acting as (or arranging for another person toact as) a trustee of an express trust; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person.
84

I The Puppet Masters

IBCs, besides making specific requests. If a TCSP were unable to produce this information, the BVI government would revoke its registered agent status.65
4.3.1 Diversity in Size and Nature
As institutions, banks are relatively uniform; it is generally clear what a bank is andwhat it does. The term “TCSPs,” however, covers a wide variety of service providers
both in size and in nature. For example, they may differ in terms of the profession of theprovider, the services they offer, the number and type of clients they engage with, andthe relationship they maintain with those clients. Generic references to a “typical” TCSP
therefore are highly misleading. At one end of the spectrum, they may be a single individual operating through a website, or a small law or accounting firm for whom forming companies is only a minor sideline, their core business being something else. At theother end of the spectrum, some of the most well-established TCSPs employ hundredsof people, administering tens of thousands of companies at any one time and holding
up to 10 percent of the total market in companies formed in offshore jurisdictions. In
some cases, these large TCSPs have written the company legislation for the smaller
jurisdictions that are more recent entrants to the market for offshore companies.
Moreover, TCSPs may cater to individual customers, institutional customers, or both;and transactions may involve just one TCSP or multiple TCSPs. As in most other sectors of the financial services industry, they also have a substantial degree of specialization. This specialization may create challenges for regulators and investigators. Even in
the case of a simple transaction, such as a private client wishing to form a single company, it is common for more than one TCSP to be involved. TCSPs can be roughly
divided into “wholesale” TCSPs and “retail” TCSPs. A large TCSP may form and sell
thousands of companies to dozens of other, smaller TCSPs, which then sell them to theirprivate clients. For example, one TCSP in our study reported that it deals with several
thousand intermediary TCSPs—law firms and accountancy firms—which sell companies to individual clients. The “wholesalers” often supply the “retailers” with companies
on a one-by-one basis; and the companies may be either ready-made shelf companies
or companies tailor made specifically for the client (see box 4.5).
4.3.2 Regulation
Over the past decade, TCSPs in most offshore jurisdictions have increasingly become
subject to formal licensing and regulation. They now often need to meet consumer
65. The BVI is an important “supplier of corporate vehicles” for certain jurisdictions. The most popular
corporate vehicle in Hong Kong SAR, China, for instance, is a BVI IBC. The success of the BVI is in largepart a product of timing. Launched in 1984, the BVI IBCs came on to the market at the time just after the
British government had agreed to hand Hong Kong SAR, China, back to mainland China, which created a
massive demand for asset protection among people who spoke English and were familiar with the British
legal system. The previous leader in the field of shell companies, Panama, was suffering from the mismanagement of the Noriega regime and increasingly strict U.S. sanctions. Simple, flexible, and cheap, BVI IBCs
became, from this initial advantage, the default choice in Hong Kong SAR, China, and with increased liberalization, for mainland China as well.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 85

BOX 4.5

Establishing a Legal Entity Involving More Than One TCSPa

Gruppo 20 Enterprises was established as a Seychelles International BusinessCompany with a nominee director, authorized share capital of US$1 million, andbearer shares. It was supplied by a Singaporean service provider (the retailer),but it had been formed for this Singaporean service provider by another service
provider (the wholesaler). Before forming the company, the retailing TCSP
required a notarized copy of a passport. The accompanying bank account for
Gruppo 20 was in Cyprus, picked on the advice of the first service provider
because of this bank’s willingness to accept bearer share companies. The bankinsisted on taking physical possession of the sole bearer share issued. Establishing
the company and opening the account cost €1,754.
Note: a. Undertaken in the context of the TCSP Project.

protection requirements, be audited by the authorities, and meet AML reporting
requirements, and their directors need to pass a “fit-and-proper-person” test. By contrast, TCSPs in onshore jurisdictions are frequently not regulated. As a result, the number of TCSPs operating in such jurisdictions is unclear, and there is no clear dividing
line between them and other financial services or legal firms.
In cases in which TCSPs are regulated, however, they are commonly responsible forobtaining and updating beneficial ownership information of the corporate vehicles theyadminister. This makes TCSPs important parties when it comes to preventing the misuse of corporate vehicles. In fact, in some cases, they can be more important than either
registries or banks. As noted, corporate registries usually contain (at best) only legal
ownership and management information; and although banks collect beneficial ownership information on corporate entities holding accounts, not all vehicles have a bankaccount but rather hold real estate assets instead. Compared with these, then, TCSPs
provide a significant point of leverage for increasing the availability of beneficial ownership information.
4.3.3 Due Diligence Information Gathered by TCSPs
TCSPs vary considerably in the types of services they provide and the persons to whomthey provide them. If a potential client approaches a TCSP for services with an established corporate vehicle, the TCSP will need to identify the natural person behind thecorporate vehicle before delivering any services. (In a few jurisdictions, identification of
the beneficial owner may take place later, provided it occurs shortly after the initiationof services.) As described by one of the TCSPs in our study, in the case of a complex
structure (such as a BVI company owned by a Jersey trust), the procedure would be toperform personal due diligence on the following:•86

The directors and shareholders (including the ultimate controllers, if the directors and shareholders are nominees)

I The Puppet Masters•

The trustees and (if they are corporate trustees) the beneficial ownership of thecompany• The settlor (unless deceased)• The beneficiaries (although they may be unborn)• The protector (if applicable).

The beneficiaries would be, first, the principal beneficiaries and then anyone to whom a
distribution is made. The performance of due diligence on the protector would dependon the protector’s power. If this power was considerable, including, for instance, thepower to move funds, then due diligence certainly would be performed. All this information (on all parties) has to be kept up to date. In unusually complex cases, the fee for
conducting due diligence is payable by the client; otherwise it forms part of the service.
Not infrequently, a TCSP may ask another TCSP to conduct the due diligence on its
behalf. This might occur, for instance, because the TCSP is not in a position to conduct
the due diligence himself because the client is located in a different country. One of the
TCSPs in our study considered such delegation of CDD to third-party TCSPs in otherjurisdictions quite common. It is effected in the relevant jurisdiction through Introducer Certificates (ICs), usually with trust companies, law firms, and banks. (Thisarrangement is only available if the introducer is a licensed entity in a well-regulated
jurisdiction—that is, “well-regulated” in the sense that the regulator in the original
TCSP’s jurisdiction has judged it to have proper AML procedures in place.) Ideally,each transaction requires a separate IC; but sometimes a general IC is issued, covering
all business done with a particular intermediary. The certificates show the name of theintermediary and details of its license, as well as the same details of the client. They
commit the intermediary to hold and update as necessary beneficial ownership information on the underlying client and provide it promptly upon request.
4.3.4 The Information Gathered by TCSPs
To find out to what extent due diligence information is gathered in practice, Case Western Reserve School of Law, as part of background work for this study,66 contacted
TCSPs, requesting advice on possible corporate vehicles for holding funds. The resultsof the first and second audit studies are presented in the following paragraphs. Although
the enquiries with TCSPs were carried out a year apart and used slightly different
approach letters, both rely on the same logic and the results are comparable.
The first and second round of inquiries yielded valid responses from a total of 102
TCSPs. Of these, 60 said that, before they could supply corporate services, they needed
to see a photo ID, while one required a personal visit by the client. The ID documentation consisted of (at least) a photocopy of the face page of a passport, usually notarized,
apostilled, or otherwise certified as a true copy of the original. In addition, proof of
66. For the general logic of audit studies in economics, see David Neumark, “Detecting Discrimination in
Audit and Correspondence Studies” (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 16448,
NBER, Cambridge, MA, October 2010). See Appendix B, TCSP Project.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 87residence (in the form of a recent, original utility statement or a recent bank statement)
was often requested. Some TCSPs also required a business plan for the company to beestablished and a short curriculum vitae of the client (who, not acting on anyone else’s
behalf, is also the beneficial owner). These 61 respondents (60 requiring photo ID and
one a personal visit) can be considered to have conducted sufficient due diligence toestablish the beneficial owner when establishing a corporate vehicle: They had taken
reasonable steps to establish the owner’s identity, and these documents were held on fileand presumably accessible to investigative authorities.67
The remaining 41 TCSPs cannot be considered to have undertaken sufficient due diligence, because they had no ID documentation on the beneficial owner. In most cases,
the applicant simply had to complete an online form (no more complex than that used
to buy a plane ticket). The TCSPs apparently trusted applicants to enter their true names
and addresses. It is difficult to see how TCSPs (or by extension, the authorities) could
determine the beneficial ownership of the companies established in this way with any
degree of certainty.
The 60 percent of TCSPs in the survey that apparently performed adequate due diligence may suggest an artificially positive picture, given the possibilities of linking
together chains of corporate vehicles, the possibilities of a more thorough-going andhigh-budget search for anonymous vehicles, and the ability to practice regulatory arbitrage to exploit those jurisdictions performing the least due diligence. In most cases inwhich a trust was to be formed, and almost always when a bank account was to beopened, some evidence as to the source of wealth was requested. This might take theform of a simple declaration that the wealth was not the product of illicit activities.
More often, however, providers asked for a letter from a lawyer (for inheritance), proofof sale (if the funds were derived from property or other asset sales), or copies of recent
pay slips (if the wealth was from salary).
Only a few of the application forms asked about politically exposed persons (PEP)
issues (for example, about whether the customer or any of the customer’s relatives heldelected office). According to interviews with service providers, most run potential customers’ names through software like World-Check or, at least, Google.
This level of due diligence notwithstanding, many of the respondents emphasized intheir correspondence and on their websites that one of the main reasons for forming acompany or trust was the anonymity and secrecy it offers. Five providers explicitly recommended a structure combining a trust and company to increase both secrecy andasset protection. As one of the TCSPs advocating such a combined trust-company
structure notes on its website,[The trust can] serve as beneficial owner when opening financial accounts: Today, due to theglobal scare of terrorism, etc., most offshore tax-haven jurisdictions have implemented laws
67. It was beyond the scope of this project to look into the safeguards that may be applied to protect against
the use of false documentation (for example, independent checks against government databases to which
the service provider may have access, or databases of lost and stolen travel documents).

88

I The Puppet Mastersthat require their banks to obtain “declarations of beneficial ownership” when establishingcorporate bank accounts . . . [I]f you do not wish to sign the declaration as the beneficial
owner when establishing your corporate accounts, the Trust can serve as the beneficial ownerfor these declaration purposes, and the nominee Trust council can sign the declarations onbehalf of the Trust.

Many of the respondents (including the one quoted) explicitly noted their duty to collect, and if necessary hand over, beneficial ownership information in the event of money
laundering activity.
Forty-one TCSPs communicated their willingness to create corporate vehicles without the need for any supporting identity documentation from the beneficial owner.
The process of forming a company consisted of typing the preferred name and otherdetails of the company (for example, options for nominee shareholders and directors,
mail and phone forwarding, corporate stationery, and so on) into a simple online
form. For this reason, the authorities would never be able to compel these TCSPs toprovide any information on the underlying owners, no matter how strong their investigative powers might be, because the TCSPs never collected such information in thefirst place. Indeed, a couple of respondents explicitly mentioned this point among theadvantages of their service. If the customers had paid the TCSP for its services using
a credit card, tracing this might provide some leads, but it would not be difficult for acustomer to use an anonymous prepaid debit card—after all, the incorporation feesare quite modest. Alternatively, after forming one anonymous company using a personal credit card, it would be possible to go to a different TCSP and get them to createa second anonymous company, using a corporate credit card issued in the name of thefirst company.
4.3.5 Examples
This situation reinforces the conclusion that criminals and anyone else intent on lowering the “corporate veil” would only need to carry out a relatively casual search to quickly
and easily gain access to anonymous shell companies. Before looking at the overall pattern of results from the first and second sets of inquiries, it may be useful to explore
some examples in detail.
First, let us look at a provider in Dominica and another in the United Kingdom. Boththe text and design of their websites suggest that it is highly likely that these providers
are prepared to incorporate companies without requiring any supporting due diligencematerial. Both have a purely web-based order form. The customer enters the preferredname of the company, desired optional extras, and credit card details. Although the
Dominica provider offers only Dominican companies, the U.K. provider is a muchlarger operation, offering customer support in eight languages. It sells companies fromthe Seychelles and British Virgin Islands, as well as from England and Wales. Finally,
this provider offers a new, proposed European Private Company, which would be able
to be redomiciled to any EU member state. Nowhere, throughout the ordering process
on these two providers’ websites, is there any mention of the need to supply supporting
documentation—and from the whole context of the sites, it is quite clear that indeed
Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 89

none was required. These providers were among the cheapest in the sample, offering
anonymous shell companies (that is, no beneficial ownership information held on file,nominee shareholders and directors) for US$1,200–$1,500.
The next example is the most clear-cut in terms of offering anonymous companies (andtrusts). This example is unusual in that it is featured in other inquiries, enabling us toplace its business model in a wider context. The following e-mail exchange with thisprovider, which is based in the United States with a secondary office in the Bahamas, isclear enough:Customer: Could you please provide guidance as to what documentation is needed to set up thecompany or trust and to open the bank account in Nevis or any other appropriate jurisdiction?
TCSP: There is no documentation needed to form an offshore company or trust. To open an
offshore bank account, you’ll need a copy of an ID (like a license or passport) and a copy of a
recent bill or statement (like a cable bill, electric bill, bank statement, etc.) that shows your nameand address on it.

The provider’s website explicitly confirms that in forming companies (and trusts), no
identity documentation is required. It also states, however, that to open a bank account,the standard suite of documentation will be required. In this way, customers can form
companies domiciled in Belize ($1,500), the British Virgin Islands ($1,950), Nevis($1,850), Panama ($1,950), and the Seychelles ($1,650), as well as set up a Bahamian
trust ($1,000). The provider cannot know for whom the companies are being established, and no requests from law enforcement would be able to yield information on theunderlying beneficial owner, because no such information was collected.
We can place this provider in a broader context. He—it is largely a one-man operation—
testified before U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and this testimony was later included in the 2006 report, “Tax Haven Abuses: The Enablers, theTools and Secrecy.” According to that report, over the preceding six-year period, thisprovider had set up offshore structures for more than 900 individual clients, largely
from the United States, all via e-mail and the website. These structures were mainly
used for asset protection purposes, although the report gives strong hints that someclients used them to evade tax obligations. According to the report, the business “grossed
several hundred thousand dollars in this way in 2003 and 2004.” Confirming the evidence that emerged during interviews on the importance of networks to TCSPs, thisprovider depended on other parties in various offshore jurisdictions to perform theroles of trustee, trust protector, and company director.
Significantly, this provider confirmed in an e-mail exchange in 2010 that its due diligence procedures for company formation (or the lack thereof) had not changed since2005. Although identity documentation, a bank reference, and proof of address wererequired for all offshore banks, no documentation was required for companies or trusts.
The provider offered his services to anyone—except those who volunteered the information that they were in the pornography business or came from the Islamic Republicof Iran or Cuba.

90

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE 4.6

Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies (SampledOECD Countries)
Sampled OECD countries total: Requirement toprovide ID in forming companies [47 TCSPs]

12

35

Sufficient due diligence
Insufficient due diligence
Source: Authors’ illustration.

4.3.6 Common Patterns
The pattern that stands out most clearly in our data is that TCSPs from sampled OECD
countries (figure 4.6) do not conduct CDD to the same extent as those in other countries (figure 4.7). Whereas 47 out of 53 providers in this latter group conducted properdue diligence, only 12 out of 47 did so in the sampled OECD countries. Some specificexamples were discussed above in relation to André Pascal Enterprises (see box 3.6)
and BCP Consolidated Enterprises (see box 3.14).
Positive findings on identification were particularly high among those TCSPs fromjurisdictions identified as tax havens by the OECD in 2000 as part of its Harmful Tax
Competition initiative (see figure 4.7). These jurisdictions have been portrayed as offering corporate secrecy and generally being underregulated. The results of the two studies
show exactly the reverse, that is, that TCSPs from those tax havens have higher standards in corporate transparency, at least at the company-formation stage, than those inother countries. Although the sample is too small to allow for any firm conclusions, thefindings do not support the (reasonable) assumption there is a relationship between thewealth of a country and the rigour of its KYC practices and that compliance is largely amatter of capacity and resources rather than will.68
68. It is recognized that the size of the sample—both in terms of numbers of TCSPs and countries
sampled—does not allow for any conclusions about compliance within the OECD as a whole. A forthcoming study by academics from Brigham Young University and Griffith University of over 3,500 company

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 91

FIGURE 4.7

Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies (Other Countries)
Other countries total: Requirement to provide
ID in forming companies [55 TCSPs]

6

49

Sufficient due diligence
Insufficient due diligence
Source: Authors’ illustration.

By far the worst performer of the countries reviewed is the United States. Out of 27 service providers under U.S. jurisdiction returning a valid response, only 3 said they asked
for any form of identity documentation, whereas the others (24) were prepared to form
companies without conducting any due diligence whatsoever. Although a majority ofproviders noted that nonresidents would have to obtain an employer identification
number (EIN), the associated forms again did not ask for any proof of identification. Furthermore, some providers in Wyoming and Nevada actually offered to use their employees’ Social Security numbers to spare clients the need to obtain an EIN. This verdict isstrongly confirmed by a number of U.S. government reports,69 and recent statementsfrom the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In particular, Subcommittee Chairman Senator Carl Levin noted in November 2009 that “our 50 states are
forming nearly 2 million companies each year and, in virtually all cases, doing so withoutobtaining the names of the people who will control or benefit from those companies.”70
service providers confirms this conclusion. Reference is made to appendix B for further discussion of themethod followed.
69. “Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information is Collected and Available” (Government
Accountability Office, Washington, DC, 2006); “The Role of Domestic Shell Companies in Financial Crime
and Money Laundering” (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Washington, DC, 2006); see also “Money
Laundering Threat Assessment” (Money Laundering Threat Assessment Group, Washington, DC, 2005).
70. “Statement of Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., on Business Formation and Financial Crime: Finding a Legislative Solution,” November 5, 2009, available at http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/
statement-of-sen-carl-levin-d-mich-on-business-formation-and-financial-crime-finding-a-legislativesolution/?section=alltypes (last access date July 27, 2011).

92

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE 4.8

Requirement to Provide ID in Forming Companies (Worldwide)
Worldwide total: Requirement to provide ID
in forming companies (102 TCSPs)

41

61

Sufficient due diligence
Insufficient due diligence
Source: Authors’ illustration.

The poor showing is especially troubling given the huge number of legal entities formedin the United States each year—around 10 times more than in all 41 tax haven jurisdictions combined. Because so little information is collected on U.S. companies, it is
impossible to tell how many are shell companies and not operational companies, but
U.S. law enforcement consistently has indicated that the number is high enough tocause grave concerns.71 To judge from our interviews with TCSPs and from advertising,
U.S. shell companies are a popular choice among non-U.S. residents.
It is possible that the positive picture of countries in which TCSPs did request further
information on the client may be skewed because of what some have called “the compliance dance”—a tendency for firms to pay lip-service to every new regulation that comesalong, while not really accepting the underlying rationale. If we had engaged thoseseemingly compliant TCSPs further, perhaps the window dressing would have quickly
become apparent as such and we would have discovered, for example, ways to set up a
corporate vehicle anonymously. We do not know because such checks were beyond thescope of this project. What we can be certain of, however, is that the converse does nothold. Because TCSPs have no reason to pretend to be noncompliant while being secretly
71. See especially “The Role of Domestic Shell Companies in Financial Crime and Money Laundering”(Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Washington, DC, 2006). See also “Money Laundering Threat
Assessment” (Money Laundering Threat Assessment Group, Washington, DC, 2005).
Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 93compliant, the low level of compliance we see on the part of TCSPs in some countries
surely reflects the situation accurately.
4.3.7 Obstacles to the Provision of Information by TCSPs
All investigators interviewed for this study agreed that a TCSP that establishes a corporate vehicle for a client (or manages or otherwise fulfills a role in it) is in a very good
position to obtain the relevant information on the ownership and control structure (atleast at the time the vehicle is established). As a result, there can be little excuse for inaccurate information. Law enforcement often views the TCSP sector with a degree of
suspicion, however. In many criminal cases, investigators tend to see TCSPs not as neutral service providers, but at least negligent in the conduct of their CDD and at worst
complicit in criminal behavior. At the same time, it is clear that investigators do notalways have sufficient understanding of the rationale behind many of the constructions
involving corporate vehicles in multiple jurisdictions that serve legitimate purposes.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Invariably, almost all of the investigators interviewed for this study mentioned that oneof the obstacles to obtaining information from TCSPs was attorney-client privilege (legal
professional privilege). The special nature of the relationship between a lawyer (such asa solicitor, an attorney, or an avocat) imposes a duty of confidentiality on the part of thelawyer with respect to his client. This is to encourage the complete disclosure of information, without fear of further disclosure to outside parties. The concept of attorney-client
privilege is rooted in a fundamental right to counsel and the right to a fair trial, whereby
a defendant has the right to legal representation by a lawyer. Although the exact scope of
this privilege varies from country to country (in some countries it also applies to therelationship between an expert comptable or a notary and his client), there is generalagreement among authorities in most countries that the privilege should not apply when
the lawyer is performing only purely fiduciary services for the client.
To overcome attorney-client privilege, judicial proceedings often need to be instituted.
For instance, in Canada, a privilege hearing is required for the judge to review eachpiece of paper before it is handed over to the police; in the United States, a prima faciecase is needed if a lawyer is suspected of misusing the privilege. For that reason, investigators stated, they have to carefully weigh the benefits of information that the lawyer
may have against the risk that they would tip off their client.
Other investigators reported that, in cases in which the privilege is invoked to frustrate
law enforcement, the investigative trail often stops. In Brazil, even if the investigator
manages to find the TCSP that formed the corporate vehicle, that TCSP will often havesold the company to a law firm, which then invokes privilege to avoid disclosing thename of the person who purchased the company. In Germany, in a case in which a lawyer
acting for a special purpose vehicle claimed privilege on documents relating to an entity,
the investigator instituted insolvency proceedings against the entity and was able toretrieve the released documents from the liquidator. In Hong Kong SAR, China, when
94

I The Puppet Masters

suspicion arises that a lawyer formed a trust and may have the trust deed or informationin his offices, the investigator needs to obtain a search warrant, but often the solicitor will
invoke privilege, compelling law enforcement to go to court. Again, investigators must
determine whether it is worth devoting resources to fighting the claim of privilege, especially in cases in which they are not quite sure what they are looking for.
Lawyers working in various capacities and engaged in certain transactional activities
on behalf of their clients are in a good position to obtain the relevant information on
the ownership and control structure of a corporate vehicle.72 For that reason, the FATF
has subjected lawyers and other legal professionals to due diligence obligations when
performing certain services (Recommendation 12) and when they encounter anythingsuspicious in the course of their service provision (clearly circumscribed) to report any
dubious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit. Information obtained undercircumstances subject to attorney-client privilege, however, is not subject to the same
reporting obligations.
Countries have implemented this obligation to various degrees, but on the whole (seeappendix A), compliance is low. The most widely discussed reporting obligation isprobably the one laid down in the Third EU Money Laundering Directive, which
requires independent legal professionals to report suspicious transactions when executing transactions for their client. These transactions include, among others, creating,operating, or managing trusts, companies, or similar structures.
The directive exempts those categories of professions from reporting with regard to
information they receive from or obtain on one of their clients, in the course of ascertaining the legal position for their client or performing their task of defending or representing that client in, or concerning, judicial proceedings, including advice on instituting or avoiding proceedings, whether such information is received or obtained before,
during or after such proceedings.
Because several bar associations deemed the reporting obligation an infringement of
the right to a fair trial and the exemption not sufficiently wide, they initiated legal action
against the European Council before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In an important ruling,73 the ECJ ruled against them, noting that:
Given that the requirements implied by the right to a fair trial presuppose, by definition, alink with judicial proceedings, and in view of the fact that the [exemption cited above]
exempts lawyers, where their activities are characterised by such a link, from the obligationsof information and cooperation [the STR obligation and the obligation to provide information upon request by the authorities], those requirements are respected.
72. Notaries and independent legal professionals; see Third EU Directive (Directive 2005/60/EC of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council of October 26, 2005, on the prevention of the use of the financial
system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing), and FATF, “RBA Guidance for Legal
Professionals” (October 23, 2008), available at: http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/5/58/41584211.pdf.
73. See European Court of Justice, Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones andOthers v Conseil des ministres, judgment of 26 June 2007, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62005J0305:EN:HTML.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 95

Inclusion of Lawyers in the AML Framework
One of the arguments against the inclusion of lawyers or other TCSPs in the AML
framework is that when lawyers or other TCSPs are facilitating criminal conduct, theyrarely do so unwittingly. In those circumstances, what is the point of imposing an obligation to report suspicious transactions? They are unlikely to report anything. From thereview of cases in this study, it was difficult to ascertain whether TCSPs were knowingly
involved in money laundering activities. In some cases, they were investigated andprosecuted; in many cases, they were not. Investigators considered TCSPs more likely
than not to be complicit but indicated that this did not necessarily mean that theywould investigate or prosecute them. The burden of proof was often too high, andinvestigators would rather spend their efforts targeting the principal perpetrators, notthe facilitators. In a few cases, the TCSPs involved were considered innocent. Based oninvestigators’ opinions, and having regard to the degree of involvement of TCSPs with
their client, it is arguable that a TCSP is often either knowingly involved in or at least
willfully blind to the criminal conduct he is facilitating. Unlike a bank, where transactions are automatically processed without human intervention (unless picked up by thebank’s system for identifying suspicious transactions), TCSPs provide services that do
usually require such human intervention, even if remote or minimal.
Being involved (to a greater or lesser degree or merely willfully blind), however, does notmean that inclusion in the AML framework is pointless. First, a minority of the TCSPs
will be innocently involved and would file a report if they deemed a transaction to besuspicious. That could be a valuable source of information, and lawyers or other TCSPs
who are later found to have been complicit may be penalized for non-reporting. More
importantly, however, inclusion in the AML framework implies more than just thereporting obligation. First and foremost, it is about conducting proper due diligence ofa client before entering into a business relationship. That means that lawyers or other
TCSPs found to have been involved in a money laundering or corruption scheme will nolonger be able to claim with impunity that they did not know what was going on. Willful
blindness is no longer an option for the lawyer or TCSP willing to look the other way.
Cases in which service providers have been penalized for failing to follow through on theirdue diligence obligations have certainly been infrequent, but they are effective in encouraging compliance. In one case,74 a Jersey Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the attorney
general that a single provable instance in which a TCSP fails to adhere to due diligencestandards75 meets the criteria for prosecution under the AML laws of the jurisdiction.76

74. Bell v Att. Gen., 27 Jan 2006, 2006 JLR 61.
75. Failing to comply with Art. 2(1) of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 1999, contrary to Art. 37(4)of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.
76. “Financial Services—maintenance of anti-money laundering procedures—breach—single breach by
financial services provider of requirement in Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 1999, art. 2(1)(a) to maintain procedures may constitute offence under Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999—failure need not besystemic—‘maintain’ requires procedures to be established and also kept in proper working order, to preventand forestall money laundering whenever business relationship formed or one-off transaction carried out.”(http://www.jerseylaw.je/Judgments/JerseyLawReports/Display.aspx?Cases/JLR2006/JLR060061.htm).

96

I The Puppet Masters

On May 8, 2006, a nonpublic judgment (Tribunal correctionnel de Luxembourg, no.
1507/2006) was handed down by the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, 16e
Chambre [District Court of Luxembourg] in which a lawyer received monetary penalties for failing to perform due diligence obligations to identify the beneficial owner ofcorporate entity clients.77 The ruling sent a powerful message, because the attorney’s
clients were not even found to have engaged in money laundering—the breach of CDD
obligations on its own was enough to convict.

4.4 Financial Institutions
Many corporate vehicles that are used to launder money are established solely for the
purpose of providing anonymous access to financial institutions. The provision by
financial institutions of services that may be used for receiving, holding, or conveying
the illicit proceeds of corruption is a critical part of the laundering process. Almost allof the cases reviewed involved bank-held assets: The laundering of the proceeds of corruption is virtually impossible without making use of the services provided by banks.
Although money launderers can establish legal entities and arrangements to suggest afake reality, the flows of funds do not lie. In the words of an investigating magistrate,“Transfers of funds through the banking system always leave a footprint that cannot be
manipulated. These transfers constitute the backbone of any investigation into economic crime.” Financial institutions are in a particularly good position to know what isreally going on.
4.4.1 Information Gathered
In many industrial economies, financial institutions have been subject to AML compliance obligations for some time. This includes CDD and suspicious transactions reporting requirements. Investigators interviewed for this study noted that, over the past
decade, the quality of information obtainable from banks in the context of a criminal
investigation has improved.
The corporate vehicle information recorded by financial institutions usually includes
some combination of the following:• Almost always: Visual inspection of true or certified or notarized copies of identity documentation, which may be copied, or checked on a checklist as having
been confirmed, and then filed in the customer’s file.

77. “The District Court of Luxembourg (Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, 16e Chambre) has
found, in the criminal case against the lawyer, who provided domiciliation services to corporate entities,
that the sanction of an infringement of the obligations laid down by the Law of 12 November 2004, does
not require the proof that a domiciled corporate entity was actually involved in a money laundering
operation”: IBA Anti-Money Laundering Forum, Luxembourg, http://www.anti-moneylaundering.org/
europe/luxembourg.aspx (last accessed August 16, 2011).

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 97

• Almost always: A physical address for the customer’s account, used for mailingout notices, variably confirmed through, for example, mailings or onsite inspections.
• Almost always: Visual inspection of a true or certified or notarized copy
documentation that gives the individual before them the capacity to represent
the corporate vehicle that is the client (for example, contract, power of attorney,organizational document naming the party as a member, director, or executive
agent of a company, trust instrument naming the person as a trustee, andso on).
• Often: The natural person holding more than a certain percentage of equitableinterest (that is, the formal beneficial owner).
• Sometimes: Particulars of the persons making up other various parties with asignificant relation to the corporate vehicle in terms of ownership and control(for example, names, IDs, and addresses of shareholders and board members in acompany).
• Sometimes: Records of a meeting, required in the course of account opening, or
normal account business (including attendees).
• Sometimes: A highly documented compliance log, evidencing knowledge about
the customer, in accordance with a robust and uniformly applied standard,
which typically involves name checking, transaction monitoring, and trend
analysis.
• Sometimes: Information obtained from independent sources to verify customer-provided information. Such sources may include relevant jurisdictional registrar data, organizational websites, credit ratings, web-search collation services(which crawl the Internet looking for the names of the organization and its
related persons).
• Rarely: The identity of the beneficial owner in substantive terms (although inmany legitimate situations, anyone who holds more than a certain percentage ofequity will be the beneficial owner in substantive terms).
4.4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Information Gathered
Although the participants in our study were generally in favor of the identification of aformal beneficial owner (that is, based on a percentage shareholding), compliance officers suggested that it would make sense to do this on a risk-sensitive basis. Much of
their time and effort performing due diligence is spent on customer accounts that areclearly beyond all possible risk of money laundering yet require due diligence so that“the paperwork is in order.” In the converse situation, when there is a clear and significant risk of money laundering activity, stopping at the minimal threshold is not a defensible option. Whenever 25 percent corporate shareholdings trigger beneficial ownership reporting, those who wish to avoid disclosure will list five shareholders, eachhaving 20 percent holdings. And in cases in which the threshold is 20 percent, they will
employ six shareholders with 16.7 percent holdings each. Indirect ownership always isgoing to be employed to ensure that any quantified beneficial ownership system can bebeaten by the highest-risk parties of all, that is, those with a mind to hide their ownership and control.
98

I The Puppet Masters

In one jurisdiction where banks are not required by law or guidance to identify thebeneficial owner of a customer, they typically do not volunteer to do so, even if their
institution does so in other nations where such an obligation is imposed.78
In the matter of establishing beneficial ownership, one factor was frequently cited byparticipants as not receiving enough attention—that is, control of the corporate
vehicle. A lack of screening and vetting of directors, officers, and signatories (the dayto-day controllers of a corporate vehicle or its accounts) is likely to create significant
blind spots in CDD measures, especially when some of those parties are corporate
vehicles rather than natural persons. Learning from experience, banks now require
CDD screening of all signatories to the account (or require that the signatory must bepart of the disclosed ownership and control structure that the bank has alreadyscreened).
Possibly related to the lack of attention to control, the vast majority of participants indicated that the only time they checked whether the natural person seeking to enter intoa business relationship with them was acting on behalf of some other person was inthose instances in which they had suspicion to believe that such was the case.79 It was
not part and parcel of the initial question posed to a prospective client. Complianceofficers indicated that particularly egregious “letter but not the spirit” of the law violations that weaken AML efforts arise when banks are allowed by law to consider anindividual to be (for all intents and purposes) the beneficial owner, even when he or she
is known to be merely a nominee.
Noticeable deficiencies were identified in identification and verification processes,
when an overreliance on data held by the company registry being cross-referenced
against self-certified client-provided data. This situation has the unfortunate effect ofchecking the client’s word as provided to the financial institution against the client’s
word as provided to the company registry. This discrepancy led one compliance officer
from an international institution, in discussing the frequent problem of inadequate
CDD information, to remark: “It’s all built out of a house of cards, ready to tumble overat any minute.”
This is not a hypothetical case—the dangers of overreliance on company registry information were illustrated vividly in a case in South Africa. There, several banks relied oncompromised CIPRO (the South African company registrar) information, to verify thebona fides of members of an international criminal syndicate. According to the CIPRO,
those front men were the authorized representatives of major economic entities andthus able to open bank accounts in the names identical or similar to those companies as
78. Because this was only the case in one jurisdiction, it is too small a sample to draw any inferences fromthis. It may suggest, however, that the impetus for conducting due diligence on the beneficial owner ismerely to be compliant, not because of a concern about being involved in possible money laundering.
79. For some, the willingness of nominees to misrepresent themselves as true beneficial owners has ledthem to conclude that it would be fruitless to implement an across-the-board, yet “toothless,” requirement
for corporate vehicle customers’ representatives to disclose the existence of a nominee relationship.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 99

part of a multimillion-dollar tax refund fraud. The diverted funds were then launderedthrough pseudo-business activities and consulting contracts into further corporate
vehicle accounts.80
Some of the best practices described by interviewees to remedy this reliance on selfcertification involved gathering information on the client from the widest possible
range of resources, for cross-referencing purposes. Financial institutions detailed avariety of checks that they routinely perform in concert. When dealing with an operational entity, for instance, their compliance checks involve looking at credit ratings,
public websites, commercial business websites, and online information about the entities’ business activities, among other sources.
Requests for certain unusual, country-specific corporate vehicles may lead financial
institutions in other countries to decline the business—because of the unfamiliarity of
the legal form. If a particular type of vehicle does not exist in their jurisdiction, relationship managers and compliance officers are unlikely to have the experience needed
to determine the opacity of such entities.81 This is particularly a problem for domestic
banks with a strong presence in only one country. Many of the larger banks have built
up significant know-how on the various corporate vehicles available around the world
by leveraging their global reach and ensuring that their well-resourced legal departments develop dossiers on the corporate vehicles with which they commonly deal.
The internal compliance arms of the larger multinational banks (especially when consolidated under a central command) appear quite effective at detecting possible suspicious
behavior. These banks have, in effect, developed “in-house financial intelligence units,”
which process and analyze the significant amount of voluntarily disclosed informationfrom their customer base and allow them to build intelligence hubs. This process allows
banks to determine patterns of behavior of certain corporate vehicle customer profiles toenable quick identification of outlier cases that merit compliance investigation.
4.4.3 Building a Compliance Culture
Because relationship managers engage in the first meaningful interaction with a prospective client, it falls to them (if the client is a corporate vehicle) to understand theownership and control structure of that client. All the financial institutions participating in this study said it was standard practice within their organization to require
relationship managers to complete AML compliance training on a regular basis. In particular, those who deal with corporate-vehicle clients undergo specialized training
80. See “Hijacking of CIPRO Scares Banks,” Sunday Times, July 4, 2010, available at http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article532123.ece/.
81. For example, one Indian bank refuses to do business with a Liechtenstein Anstalt, regardless of thecircumstances, because they do not understand “what it is, why someone would use it, or what business it
has in India.” For many financial institutions from civil law countries, trust accounts are immediately elevated to high risk, as they are often viewed as inherently alien and thus suspect. Although in such cases therisk of those specific corporate vehicles being misused for money laundering at these particular banks islow, it can hardly be said that this outcome is based on any sort of fact-based risk assessment.
100

I The Puppet Masters

about handling their accounts appropriately, understanding what institutional resources
are available to manage their broader CDD requirements, and meeting their responsibilities for completing due diligence. To help foster accountability, institutions create acomplete client profile that shows what research efforts have been undertaken and whatmonitoring has taken place (including compliance incidents). From time to time, relationship managers are confronted with clients who perceive beneficial ownership due
diligence as being overly intrusive. This perception is considered an issue of decreasing
concern, however, because of the global awareness of money laundering and terrorist
financing issues.
Another issue in obtaining client information is that, in some instances, relationshipmanagers undercut their financial institution’s compliance efforts, whether because
they view compliance as an obstacle to be overcome or, more seriously, because they are
actively circumventing their compliance obligations. Financial institutions and compliance departments may deal with this problem by ensuring that employee performance
evaluations have a strong compliance-oriented component (and thus affect salary) orby undertaking a review of a relationship manager’s entire portfolio upon discovery or
suspicion of a lapse. Such measures may be complementary.
The risk always exists that compliance activity devolves into a box-ticking exercise, inwhich one only verifies the bona fides of (necessarily declared) major shareholders.
Compliance departments try to encourage a focus on detecting indicators that seemout of alignment with the typical profile of an account to which the corporate vehicle
account most naturally corresponds. (This lack of alignment, when something seems
out of place, is often known colloquially as the “smelliness” of an account.) Taken itemby item, these characteristics may seem innocuous, but as a whole, they may be suggestive of undisclosed or concealed control or suspect activity.
To enable better detection of “outliers,” many banks recruit heavily from seasoned investigators with a practice-honed instinct for those money laundering typologies of concern to the financial institution. Compliance processes should be steered away from thefront-end mentality associated with passive corporate registries (in which case assumptions are based on what the client declares to be the case) and toward the back-end
mentality that is shared by investigators seeking to understand the general circumstances of the corporate vehicles’ usage. Instilling this element of judgment into compliance personnel is critical to assessing the true risk of a corporate vehicle.
Client Acceptance Committee
When a relationship manager and a compliance officer cannot agree on, or are
confused about, the true risk level of a client and whether its business is acceptable,most banks pass the decision up to a higher level of responsibility, such as a client
acceptance committee (CAC). Thus, banks seek to ensure that compliance is given
its appropriate place through a variety of accountability measures. Several participants mentioned the friction between the bank’s business and compliance agendas at
this level, and one stated that “bad things happen when business holds the final say,Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 101

and when business strong-arms the compliance department.” Most participants had
overwhelming confidence that such issues could be overcome with a robust AML
policy. Following are some good CAC practices:•

Requiring the unanimous consent of all participating business and compliance
CAC members for the client to be accepted;• Giving the highest-ranking compliance CAC member powers of absolute veto tooverrule acceptance of a client;• Selecting CAC members to represent the business side of the bank who comefrom other account or product lines, thereby ensuring that they gain no direct
benefit from the acceptance and represent a more disinterested, impartial perspective; and• Fostering accountability by requiring face-to-face committee meetings, insteadof allowing back-and-forth e-mail exchanges among CAC members.

4.5 Conclusion and Recommendations
Corporate registries constitute a primary source of information for law enforcement
and other authorities in their search for information on the persons connected to aparticular legal entity. As repositories of certain basic information, they can directly
provide an investigator with useful leads. The value of these registries could be significantly enhanced in at least three ways:•

Online accessibility and online search facilities can save an investigator both timeand effort.
• A shift away from the predominantly archival and passive nature of current registries toward a more proactive attitude, one geared toward enforcing registration
obligations, would increase the accuracy of registry information (although inmost countries this would mean governments would need to make extra resources
available to their registry).
• If certain conditions are met, registries could consider including the identity ofthe beneficial owner.

In addition to corporate registries, other government-held sources of information could
provide useful details about corporate vehicles, including, most notably, the tax authorities and asset disclosures.
Evidence from our database of grand corruption cases shows that TCSPs are often
involved in establishing and managing the corporate vehicles encountered in grandcorruption investigations. The more complex arrangements are rarely establishedwithout an international element. For example, the TCSP may be administering a
corporate vehicle incorporated or formed under the law of a jurisdiction other thanhis or her own, or on behalf of a client resident in another jurisdiction. Although theirlevel of engagement during the life span of a corporate vehicle may vary, TCSPs are
generally in a position to obtain good information on the natural persons ultimately
102

I The Puppet Masterscontrolling the corporate vehicle. Currently, level of compliance by TCSPs is low—
although this varies among countries.
The services provided by financial institutions are crucial to the money laundering
process—without them, it would be impossible to launder funds on a significant scale.
An overview of the flow of funds provides a good indication of the person(s) who arereally in control of the funds. Thus, financial institutions are important sources of
information for investigators seeking to discover evidence of the beneficial owner of
certain funds. The policies established to improve the information available at banks
have had an effect. It is important to ensure that the fact-gathering process by banks
does not degenerate into a box-ticking exercise. In low-risk situations, threshold-based
rules on beneficial ownership might ensure a good minimum level of information, but
in higher-risk situations, principal actors always can beat those thresholds. Possibly
because of the term (beneficial ownership), too much attention is paid to ownershipand equity, at the expense of concentrating on control.

Recommendation 1. Certain basic information on legal entities should bemaintained in corporate registries.
Such basic information must be easily verifiable and unequivocal. At a minimum,
the following information should be maintained:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Entity name (including governmentally unique identifier and alternative
names)
Date of incorporation, formation, or registration
Entity type (for example, LLC, sociedad anónima)
Entity status (for example, active, inactive, dissolved—if inactive or dissolved, date of dissolution and historical records of the company)
Address of the principal office or place of business
Address of the registered office (if different from principal office) or thename and address of the registered agent
Particulars of formal positions of control, that is, directors or managers andofficers (for example, president, secretary)— If a natural person—their full name, any former name, residential address,
nationality, and birth date
— If a corporation—the entity name, address of the principal office, addressof the registered office, and (if applicable) for foreign corporations, theregistered office in its country of origin
History of filings (for example, formation documents, annual returns, financial
filings, change of registered office, change of registered agent, and so on)
Required annual returns that verify the correctness of each particular required
to be filed in the system, even if it has not changed since the last filing dateTo the extent feasible and appropriate, electronic copies of filings and documents associated with the legal entity (for example, formation documents,
annual returns, financial filings, change of registered office, change of registered agent, and so on).

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 103

Recommendation 2. Where feasible, the transition of company registrysystems from passive recipients of data to more active components injurisdictions’ AML regimes is encouraged.
Countries are encouraged to direct more resources to their company registries
to ensure that basic information supplied is compliant with the requirements.
Registries would benefit from implementing a robust ongoing fact-checking
component (even if based solely on statistically significant random sampling);
those that demonstrate an effective capacity to enforce financial penalties orother punitive measures against noncompliant registered legal entities will contribute to improving the accuracy of data. As a result, investigators would have
immediate access to high-quality data rather than the outdated information thatthey are frequently confronted with. Capacity investment in registries theoretically could transform a registry office (to the extent that the jurisdiction does notalready see it as such) into an AML authority in its own right, somewhat akin tohow, in some jurisdictions, securities commissions pursue investigations against
public companies.
Recommendation 3. Jurisdictions should make technological investmentsin their corporate registry systems.
If a registry is to become an efficient AML tool, this development, including the
upgrading of resources specifically for this purpose, needs to be planned carefully. For the least developed jurisdictions, a computerized registry is preferable
to a paper-based one; and an online registry is preferable to a closed-network
one. Such investments not only are desirable from an AML perspective, but also
make the registry more business friendly.
Recommendation 4. For AML purposes, it is important to be able to conduct
Boolean searches in company registries for specific types of information.
Whether a jurisdiction allows its registry to be searchable by supervisory authorities, AML investigators, economic service providers, or the general public, certain search criteria represent the primary starting points by which a lead is pursued. Incorporating a Boolean search feature is a cost-effective measure thatallows for the input of multiple pieces of data and can contribute to efficient
cross-indexing of known information. Registry systems in general therefore
should allow for queries by the following:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

104

Natural persons, by first name or last name (which will retrieve their related
addresses, files, company positions (for example, director), and details of
the companies in question)
Company secretary, registered office, or agent
Shareholders
Addresses
Business activity
Country of registration
Date of registration
Date of incorporation.

I The Puppet Masters

Recommendation 5. Countries should assign unique identifiers to legal entities incorporated within their jurisdiction.
This enables investigators to collect evidence from different domestic agencies
within the jurisdiction (for example, tax, licensing, or municipal authorities) mostefficiently. This is especially pertinent to operational entities, and if the process ofreceiving a unique identifier is sufficiently streamlined, it may be further applicable to all legal entities in the jurisdiction (including foreign legal entities, which
may have only an operational connection or only be administered from that jurisdiction).
Recommendation 6. Trust and company service providers should be held
subject to an effectively enforced AML compliance regime.
Regulation, through licensing and a supervisory authority, currently provides thestrongest assurance that TCSPs comply with AML standards. TCSPs, at least,
should be given clear and explicit AML-oriented obligations, above and beyond
generic standards of professional conduct, to both identify and store beneficial
ownership information of client corporate vehicles. Such an approach will probably require more vigorous and severe enforcement in instances of malfeasanceto serve as a real deterrent to noncompliance.
Recommendation 7. Jurisdictions should ensure that all service providers
to corporate vehicles—whether in establishing them, administering them,or providing financial services to them—collect beneficial ownership information when establishing business relationships.
Given the difficulty in establishing upfront who the beneficial owner is, service
providers should be aware of all persons who appear relevant in relation to acertain corporate vehicle and who may have any bearing on the control or ownership of the corporate vehicle. Obligations should indicate the necessity ofcontinually monitoring relationships and updating information on such “relevant
persons.”
Recommendation 8. Documented particulars of a legal entity’s organization, including those details that indicate beneficial ownership and control,82
should be held physically or electronically within the jurisdiction underwhose laws it has been created.
The root of the problem of the misuse of legal entities is that individuals canform them in foreign jurisdictions. This compels authorities to engage in thecomplicated and often difficult process of a cross-border (rather than domestic)

82. Investigators recommended that, in addition to beneficial ownership information, copies of all banking
documents, as well as all powers granted to non-officers, should be kept at the registered domestic addressof the legal entities, allowing for law enforcement authorities to find all necessary information in one
location.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 105

investigation.83 Mandating that such information be held within reach of law
enforcement’s compulsory powers would make it easier for governments toimmediately access it for all domestic legal entities. Jurisdictions that require
corporate vehicles to be incorporated or administered through TCSPs may
impose such identification and record-keeping obligations on their TCSP sector.
Alternatively, in jurisdictions in which anyone (or any citizen) may incorporate,
the holding of such documents may be mandated for the resident directors or
agents (who may be actual members of the corporate vehicle or, if functioning
as a nominee, TCSPs).
Recommendation 9. Nonresidents forming or subsequently taking beneficial ownership of a legal entity should be required to go through a service
provider operating under the AML compliance regime of the domestic
jurisdiction.
That service provider should be required to collect and hold the standard set of
documents including a certified copy of an ID and proof of address.
Recommendation 10. Jurisdictions should clarify what is and what is notcovered by attorney-client privilege.84
Jurisdictions must settle the question of whether attorney-client privilege extends
to all services rendered by an attorney (solicitor, advocate), or whether it covers
only information obtained in the context of services rendered in relation to any
adversarial processes or litigation, and whether it covers all such information
including the identity of the client. At the least, privilege should cover no morethan the services provided as an advocate and not extend to financial services or
fiduciary advice. Clear penalties should be imposed on those service providers
that are willfully blind to the purpose of the services requested.
Recommendation 11. Jurisdictions should ensure that financial institutions
gather beneficial ownership information and develop and maintain complete beneficial ownership compliance files.
An investigator seeking information from a financial institution (to build a caselinking an account, a corporate vehicle, a person of interest, or any combination
thereof) will want to know when payments are made, where funds are routed
to, who controls the account, and who (if anyone) is controlling that person.
Banks can provide answers to all or some of these queries, if they have implemented a robust compliance regime—one capable of ensuring information on

83. Even when working through chains of TCSPs in different jurisdictions is an effective option, for each
additional link in the chain, costs are inevitable in terms of the time and effort required for authorities toobtain the ownership information. Additionally, there is a danger that TCSPs removed from the originating jurisdiction may renege on earlier commitments to hand over beneficial ownership information.
84. According to investigators, one of the most frequent obstacles to accessing corporate vehicle information (as opposed to its unavailability) is the use of attorney-client privilege to refuse to divulge information
relevant to the ownership and control of a certain corporate vehicle. In some cases, the privilege is advertised by TCSPs explicitly to attract clients. Lawyers indicate that the line between what is and what is notprivileged is not always clear, and that in cases of doubt, they err on the side of the client.
106

I The Puppet Masterscontrol is effectively and consistently identified and maintained in records. The
record-keeping requirement is central. Data such as e-mail correspondence andminutes of business meetings can help compliance officers and law enforcement determine persons of interest in corporate vehicle activity.
Recommendation 12. Jurisdictions should encourage their banks to develop
broad, principle-based compliance policies, as opposed to prescriptive checklist-based policies.
Although bank staff will require a degree of certainty in knowing what rules tofollow, compliance departments should continue to emphasize that due diligence
rules are guidelines, and they are not a mere question of paperwork to be filed
away and forgotten. These rules and guidelines are intended to help staff develop
a deeper understanding of the customer.
Recommendation 13. The objective of financial institutions conducting CDD
should be to ascertain the natural person who has ultimate control over the
corporate vehicle’s accounts.
Financial institutions therefore should always check whether customers are acting on their own behalf or on behalf of others and be sure to screen all signatories
or others who hold a power of attorney over the account. Unexplained beneficiaries of significant amounts may be indicative of outsider control and cause forfurther investigation.
Recommendation 14. Jurisdictions should ensure that their domestic financial institutions have sufficiently independent client acceptance practices.
In their organizational structure, banks should ensure that compliance departments can make their voice heard at the highest managerial level. Once compliance has voiced a concern, relationship managers should not have the final say
in deciding whether to accept a client.

Part 4. Finding the Beneficial Owner

I 107

Appendix A. Compliance withFinancial Action Task Forceon Money Laundering (FATF)
Recommendations 5, 12, 33, and 34

As shown by an evaluation of 159 countries (24 FATF member countries and 135
non-FATF member countries)
Texts of FATF Recommendation 5 and Recommendation 1285
B. MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND NONFINANCIAL BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONS TO PREVENT MONEY LAUNDERINGAND TERRORIST FINANCING
Recommendation 5: Customer Due Diligence and Record-Keeping
Financial institutions should not keep anonymous accounts or accounts in obviously
fictitious names.
Financial institutions should undertake customer due diligence measures, including
identifying and verifying the identity of their customers when
• establishing business relations;• carrying out occasional transactions: (i) above the applicable designated threshold; or (ii) that are wire transfers in the circumstances covered by the Interpretative Note to Special Recommendation VII;
• there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing; or• the financial institution has doubts about the veracity or adequacy of previously
obtained customer identification data.
The customer due diligence (CDD) measures to be taken are as follows:(a) Identifying the customer and verifying that customer’s identity using reliable,
independent source documents, data or information.86
85. Financial Action Task Force, “The 40 Recommendations,” Recommendations 5 and 12 available atwww.fatf_gafi.org/dataoecd/7/40/34849567.pdf.
86. Reliable, independent source documents, data or information will hereafter be referred to as “identification data.”

(b) Identifying the beneficial owner, and taking reasonable measures to verify theidentity of the beneficial owner such that the financial institution is satisfied thatit knows who the beneficial owner is. For legal persons and arrangements thisshould include financial institutions taking reasonable measures to understandthe ownership and control structure of the customer.
(c) Obtaining information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship.
(d) Conducting ongoing due diligence on the business relationship and scrutiny oftransactions undertaken throughout the course of that relationship to ensure thatthe transactions being conducted are consistent with the institution’s knowledgeof the customer, their business and risk profile, including, where necessary, thesource of funds.
Financial institutions should apply each of the CDD measures under (a) to (d) above,but may determine the extent of such measures on a risk sensitive basis depending on
the type of customer, business relationship or transaction. The measures that are taken
should be consistent with any guidelines issued by competent authorities. For higherrisk categories, financial institutions should perform enhanced due diligence. In certain
circumstances, where there are low risks, countries may decide that financial institutions can apply reduced or simplified measures.
Financial institutions should verify the identity of the customer and beneficial owner
before or during the course of establishing a business relationship or conducting transactions for occasional customers. Countries may permit financial institutions to complete the verification as soon as reasonably practicable following the establishment of
the relationship, where the money laundering risks are effectively managed and where
this is essential in order not to interrupt the normal conduct of business.
Where the financial institution is unable to comply with paragraphs (a) to (c) above, it
should not open the account, commence business relations or perform the transaction;or should terminate the business relationship; and should consider making a suspicioustransactions report in relation to the customer.
These requirements should apply to all new customers, though financial institutions should
also apply this Recommendation to existing customers on the basis of materiality and risk,
and should conduct due diligence on such existing relationships at appropriate times.
Recommendation 12: Customer Due Diligence and Record-Keeping
The customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements set out in Recommendations 5, 6, and 8 to 11 apply to designated non-financial businesses and professions in
the following situations:(a) Casinos—when customers engage in financial transactions equal to or above theapplicable designated threshold.
(b) Real-estate agents—when they are involved in transactions for their client concerning the buying and selling of real estate.
110

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE A.1

FATF Recommendation 5
FATF Recommendation 5a
All Evaluated Countries (159)
Largely
compliant, 6%

Noncompliant,
41%
Partially
compliant, 53%

FATF Recommendation 5
FATF Member Countriesb
Noncompliant,17%

Largely
compliant, 12%Partially
compliant, 71%

FATF Recommendation 5
Non-FATF Countries (135)c
Largely
compliant, 5%

Noncompliant,
45%

Partially
compliant, 50%

Source: Authors’ compilation and illustration.
Note: FATF = Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.
a. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.
b. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.
c. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.
Compliance with Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) Recommendations 5, 12, 33, and 34

I111

(c) Dealers in precious metals and dealers in precious stones—when they engage inany cash transaction with a customer equal to or above the applicable designatedthreshold.
(d) Lawyers, notaries, other independent legal professionals and accountants—when
they prepare for or carry out transactions for their client concerning the following activities:• Buying and selling of real estate;• Managing of client money, securities or other assets;• Management of bank, savings or securities accounts;• Organisation of contributions for the creation, operation or management ofcompanies;• Creation, operation or management of legal persons or arrangements, andbuying and selling of business entities.
(e) Trust and company service providers—when they prepare for or carry outtransactions for a client concerning the activities listed in the definition in the
Glossary.
Texts of FATF Recommendation 33 and Recommendation 34
C. INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER MEASURES NECESSARY IN SYSTEMS FORCOMBATING MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING
Recommendation 33: Use of Legal Persons; Beneficial OwnershipCountries should take measures to prevent the unlawful use of legal persons by money
launderers. Countries should ensure that there is adequate, accurate and timely information on the beneficial ownership and control of legal persons that can be obtained oraccessed in a timely fashion by competent authorities. In particular, countries that havelegal persons that are able to issue bearer shares should take appropriate measures toensure that they are not misused for money laundering and be able to demonstrate theadequacy of those measures. Countries could consider measures to facilitate access tobeneficial ownership and control information to financial institutions undertaking therequirements set out in Recommendation 5.
Recommendation 34: Transparency for Legal Arrangements/Trusts
Countries should take measures to prevent the unlawful use of legal arrangements bymoney launderers. In particular, countries should ensure that there is adequate,
accurate and timely information on express trusts, including information on the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries, that can be obtained or accessed in a timely fashion bycompetent authorities. Countries could consider measures to facilitate access to beneficial ownership and control information to financial institutions undertaking therequirements set out in Recommendation 5.

112 I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE A.2

FATF Recommendation 12
FATF Recommendation 12
All Evaluated Countries (159)a
Largely
compliant, 1%

Partially
compliant, 28%
Noncompliant,71%

FATF Recommendation 12b
FATF member Countries (24)

Noncompliant,
58%

Partially
compliant, 42%

FATF Recommendation 12c
Non-FATF Countries (135)
Largely
compliant, 1%

Noncompliant,73%

Partially
compliant, 26%

Source: Authors’ compilation and illustration.
Note: FATF = Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.
a. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.
b. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ or ‘largely compliant’ and these classifications do not appear in the figure.
c. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.

Compliance with Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) Recommendations 5, 12, 33, and 34

I

113

FIGURE A.3

FATF Recommendation 33
FATF Recommendation 33
All Evaluated Countries (159)
Compliant, 7%
Largely
compliant,15%

Noncompliant,25%

Partially
compliant, 53%

FATF Recommendation 33
FATF member Countries (24)Compliant, 4%
Largely
compliant,9%
Noncompliant,33%

Partially
compliant, 54%

FATF Recommendation 33
Non-FATF Countries (135)Compliant, 7%

Noncompliant,24%

Largely
compliant,16%

Partially
compliant, 52%

Source: Authors’ compilation and illustration.
Note: FATF = Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.

114 I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE A.4

FATF Recommendation 34
FATF Recommendation 34
All Evaluated Countries (159)
Compliant, 9%
Largely
compliant,21%

Noncompliant,36%

Partially
compliant, 34%

FATF Recommendation 34
FATF member Countries (24)aLargely
compliant,7%
Noncompliant,21%

Partially
compliant, 72%

FATF Recommendation 34
Non-FATF Countries (135)Compliant, 10%Noncompliant,38%

Largely
compliant,24%

Partially
compliant, 28%

Source: Authors’ compilation and illustration.
Note: FATF = Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering.
a. No countries are classified as ‘compliant’ and this classification does not appear in the figure.

Compliance with Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) Recommendations 5, 12, 33, and 34

I

115

Appendix B. The Five Component
Projects: Methodology andSummary of Findings

Project 1. The Grand Corruption Database Project
1.1 Background
For the Grand Corruption Database Project, 213 grand corruption investigations
involving public officials or those with the ability to wield significant power or political influence were examined. These investigations originated from 80 different countries around the world. Initial inquiries revealed 150 instances of the involvement ofat least one corporate vehicle that concealed, at least in part, beneficial ownership. In
these 150 cases, the approximate total proceeds of corruption amounted to approximately US$56.4 billion, with 15 cases each involving less than US$1 million, 67 cases
involving between US$1 million and US$20 million, and 68 cases involving morethan US$20 million.87
1.2 Methodology
Certain parameters were set to determine which cases would be considered to constitute a “grand corruption case involving the misuse of corporate vehicles.” The
scheme must have included the misuse of at least one corporate vehicle for which acase could be made that it was used, at least in part, for the anonymity it offered to its
beneficial owners. The focus was on those corrupt parties who wanted to obscuretheir involvement by using a corporate vehicle rather than on those who only sought
to use legal features of the corporate vehicle to shield themselves from taxation liabilities or protect their assets. Three additional constraints were placed on the candidate pool. The scheme must have involved a high-level public official or politically
exposed person or other party who was able to wield significant influence over apolitical or bureaucratic process to effect the scheme. Furthermore, the databaseused a wide time horizon going back 30 years to 1980 to allow for possible analysis oftrends over time. Finally, the scheme under consideration must have involved the
87. These numbers represent our approximation; where the most precise data available involved a range ofsuspected corrupt proceeds, we deferred to the lower end of the spectrum. The moneys referenced here
represent both misappropriated public assets (by outright theft or the self-dealing of government contracts
outside of accepted government norms) and such private funds as were received in breach of public officials’ fiduciary duties to their nation (for example, bribes, kickbacks, misuse of position, etc.).

equivalent of more than US$1 million (at the time of the scheme). A few exceptions
to this rule were admitted, including instances in which the scheme was particularly
expansive or innovative, or when a sum failed to meet the US$1million threshold but
represented a real purchasing power in the particular jurisdiction’s economy that wasdisproportionately greater than what US$1million would have represented in otherparts of the world.
Information on the selected cases was first gathered through publicly available secondary sources, including Internet search engines, academic literature, and reports fromnational and international bodies pertaining to anticorruption. Subsequently, court
documents and other government-sanctioned documents (for example, official government press releases and investigatory hearing reports) were sought to supplement
and confirm the information initially gathered. Although many of these documents
were obtained through legal research resources,88 substantial outreach was conducted
to secure relevant documentation through contacts, such as prosecutors and attorneys
involved in the cases, World Bank country offices, anticorruption agencies, and local
courthouses.89
In a significant number of instances, the information-gathering process revealed thataccess to documents (even when purportedly in the public domain) proved for various reasons to be limited and difficult. In a few jurisdictions, the relevant court did not
publish the decision sought. For example, upon conducting outreach to various
regional experts for a particular lower court decision, the team was informed thatlower court decisions were not published in that country. Also, in attempting to accesscourt documents from another case, an attorney informed the team that the courts inthat country generally did not publish and distribute public decisions, and that despite
the existence of a Freedom of Information Act, accessing the documents from a courthouse could be challenging. In other instances, access to court documents was constrained by surrounding political sensitivities. Finally, court documents for someother cases were simply not available because litigation was ongoing or proceedings
were closed to the public. These factors impeded the team’s pursuit of court documents in several instances. Because of the lack of access in other venues (or lack of
relevant language skills on the team), most of the cases studied have been documented
or reported on in English (and Spanish, French, German, and Chinese to a lesser
extent) with a substantial proportion being U.S. and U.K. documents. It is arguablethat the U.S. and U.K. bias originates in part from the significant number of criminaland civil legal actions against instances of grand corruption have taken place in thesejurisdictions. This also goes some way towards explaining the high incidence of thosejurisdictions in table B.3. Despite these hurdles, persistent outreach efforts generally
proved fruitful. Most prosecutors and other attorneys contacted were willing to assist
in the outreach process, whether it was by providing court documents, by leading theteam to an alternative contact, or by directly offering valuable insight into their experiences working on grand corruption cases.
88. For example, LexisNexis, the World Bank Law Library, and the (U.S.) Law Library of Congress.
89. Each such outreach effort was tracked and recorded for future reference.

118

I The Puppet MastersBecause it often takes a number of years before suspicion of corruption surfaces, andthen years more before cases are finally tried, the documentary trail often referred to
conduct that predated the documents by several years. In that sense, a database that
relies solely on official documentation is bound to be a reflection of a much earlier
reality. Cases were included in which a public official may not have been convicted,
but in which judicial confirmation of the misuse of a corporate vehicle acknowledged
the element or specter of grand corruption. In cases in which final court decisions(not contradicted by legal actions in other jurisdictions) cleared the relevant officialsof all wrongdoing, such cases were not deemed to fall within the purview of the study
and thus were excluded.
In populating the database, where possible, the exact form (name, entity type, andjurisdiction) of each legal entity or arrangement was recorded and then categorized
into streamlined types of entities based on their characteristics. It was not possible toascertain the jurisdiction of all of corporate vehicles and bank accounts used. Thiswas most often due to a lack of specificity in the relevant source documents. Two of
the most common scenarios faced in this matter involve a lack of specificity regarding “companies” and “trusts.” Often, court documents implicated a “company” in ajurisdiction that has several variations; without any other independent evidence as towhich type of company the courts might have been specifying. In the matter of trusts,
these legal arrangements were sometimes specified as being of a certain jurisdiction,
but not in many instances. Additionally, many jurisdictions have both common-law
and codified variations; again, in the absence of specific evidence, we made no
assumptions.
Cases for which evidence of corporate vehicle misuse was not available were excluded
from the cases selected; consequently, some of the more sensational and universallyknown cases of grand corruption were not included in the database, as details of thecorporate vehicle misuse were not discovered in the preliminary data-gathering
attempts. This does not necessarily mean that corporate vehicles were not used in thosecases. A conscious effort to seek cases from all geographic areas (especially in the latterstages of research) means that the 150 cases were not entirely “at random.” This wasdeemed necessary when considering that certain money laundering typologies may be
more prevalent (or potentially only occur) in specific regional settings, and such potential omissions outweighed any concern for producing a scientifically rigorous testing
method. As with any study based on criminal cases, the data on which the analysis
relied may not fully reflect all of the aspects of the relevant criminal behavior and thefull extent of the scheme, and we have attempted to give an honest accounting of theextent to which pragmatism and expediency have factored into our findings.
Such caveats notwithstanding, the information was digested and categorized to identify
trends among the cases and to test hypotheses regarding correlations between factors.
A sizable number of factors were logged, pertaining to, among other things, the jurisdictions of the parties, corporate vehicles, and bank accounts involved, the particularanonymity- and complexity-enhancing methods employed, and the extent to whichinvestigation and prosecution were pursued and effected.
The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 1191.3 Summary of Findings
TABLE B.1

Grand Corruption Cases Database: Case Summary
Field Names

Case NameCountry of Public Official
Year scheme beganYear scheme ended
Position of Public Official during scheme
Asset amount in U.S. dollars
Description
Type of illicit activity involving Public Official
Impediments to investigation
Most recent legal action against Public Official?
Other legal action / other prosecutions
Is there a pending case or appeal?
Jurisdiction(s) of legal action
Sources
Source: Authors’ compilation.

TABLE B.2

Grand Corruption Cases Database: Corporate Vehicles
Field Names

Case Name
Corporate Vehicle (CV) Name
Jurisdiction of CV Incorporation
Actual legal form of CV type per jurisdiction (e.g., Sociedad anónima, Anstalt, Stiftung, Aktiengesellschaft, etc.)
CV type: corporation, trust, foundation, limited liability company, or partnership
Shell entity?
Nonprofit?
Beneficial Owner (BO)BO relationship to Public Official: self, nominee, front man, corporate, unknown
Legal Owner (LO)LO relationship to Public Official: self, nominee, front man, corporate, unknown
Manager of CV(continued next page)120

I The Puppet Masters

TABLE B.2

Grand Corruption Cases Database: Corporate Vehicles(continued)

Manager relationship to Public Official: self, nominee, front man, corporate, unknown
CV established by public official, professional intermediary, or front man?
Year of CV incorporation
CV same jurisdiction as Public Official?
Jurisdiction of Bank Account (bank name, account name)Bank same jurisdiction as Public Official?
Bank same jurisdiction as CV?
CV use or role
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Table B.3 shows the key statistics of the database as finally compiled.
TABLE B.3

Grand Corruption Case Database—Key Statistics

Total No. of Cases

150

Total funds estimated

US$ 56.4 billion

Total No. of Corporate Vehicles (CVs)817

Total number of persons charged

118c

to be involveda
Transnational112bschemes
Jurisdictions of

and/or convicted
Jurisdiction

incorporation for

No. of CVs

Jurisdiction

incorporated

No. of CVs
incorporated

the entities involved(Top 20)
United Statesd

102

Bermuda12

British Virgin Islands

91

Jersey12Panama50

Cyprus11

Liechtenstein

28

Indonesia

8

Bahamas27

Tanzania

8

United Kingdom

24

Trinidad

8& Tobago
Hong Kong SAR, China

24

United Arab

8

Emirates
Nigeria

20

India

7

South Africa

16Isle of Man

7

Cayman Islands

15

Switzerland

7(continued next page)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 121

TABLE B.3

Grand Corruption Case Database—Key Statistics (continued)

Types of entities

Type of entity

No. of entities

involvedin database
Company (e.g., corporation, LLC, sociedad anónima, etc.)

593

Trust

43

Foundation

40

Partnership

9

Unidentified/Misc.
Bank accountJurisdiction

No. of CVs with

132
Jurisdiction

No. of CVs withjurisdiction

account in thisaccount in this(Top 10)location

location

107

Cyprus

Switzerland

76

Hong Kong SAR, China

14

United19

Antigua and Barbuda

11

17

Jersey11

UnitedStates15eKingdom
Nigeria
BahamasCases with

72f

Intermediaries

18
Cases with
Lawyers

Liechtenstein

10

32g

10

Cases with
Bearer Shares

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: a. Taking the low-end estimate in cases in which an estimated range of amounts was involved.
b. Cases were also considered transnational schemes where it was known that bribe funds originated from a jurisdiction that diﬀeredfrom that of the public oﬃcial(s).
c. Includes prosecution, civil suit, plea agreement, and indictment.
d. Top ﬁve U.S. states for CV incorporation: Florida (20 CVs); California (18 CVs); New York (13 CVs); Delaware (13 CVs); Maryland (6 CVs).
e. Top ﬁve U.S. states for CV bank accounts: Florida (31 accounts); New York (16 accounts); California (16 accounts); District ofColumbia (3 accounts); Virginia (3 accounts). U.S. Virgin Islands (3 accounts) and Louisiana (3 accounts).
f. Professional service provider that either established a corporate vehicle or held positions of ownership or management throughnominee services; of the 150 cases, 59 had insuﬃcient information to deﬁnitively determine if an intermediary was involved.
g. Professional legal advisor, solicitor, or attorney who either established a corporate vehicle or held positions of ownership ormanagement.

Project 2. The Bank Beneficial Ownership Project
2.1 Background
The purpose of this study was to gain a clearer insight into the procedures banks use toestablish beneficial ownership when providing financial services to corporate clients.
The views of banks were solicited on the extent to which they can and do determine
beneficial ownership, what methods they employ, and how those methods might be
improved upon or what other parties could do to ensure that the information banks
obtain is of a higher quality.

122

I The Puppet Masters

The perspective of financial institutions was considered especially valuable in informing this report and in particular, on the contentious matters of the beneficial ownershipissue and its place in global standards. Since the adoption of the Financial Action Task
Force on Money Laundering (FATF) 40 Recommendations in 2003, regulatory reforms
that were designed to bring financial sectors into compliance were among the firstchanges to be adopted. As a result, implementing beneficial ownership measures forcorporate vehicles has improved significantly according to practitioners, although as
yet only 3 out of the 31 FATF member countries evaluated obtained a “Largely compliant” rating for Recommendation 5 (which deals with this matter).
2.2 Methodology
To gain practitioners’ insight, a multifaceted questionnaire was devised (see figure B.1).
It went through several rounds of revision in consultation with anti-money laundering(AML) and regulatory enforcement experts. The questionnaire touches on many aspectsof the beneficial ownership issue. In particular, the project team sought to explore what
the banks consider to be their beneficial ownership obligations (imposed by their jurisdictions and by the banks themselves) and how these obligations play out in practice,from the initial contact with a client and throughout any subsequent ongoing business
relationship. The questionnaire examined the structures of the banks’ client evaluation,
monitoring, and review processes and sought technical insight into how these processes handle complex corporate vehicle–related scenarios.
Although the questionnaire provided data on how a certain number of global actors
dealt with the beneficial ownership issue, it was primarily intended to facilitate a
dialogue, to be held at a later time, between the banks’ compliance practitioners andthe project team. After receiving clearance or acknowledgment from each jurisdiction’s financial intelligence unit or central bank, invitations were sent to 11 nations
that were either commonly known as major players in the global (or specific regional)
financial systems or whose financial systems frequently were mentioned in the Database Project. In each jurisdiction, input was sought from two or three separate financial institutions to (a) take into account the fact that different banks have different
market focuses and risk probabilities and (b) identify inconsistent understandingsof, or approaches to, shared regulatory obligations. All invited parties accepted theinvitation, and 50 compliance personnel from 25 individual banks participated in
the exercise.
Upon receipt of the completed questionnaires, interviews were conducted to clarify theanswers received and pursue relevant lines of inquiry more thoroughly. To promotefrank exchanges, the project team attempted to visit as many of the participating personnel for face-to-face interviews as was feasible. In the end, such meetings occurredwith participants from 8 of the 11 jurisdictions. All other interviews were conducted by
telephone or videoconference. Given the various sensitivities involved, all participants
were guaranteed confidentiality as to the specifics of their contributions to further facilitate a candid exchange.

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 123

FIGURE B.1

Questionnaire: Financial Institutions’ Rules on Beneficial
Ownership and Their Implementation

Organization: ________________________________
Position/Title: ________________________________
Number of years working on anti-money laundering (AML)/combating the financing
of terrorism (CFT) issues: _______________________
City, country: ________________________________
Date: _______________________________________

Please note that for the purposes of this questionnaire:• The term business relationship refers to any and all activities or arrangements thatyour financial institution can engage in, with, or on behalf of a client where KnowYour Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence (CDD) protocols apply(including, but not limited to, account opening and service, management activities, one-time transactions, etc.).
• The term legal entity refers to any organizations that, for legal purposes are considered capable of engaging in activities and transactions in their own right, separate
from any natural person who owns them.
• The term trust refers to all arrangements properly so-called and similar arrangements that separate legal and beneficial title to an asset.
• To “identify” a person refers to the process of ascertaining the identity of a person
without obtaining further documentation.
• To “verify” the identity of a person refers to the process of using documentation,
typically government-issued, to confirm the identity information.
• “Independent verification” refers to the process of conducting verification basedon documentation not supplied by clients or their representatives.
For each question, please select all answers that apply, and feel free to alter the length of
the response space as required for your answer:
1. Does domestic legislation require, as a part of the customer due diligence process,that financial institutions have procedures for identifying the beneficial owner(s)when establishing a business relationship with a client?
Yes
Laws and regulations do not require it, but our internal policies do
It is not required by laws, regulations, or internal policies(continued)

124

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.1(continued)

2. How does domestic legislation define beneficial owner for the purposes of your institution’s customer due diligence process?
The physical person(s) who own or control the legal entity
The physical person(s) who enjoy the benefits of owning the security or property,
regardless of whose name the title is in
Any physical person directly or indirectly holding more than ___percent (pleaseprovide) of the shares in a company or able to exercise equivalent control
Other (please describe if ownership or control is specified differently or beyond
the above):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Does domestic legislation define beneficial owner in a sufficiently specific manner for
you to be able to apply it in practice? Or has your institution (or the group it belongsto) further clarified or expanded upon that definition? If so, how?
The definition of beneficial owner in domestic legislation is sufficiently specific toallow direct applicability
The definition of beneficial owner in domestic legislation is, on its own, not sufficiently specific to allow direct applicability. However, jurisdictional guidance (please
identify the authority providing guidance) has clarified beneficial ownership tomean:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our institution has defined beneficial owner as (please provide institutional
definition):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What measures (e.g., asking the client, requiring evidentiary documentation and/or
client-signed declaration, checking publicly available information, etc.) does yourinstitution use to determine beneficial ownership? If utilized, how helpful do you
find publicly available information (such as that found in corporate registries) in
identifying beneficial ownership?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 125

FIGURE B.1(continued)

5. Does your financial institution update beneficial ownership information? If yes, howdoes it go about doing so?
No
Only in certain circumstances (please specify circumstances and explain how):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Yes (please explain how):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Does your institution use a Risk-Based Approach to modify beneficial ownershipprocedures? If so, please explain: (1) What factors are used to classify those business
relationships with legal entities or trusts into different risk levels? (2) Which CDD
measures for determining beneficial ownership are affected by this classification? and(3) What percentage of business relationships typically fall into each classification?
No
Yes (please describe):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. When starting a new business relationship with a client that is a legal entity or representing a trust, are there any situations in which your institution does not identify thebeneficial owner(s) (e.g., when an intermediary, such as a lawyer or TCSP, vouches
that they have satisfactorily identified the beneficial owner)?
No
Yes (please describe):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. If domestic legislation or your institution’s internal policies require the identificationof beneficial owner(s) of clients that are legal entities, does the requirement apply toall such clients or only to some (e.g., high-risk business relationships or other specificcategories)?
Not required
All client business relationships in the name of legal entities
Only some business relationships in the name of legal entities (please specify):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(continued)

126

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.1(continued)

9. Which parties to trusts (beneficiaries or otherwise, e.g., settlor, trustee or protector)
does your domestic legislation or your institution’s internal policies require you to
identify? Is this requirement applied to all such clients or only some (e.g., requiredfor high-risk business relationships, not required for unit trusts, etc.)?
Required to identify all client business relationships in the name of trusts. Please
specify which parties to trusts—beneficiary or otherwise: e.g., settlor, trustee orprotector—your domestic legislation or your institution’s internal policies require
you to identify:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Only required to identify when engaged in business relationships in the nameof certain trusts (please specify which). Please specify which parties to trusts(beneficiary or otherwise—e.g., settlor, trustee or protector) your domestic
legislation or your institution’s internal policies require you to identify:____________________________________________________________________
10. When establishing a business relationship, does your institution always determine if
this relationship is being established on behalf of someone other than the personwith whom your institution is dealing? If so, how?
No
Only if there is reason to believe that outside parties are involved
Yes (please explain how):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
11. When dealing with an intermediary acting on behalf of a principal or corporate
legal entity, does your institution verify the existence of the power of attorney?
Yes, by requiring the original power of attorney or a certified/notarized copy
Yes, by requiring a uncertified/non-notarized copy of the power of attorney
Yes, by asking the intermediary if he or she has valid power of attorney to act onbehalf of the legal entity (with no further documentation required)
Other (please explain):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. In what cases does domestic legislation or your institution’s internal policies require
your institution to verify information on the identity of the beneficial owner(s) provided by clients?
All cases
None(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 127

FIGURE B.1(continued)

Only some cases (e.g., higher-risk business relationships, foreign business relationships; please specify and describe):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. What types of information, documents, or requisite courses of actions does yourinstitution typically request in order to verify information on the identity of thebeneficial owner(s) provided by clients?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. In what cases does domestic legislation or your institution’s internal policies oblige
your institution to conduct independent verification of the information on the identity of the beneficial owner(s) provided by clients?
All cases
None
Only some cases (e.g., higher-risk business relationships, foreign business relationships; please specify and describe):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. What considerations are used to determine whether your institution needs togather additional information on the identity of the beneficial owner fromclients?
When we doubt or are dissatisfied with the information provided
When the legal entity is considered higher-risk or suspicious (please explain):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Other situations (please explain):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. What sources and types of information does your institution typically use to conduct independent verification of the information on beneficial ownership provided
by clients?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(continued)

128

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.1(continued)

17. Does your institution conduct any extra checks on the authenticity of foreign documentation (e.g., articles of incorporation, registration documents, and powers of
attorney)? If so, what types of checks?
No, it is impossible for us to do thisWe try to do so when we know a counterpart in another country who can help us
We verify the authenticity of the foreign license and certificate of registration of
the legal entity or trust
We verify whether the entity is regulated
Other (please explain):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. Are there any particular jurisdictions or particular types of legal entities, trusts, orother contractual arrangements that commonly or always pose a challenge in termsof identifying the beneficial owner(s)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19. Approximately how often does your institution decide not to establish a business
relationship because you are not satisfied you have identified the beneficial owner?
Very rarely (1–2 times a year)
Rarely (3–6 times a year)
Sometimes (1–2 times a month)
Often (several times a month)
Very often (daily)
20. If domestic legislation requires you to identify beneficial ownership, does yourcountry’s supervisory authority for financial institutions assess compliance with thisrequirement during onsite inspections?
Yes, that is a standard component of onsite inspections
Yes, but only rarelyNo
21. Has your institution ever been subject to supervisory action (in the form of warning
letters, fines, etc.) for noncompliance with this requirement? If so, please describe any
supervisory or internal remedial actions that have been implemented as a result.
No
Yes (please describe):________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 129

FIGURE B.1(continued)

22. How much time do you estimate is spent by staff at your institution on seeking accurate beneficial ownership information on potential or existing clients (including ongoing CDD in the case of continuing business relationships)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Do you think the time spent on CDD to verify identification of beneficial ownershipis useful in reducing the risk of AML/CFT-related financial crimes?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24. Broadly speaking, based on your experiences as a compliance officer in dealing
with AML/CFT issues, can you think of any modifications to your jurisdiction’s
legislation or your institution’s beneficial ownership procedures that could improve
effectiveness?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
25. Broadly speaking, based on your experiences as a compliance officer in dealing with
AML/CFT issues, can you think of any modifications to the international standards
regarding beneficial ownership identification that could improve effectiveness?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
26. What are the most vexing and/or recurrent obstacles that your institution experiences when identifying beneficial ownership of legal entities and/or trusts, and what
are the most common situations in which these issues arise?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27. Please describe any “good practices” that your financial institution applies whenidentifying beneficial ownership of legal entities and/or trusts:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your participation. Please return the completed questionnaire to Emilevan der Does de Willebois, Task Team Leader of the Project.
130

I The Puppet Masters

Once we have compiled the responses from all participants, we will contact you toarrange a face-to-face or videoconference interview in order to discuss our findings andseek your feedback. If permitted at your financial institution, we would appreciate it if
you would attach copies of the relevant Customer Due Diligence and Beneficial Ownership Identification guidelines that your institution operates. While not necessary forcompletion of this survey, such material would be used to help ensure that the matters
discussed during our interview are germane.

***
2.3 Summary of Findings
Questions 1–3: Beneficial Ownership Standards•

The participating compliance personnel stated that the laws of their nation, withthe exception of one jurisdiction, require that measures be taken to ascertain thebeneficial owner of corporate vehicles in all instances of entering into relationships with corporate vehicle clients. In the exceptional nation, such measures are
only deemed necessary in certain circumstances.
• All compliance personnel reported that in their jurisdictions the beneficial owneris considered to refer only to natural persons; however, two participants (from thesame jurisdiction) indicated that, contrary to the FATF definition, their national
industry standard allows for corporate persons to be considered beneficial owners. Beneficial ownership standards imposed by government, industry, or the
institution generally focus on a percentage threshold (most typically in the 20 to25 percent range) of ownership or control rights (for example, shareholdings orvoting rights in a company). All compliance personnel felt that their institutions
have sufficient guidance on the topic of beneficial ownership, although quite afew expressed the opinion that, within countries, the standards applied may vary
widely among institutions. International banks are the most likely to have broad,self-imposed beneficial ownership definitions, subject to adjustment via a riskbased assessment of the customer.
Questions 4–9, 12–18: Beneficial Ownership Data-Gathering and Verification•

Banks said they rely on client-provided evidence to a significant extent. Most
stress, however, that they do not rely on that alone, but rather seek to have collaborative and corroborating evidence available from multiple sources.
• Compliance officers enthusiastically endorsed the idea of Disclosure Forms(whether provided directly to the bank or to a government registry to which thebank has access). Beneficial ownership forms are well thought of, with the caveat
that, to avoid accidental misrepresentation, they must be comprehensible to theclient and furthermore should be based on the percentage threshold definition of
beneficial ownership (usually 25 percent). Consequently, many potential customers that are corporate vehicles do not have beneficial owners in this more technical sense (be that by natural or illicit circumstance), resulting in no such information being gathered. Participants in one nation have full access to shareholders
The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 131

•

•

•

•

132

and directors holdings that domestic companies must file with the government,
giving them much more detail than the more standard (although still uncommon
among practitioners) beneficial ownership forms.
Participants reported that company registries are much relied on to cross-checkclient-provided data. Domestic registries are highly regarded across the board.
This is sometimes because of the quantity or quality of information they contain;
in other cases, however, it is because they provide easier access to whatever materials they contain, in contrast to foreign registries, which may be difficult to identify or access. Banks with a multinational presence often have less of a problem
with foreign corporate vehicles, as (depending on their company’s presence in thejurisdiction) they can rely on a sister bank in a foreign nation to forward the relevant information obtained from registry checks. They can sometimes rely on
additional “local banker” knowledge about particulars or persons involved.
Although other sources (credit checks, company websites, professional references, or hired investigators) are used to varying degrees, company registries
are, for all financial institutions, the primary source of non-client-provided ownership and control information.
Risk-based assessment typically involving politically exposed persons, high networth persons, at-risk jurisdictions, and at-risk industries is widely used by financial institutions around the globe. Atypical transactional activity is also used as arisk indicator, with some larger financial institutions monitoring the businessvolume, account turnover, and other transactional activities of corporate vehicles.
These institutions compare the activities of corporate vehicles with industry
benchmarks or medians based on other companies of similar size and profile
with whom they conduct business. For most banks, risk-based assessment islauded as the most efficient way to thwart money laundering; it also appears to be
the key factor in going above and beyond nationally mandated standards of customer identification in due diligence efforts.
Trust identification standards are far more rigorous among the majority of banks
who are willing to conduct business with international or foreign trusts. Smalleror primarily domestic banks from civil law jurisdictions indicated that accepting
such trusts as clients is typically the exception rather than the rule. (A minority
expressed the same concerns about foundations, referring to the legally codified
variants of such, rather than the generic nonprofits that may also be referenced by
the term). Many compliance personnel indicated that the concept of a beneficial
owner is a poor choice for a trust client, as beneficially interested parties are (typically) different parties than trust controllers or power-holders (that is, the persons
who would seem most likely to misuse the account). All banks indicated a need to
identify declared settlors, trustees, beneficiaries, and power-holders as well as aneed to ascertain the source of funds or wealth of the declared settlors. None mentioned concerns about “economic settlors” (those persons not legally affiliatedwith a trust, but who nevertheless contribute assets to the legal arrangement).
Requirements to verify documents independently generally were found to beunderwhelming and to rely primarily on government registries. When these prove
unavailable, “sighted” or copied corporate vehicle documentation (of a foreign legal
person or arrangement) is usually accepted, on the condition that it is a notarized,
I The Puppet Masterscertified true copy. Many participants complained about a lack of materials enablingthem to confirm client-provided evidence. In fact, those banks that press further
indicated that they seldom can be certain that they hold irrefutable, conclusive
proof of a (corporate vehicle) customer’s beneficial ownership. Instead, they seek
comfort by tracing as many unrelated streams of information on the client as can befound, to ensure that the client is presenting a coherent story to all such sources.
Questions 10–11: Verifying the Credentials or Relationship of the Face-to-Face
Client Representative• When faced with a properly credentialed corporate vehicle representative, fewbanks inquire whether that person ultimately is acting on behalf of (in the beneficial interest of) an undisclosed party. The most common reason given is that, whenbanks review the credentials presented, such standing usually becomes apparent.
A few compliance officers indicate that “straw men” account openers (and theoccasional unscrupulous intermediary) are of the mind-set to misrepresent themselves as not acting for an undisclosed party. In other words, they will have comein prepared to lie, no matter what questions they may be asked. In one particularjurisdiction, the financial institutions indicate that national guidance was such thatthey are allowed to consider the individual before them to be the “beneficial owner”
of the account no matter what parties actually own or control the corporate vehicle
that he or she is representing—just as long as legal authority is clearly established.
• Generally, any time a party exercises power through a power of attorney over an
account, the power of attorney is scrutinized thoroughly, it must be properly
notarized, and a copy is kept on file. Recognizing the potential for misuse of powers of attorney to obscure ownership and control to gain access to and control offinancial accounts, several compliance personnel state that their institutions do
not accept general, all-purpose, or overbroad power-of-attorney holders as signatories on a corporate vehicle account (except those who are regulated trust andcompany service providers from acceptable jurisdictions).
Questions 19: Refusal to Begin Customer Relationships• Few institutions keep records of such data, and most contributors supply estimates that are in all cases very low in number. They typically attribute these low
estimates to front-end due diligence that might “scare off ” bad actors at theinquiry stage or to the inherent low risk of money laundering in their general setof products and services.
Question 20: Supervisory Inspection• All financial institution personnel indicate that their financial institutions are subject to onsite inspections and assessment by mandated supervisory authorities.
Question 21: Punitive and Cautionary Measures•

Despite the fact that several compliance personnel represent banks that were
implicated in major money laundering schemes, only one admits to having
The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 133

received any form of formal reproach. This is potentially attributable to the factthat most respondents’ particular branch or territory is distinct from the particular sister company that may have been involved in such cases. The one respondent
who admits a case of official sanction indicates that it has acted as an effective callto their organization to strengthen existing beneficial ownership practices. Theinterviewed financial authority representatives confirm that public censure (causing reputational harm) and punitive fines (causing financial harm), more so thaneducation and training outreach (although also crucial), are the two most effective ways through which to ensure that compliance goals are taken seriously.
Questions 22–24: Efficient Use of Limited Compliance Resources• Financial institutions generally cannot estimate the average amount of time spenton compliance per account, given the variation that would obtain within any
given set of clients and the fact that such efforts are often integrated into (and notparticularly assessable separately from) general account opening activities. They
generally consider that this time is effectively spent to the betterment of the institution and the local financial system; however, some do complain that whenscarce resources must be allocated evenly, without taking into account risk variables, the resulting inefficiency may prevent proper focus on high-risk corporate
vehicles.
Questions 25–27: General Guidance• These questions typically resulted in discussions of lessons learned, corporate
commitment to anticorruption goals, effective client acceptance practices, training
for front-end staff, the development of in-house information resources, and theeffective implementation of risk-based AML strategies; responses were reported inbox 3.13 of this report (Developing a “Nose” for Inappropriate Complexity).

Project 3. The Trust and Company Service Providers Project3.1 Background
This project centered on two audit studies involving the solicitation of offers for shellcompanies from a range of Trust and Company Service Providers (TCSPs). The data
were supplemented with in-depth interviews conducted with TCSPs. The use of adirect approach to testing regulatory compliance in the form of an audit study isunusual. Collecting data by soliciting offers for shell companies is premised on a simple a fortiori logic: If it is possible for people who are essentially amateurs to obtainanonymous corporate vehicles for a few thousand dollars via the Internet, then participants in grand corruption schemes, professional money launderers, and others
should have no difficulty whatsoever. The project serves two purposes: On the one
hand, this effort complements the data of other projects with a “what-happens-inpractice” perspective as to what really occurs when one seeks to obtain corporate
134

I The Puppet Masters

vehicles for unseemly purposes. On the other hand, it also addresses the additional
issue of the lack of source information on the role of TCSPs in grand corruption cases,
occasioned by their (relatively speaking) lower profile when implicated in the aidingof money launderers to obtain corporate vehicles. Thus, the approach adopted in the
TCSP Project corresponds to this report’s emphasis to go beyond mere examinationof such rules-on-the-books as may exist. All fact-gathering for this project was
conducted independently of the Stolen Assets and Recovery (StAR) Initiative, from
November 2008 to August 2010.
3.2 Methodology
The research for this component developed a substantial evidentiary base amassed
through the most direct and powerful technique for judging the availability of companies that leave the identity of the beneficial owner unknown: Seeking offers for suchvehicles, and in three cases, purchasing the vehicles in question. Such an approach provides answers to two key questions:
1. How easy or difficult is it for would-be criminals and others to purchase companies while hiding their underlying controlling interest?
2. Does the recommendation that all corporate vehicles should be able to be linked
to their beneficial owner really make any difference?
Even if only a few jurisdictions are failing to adhere to the proper standards (compliance with FATF Recommendations 33 and 34) with regard to collecting beneficial ownership, the exceptions may well dominate the rule. In July 2008, the president of the
FATF observed the following:
We live in an increasingly interconnected world and money launderers and terrorist financiers will exploit any gaps between countries. Consistent application of recognised international standards is essential. The weakest link gives the strength of the chain.90

Thanks to online incorporation systems, it is likely that criminals, and unscrupulous
TCSPs, can effortlessly arbitrage to form companies in the jurisdictions that require theleast identification and verification (if any) with regard to the beneficial owners. The
rigor of the many may be rendered irrelevant by the laxity of the few.
Early on in the Trust and Company Service Providers Project, a decision was reachedthat the solicitation of offers by TCSPs would be geared toward obtaining shell entities(that is, corporations, limited liability companies, or jurisdictional variants of the same).
Because of pragmatic considerations having to do with ensuring that this subcomponent would be manageable, the omission of other forms of corporate vehicles (trusts,
foundations, partnerships, etc.) is nevertheless justifiable for two reasons: (a) the total
numbers of such alternate corporate vehicle forms are an order of magnitude smaller
compared with total of all types of existing corporate vehicles (at the highest end, there
90. FATF e-news, Issue 5, July 2008, available at http:/www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/19/41094921.pdf.

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 135

are only an estimated 40,000 Liechtenstein Anstalten91 and 26,000 Panamanian foundations92) and (2) reference to Database Project findings suggests that corporate vehicle
misuse in grand corruption cases has most frequently implicated companies.
Decisions as to which TCSPs would be approached were informed to some extent by
the distribution of TCSPs and corporate vehicles around the globe. To begin with, aminor note must be made of the conceptual difficulty involved in determining what
or who counts as a TCSP. It is typically not possible to strictly delineate between
TCSPs and financial institutions and “designated nonfinancial” businesses and professions, because a business may offer one such service as a primary function and theother(s) as an ancillary service, or they may market themselves as a one-stop provider of both (or all three) functions in equal measure. It is easiest to quantify those
TCSP providers who fall under the purview of a jurisdiction with a regulated-TCSP
regime (most typically found in the “offshore financial centers” [OFCs]—those jurisdictions whose corporate vehicles are primarily used by nonresidents) because,
whether as primary or auxiliary function, all those seeking to engage in the provisionof such services must be licensed.93 The larger OFCs usually have 80–120 licensed
TCSPs, whereas smaller OFCs may have 6–20. Attempts to count the TCSPs operating in so-called onshore jurisdictions (those jurisdictions whose corporate vehicles
primarily are used by domestic individuals) prove more problematic, as most of theonshore jurisdictions do not require TCSPs to obtain licenses within a regulatory
framework, and often any range of individuals or companies belonging to thefinancial, designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), or unrelated sectors can engage in the creation and sale of these corporate vehicles as a primary or ancillary service to their clients.
Some of the largest TCSPs are headquartered in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Panama, the Isle of Man, and Hong Kong SAR, China.94 Individually, larger TCSP firms(for example, Offshore Incorporations Limited [OIL], Offshore Company Registration
Agents [OCRA], Mossack Fonseca, etc.) may offer company incorporation and management services in up to 30 different jurisdictions and are responsible for incorporating thousands of corporate vehicles each year. Divisions often exist between wholesale
and retail TCSPs—the former forming companies in bulk, the latter selling or establishing individual vehicles for particular clients.
The numbers of OFC-based international business companies (IBCs) are relatively wellknown: the British Virgin Islands has about 40 percent of the market with around
500,000 active companies, and about 70,000 new companies are formed each year.
91. Based on a 2007 interview by the Trust and Company Service Provider project leader.
92. According to Offshore Investment Company Formation Survey 2009.
93. Even in these jurisdictions, legal arrangements are seldom regulated to such an extent—perhaps withthe exception of certain codified variants. A few countries do register trusts. Liechtenstein, South Africa,
and Bahrain are three such exceptions.
94. According to interviews with TCSPs in the United Kingdom; Panama; the Isle of Man; Hong Kong
SAR, China; Seychelles; Samoa; and the British Virgin Islands.

136

I The Puppet Masters

Panama is second with perhaps 320,000 total active companies, then Belize, the Seychelles, the Bahamas, and the Caymans with 50,000–75,000 total active companies
each.95 It is relatively safe to assume that most of these are shell companies and that all
are owned by nonresidents. The small populations of these jurisdictions and the legal
prohibition on IBCs conducting business domestically indicate they are held by nonresidents, as the name international business company suggests. This point is unanimously confirmed in both public documents and interviews with CSPs and regulatorsin these jurisdictions. Less easy to determine are the data on those shell companies
mixed into the sizable numbers of corporate vehicles formed in the onshore jurisdictions. By way of example, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
estimates that 2 million corporations are formed each year in the United States,96 withmore than 18 million corporations and limited liability companies currently active.97Avery large number of U.K. companies are also formed each year, with 362,000 formed
in 2009–10.98 Evidence from interviews with TCSPs and advertising material suggeststhat a not-insignificant portion of these are formed as shell companies, often by nonresidents and thus are functionally equivalent to the classic OFC-based corporate vehicles. Here, the example of the André Pascal England and Wales company (see box 3.6),
set up as part of the first audit study, is illustrative.
Given the uncertainties in the universe of TCSPs and corporate vehicles, the sample of
TCSPs that were chosen never could constitute a statistically representative sample. A
major focus was on those jurisdictions whose TCSPs are under no specific AMLrelevant obligations pertaining to verifiably identifying beneficial ownership. Consideration was given, however, to the possibility that the rules that obtain in theory may
often prove ineffectual and irrelevant (for instance, because of failures of implementation or enforcement, driven by a lack of capacity or of political will) in influencing theactual behavior of individuals. So, even in cases in which TCSPs are regulated entities
subject to AML requirements, failures of regulation might render them likewise ineffectual. A mix of the two groups was selected from jurisdictions around the globe, withspecific providers being identified from advertisements in the specialist investment
media, general media outlets, and dedicated online searches.
Once the TCSPs to be included in the study had been identified, the first step of thepractical element of this exercise was to compose a short approach e-mail using accounts
created for the purpose. This letter was designed to emulate the profile of a representative would-be miscreant, based on recurring elements identified in the various reports.
In a manner intended to set off “red flags,” this e-mail stressed the need for confidentiality and tax minimization as part of an international consultancy project, as consulting
fees often are used as plausible justification for illicit cross-border flows.
95. Offshore Investment Company Formation Surveys, 2007, 2008, 2009.
96. The U.S. figure is from Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Hearing June 17, 2009, on S.569 Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act.
97. J. W. Verret, “Terrorism Finance, Business Associations and the Incorporation Transparency Act,” Louisiana Law Review 70, no. 3 (Spring 2010): 857–910.
98. Companies House: Annual Report and Accounts 2009/10, p. 58.

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 137

In two rounds of testing, 217 service providers were contacted, of which 102 returned
valid replies.99 A valid reply consisted of a service provider’s recommendation of one ormore corporate structures that could achieve the goals set out in the approach letter,
together with a pricing schedule. Responses commonly included a brochure specifying
further services, and encouraged further contact, which was, wherever possible, carriedout via e-mail.
These replies were compiled and coded in terms of the nature and domicile of the corporate vehicle offered, whether the service provider would supply such a corporate
vehicle, and what, if any, documentation was required by the TCSP to verify the identityof the beneficial owner for the transaction to move forward. Analysis was then performed to understand what (and in what circumstances) variance of standards may
occur: across countries, between different types of countries (for example, OFCs versus
onshore jurisdictions) or in line with different regulatory regimes (for example, whether
a requirement existed to license TCSPs), thus offering the potential to provide a better
diagnosis of where the existing weaknesses lie and to suggest possible solutions.
As a final step, in-depth interviews were conducted with corporate service providers
from six major company-formation jurisdictions. These interviews checked and validated the findings of the TCSP component of the study as well as the more general
conclusions. A specific focus was given to whether these service providers performed
due diligence checks in line with the standards of their home jurisdiction, or according
to the standards of the jurisdiction in which companies were being incorporated, orwhether they were dictated by separate group standards.
As with the other practitioner consultations, strict confidentiality was assured to ensure
forthright participation.
3.3 Summary of Findings
The findings of the TCSP Project (first and second audits, and combined results) aresummarized in tables B.4 through B.6.
TABLE B.4

Complete Results of First Audit Study

Service Provider

Shell Company
Jurisdiction

ID
Required?

BahamasAnguilla

Yes

BahamasBahamasYes

BahamasBahamasYes

Bank

ID Required?

(continued next page)

99. In the initial round of testing, occurring in 2008–09, 54 service providers were contacted, of whom 45
returned valid responses; in the second round (2010), 163 service providers were contacted, with 57 valid
replies. Please note that a forthcoming study by Brigham Young University and Griffith University of over
3,500 company service providers confirm the findings of the present TCSP Project.

138

I The Puppet Masters

TABLE B.4

Complete Results of First Audit Study (continued)

Service Provider

Shell Company
Jurisdiction

ID
Required?

BelizeBelizeYes

BermudaBermudaYes

British Virgin

BVI

Yes

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands

Yes

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands

Yes

Cyprus

BVI, Panama, St.

Yes

Bank

ID Required?

Islands (BVI)

Vincent and the
Grenadines
Czech Republic

BVI, Seychelles

Yes

Dominica

Dominica

Yes

Gibraltar

Turks and Caicos

Yes

Gibraltar

BVI, Delaware,

Yes

Gibraltar, Panama,Wyoming, etc.
Hong Kong SAR,

BVI

Yes

Hong Kong SAR,

BVI; Hong Kong

Yes

China

SAR, China;

China

Seychelles, etc.
Hong Kong SAR, China

BVI

Yes

Labuan (Malaysia)

LabuanYes

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein

Yes

Nauru

Nauru

Yes

PanamaPanamaYes

PanamaPanamaYes

PanamaBelize, Nevis,

Yes

Panama,Seychelles,
Vanuatu, etc.
São Tomé andSão Tomé andYes

Príncipe

Príncipe

Seychelles

BVI, Seychelles

Yes

Singapore

Bahamas, BVI,

Yes

DelawareSingapore

SingaporeYes(continued next page)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 139

TABLE B.4

Complete Results of First Audit Study (continued)

Service Provider

Shell Company
Jurisdiction

ID
Required?

Bank

ID Required?

Switzerland

BVI, Delaware,

Yes

BelizeBelizeNo

BelizeYes

Canada

BVI, Ontario, Panama,No

Latvia,Yes

PanamaWyoming, etc.
Hong Kong SAR,

DelawarePanamaNo

China
Singapore

Hong Kong

Yes

SAR, China
BVI; Hong Kong SAR,

No

CyprusYes

China; Seychelles(Gruppo 20)
Spain

BelizeNo

BelizeYes

United Kingdom

Belize, BVI England,

No

Isle of Man

Yes

No

Hong Kong

Yes

Nevada, Panama, etc.
United Kingdom

BelizeSAR, China
United Kingdom

CyprusNo

CyprusYes

United Kingdom

Belize, BVI, Delaware,

No

Hong Kong

Yes

United Kingdom

England (A. Pascal)

No

LatviaEngland, etc.

SAR, China
No (pre-2007),
Yes

Uruguay

Seychelles

No

Hong Kong

Yes

SAR, China;
PanamaUnited States

Wyoming

No

United States

Yes

United States

Nevis

No

BelizeYes

Liechtenstein

Somalia

Yes

Somalia

Yes (unnotarized)

United Kingdom

Belize, BVI,

No

St. Vincent

Yes (unnotarized)

Delaware, Nevada,and thePanama, etc.

Grenadines

United Kingdom

Seychelles

No

Montenegro

Yes (unnotarized)

United States

Nevada (BCP

No

United States

Yes (unnotarized)

No

United States

No (pre-2008),

Consolidated)
United States

Wyoming

Yes (unnotarized)
Source: Authors’ compilation.

140

I The Puppet Masters

TABLE B.5

Complete Results of Second Audit Study (noncompliant
responses in italics)

CSP Jurisdiction

Vehicle Jurisdiction

Photo ID Required?

Malaysia

BVI

Yes

United Kingdom

Seychelles, BVI, EnglandNo

JerseyJerseyYes

United States

non-U.S. Trust

Yes

United Kingdom

U.K. Trust

Yes

Singapore

Singapore

Yes

Costa Rica

Seychelles, Belize

Yes

United Kingdom

Seychelles, BVI, Belize

Yes

United States

Nevis, Belize, Bahamas

No

Hong Kong SAR, China

Nevis

No

ThailandThailandNo*

Dominica

Dominica

Yes

PanamaPanamaYes

Mauritius

MauritiusYes

New Zealand

NZ Trust

Yes

Dominica

Dominica

Yes

Cyprus

Seychelles, Cyprus

Yes

United Kingdom

Seychelles

Yes

Barbados

Barbados

Yes

BelizeBelizeYes

United Kingdom

BVI

Yes

Dominica

Dominica

No

United States

Delaware

No

United States

Delaware

No

United States

Wyoming

No

United States

Delaware

Yes

United States

Delaware

No

United States

Delaware

No

United States

Delaware

No

Philippines

Philippines

Yes

Seychelles

Seychelles

Yes

New Zealand

VanuatuYes

PanamaPanamaYes

Neth. Antilles

Neth. Antilles

Yes(continued next page)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 141

TABLE B.5

Complete Results of Second Audit Study (noncompliant
responses in italics) (continued)

CSP Jurisdiction

Vehicle Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Mauritius

Photo ID Required?
Yes

Mauritius

MauritiusYes

New Zealand

New ZealandYes

New Zealand

New ZealandNo

United States

NevadaYes

United States

NevadaNo

United States

New Mexico

No

United States

California

No

United States

NevadaNo

United States

NevadaNo

United States

NevadaNo

United States

Delaware

No

United States

NevadaNo

United States

Delaware

No

United States

NevadaNo

United States

NevadaNo

United States

NevadaNo

Singapore

Singapore

Yes

Singapore

Singapore

Yes

Seychelles

Seychelles

Yes

Seychelles

Seychelles

Yes

Hong Kong SAR, China

Hong Kong SAR, China

Yes

United States

DelawareNo

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: * The Thai service provider did not require an ID, but did require a personal visit.

TABLE B.6

Combined Results
Valid responses

CompliantNoncompliant

47

12

35

(a) United States

27

3

24

(b) Other OECD

20

9

11

2. Other countries

55

49

6

36

34

2

19

15

4

102

61

41

1. Sampled OECD countries(a) Tax havensa(b) Non-tax havens
3. Total-Worldwide

Sources: Authors’ compilation with some data from J. C. Sharman, “Shopping for Anonymous Shell Companies: An Audit Study ofFinancial Anonymity and Crime,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (Fall 2010): 127–140.
Note: OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
a. Those jurisdictions identiﬁed as tax havens by the OECD in 2000.

142

I The Puppet Masters

Project 4. The Registry Project4.1 Background
The Registry Project aims to provide further clarity regarding the central company registry system and its role in providing information on certain corporate entities. Basedon the wording of FATF Recommendations 33 and 34, the following elements served as
the existing framework for this project: timely access to adequate, accurate, and beneficial ownership information. These elements should be taken to signify the following:•

The adequacy of information refers to the existence and initial recording of sufficient information to identify the beneficial owner.
• The accuracy of information refers to the appropriate checks conducted to verify
the accuracy of the information being recorded.
• The timeliness of information refers to the updating of information when changes
in ownership occur, and powers to take action if information is not provided.
• The timely access to information refers to the ability and ease with which competent authorities are able to obtain or access the information in a timely way.
In addition to beneficial ownership information, these elements were extended toinclude the legislative requirements and availability of supplemental categories of information maintained in a registry that could be useful to an investigation. These categories were as follows: (a) legal status and existence, (b) legal ownership, (c) management,(d) other forms of control, and (e) other characteristics.
4.2 Methodology
To select a set of jurisdictions on which to focus our assessment, the team contacted
more than 30 experienced investigators and compliance officers from financial institutions who had proved to be particularly insightful. The team requested from each thenames of 5 to 10 jurisdictions for which they would like to have company registry information available, thus ensuring that the project resulted in a tool that was useful topractitioners and that responded to a real need. The top 40 jurisdictions mentioned
most frequently by the practitioners constitute the jurisdictions of the sample set. The
final list of jurisdictions (unintentionally) encompassed a natural mix of developed anddeveloping, FATF and non-FATF members, and civil and common law countries.100
The exact legal forms that were chosen for analysis were jurisdictional variations of thelegal persons and arrangements most commonly documented in the Grand Corruption
100. The top 40 were Anguilla, Antigua, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands,
the Cook Islands, the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Delaware (United States), Dubai (United
Arab Emirates), Florida (United States), Gibraltar, Guernsey, Hong Kong SAR (China), the Isle of Man,
Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mauritius, the Netherlands Antilles, Nevada (United States),
Nevis, Ontario (Canada), Panama, the Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent
and the Grenadines, Switzerland, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Uruguay,
and Wyoming (United States).

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 143

Database Project to include companies, partnerships, trusts, and nonprofit organizations. On average, nine legal forms were analyzed per jurisdiction.
The legislative assessment was structured as a database, which was composed of four
Excel-based documents divided by adequacy, accuracy, timeliness, and timely access.
Extensive Internet research was conducted to assemble the current company and trust
legislation per jurisdiction, extracting and documenting in the database applicableprovisions relevant to each of the four elements. Following the completion of the database, the legislative findings were sent for review by the respective jurisdiction to verify
the accuracy of the assessment of their requirements and registration practices. The
team then organized the extracted information into individual country reports basedon the findings. The textual documents were uniformly drafted and formatted withlegal citations.
In addition to preparing the legislative reports, the team drafted a brief questionnaire to capture anecdotal insights into the good practices of registries and any
challenges they may face on a day-to-day basis. The questionnaire was formulatedaround the particular elements guiding the study, namely, timeliness and timely
access to information. Meanwhile, during the drafting process, the team had been
conducting extensive outreach to each jurisdiction to determine the appropriate
person at the registry with whom to work on the study. Once initial contact had
been established with the registrar, a packet of documents was sent to each jurisdiction containing an instruction sheet, the individual legislative report for their review
and amendment as necessary, and the questionnaire. In most cases, follow-up wasneeded. In some cases, this was unsuccessful. In total, 22 reports and questionnaires
were returned. In some instances, additional follow-up was arranged to clarify their
responses.
Once the modified report and completed questionnaires were returned, the teamamended its findings in the assessment database in accordance with the jurisdiction’s
corrections. The information was sorted to derive quantitative findings regarding eachelement of the study—focusing on figures that may demonstrate the significance of a
specific requirement, availability of certain information contained in the registry, or theprevalence of a particular feature. Lastly, the team compiled the tested questionnaires as
qualitative findings regarding challenges and good practices for consideration. A combination of numerical and anecdotal findings was used to support the drafting of thisreport and the subsequent recommendations.

Project 5. The Investigator Project
5.1 Background
The term “investigators” used throughout this report encompasses a broad and diverse
group of experts we consulted in the course of our study. It includes investigators in
the traditional sense: those currently working or formerly having worked in law
144

I The Puppet Masters

enforcement agencies or other government investigative bodies, such as national anticorruption commissions and financial intelligence units. It also includes prosecutors, inrecognition of the fact that in some jurisdictions prosecutors lead investigations orshare responsibility for doing so with investigators. Forensic accountants and certified
fraud examiners also were consulted, because they play critical roles in financial crimes
investigations. Finally, civil practitioners in the field of international fraud and financial
crimes were consulted, including those with experience in successfully recovering stolen assets on behalf of their client governments or other victims.
Many of the investigators in our study had experience in investigating grand corruption
cases involving the misuse of transnational corporate vehicle structures. Other investigators did not have direct experience in grand corruption cases, but we believed that
their experience and expertise in investigating transnational corporate vehicle misusein the context of other financial crimes, such as narcotics trafficking, tax evasion, andfraud, were highly relevant to our inquiry—which, at its core, is about understanding
how to unravel the corporate vehicle structures to reveal their beneficial owners.
In addition to diversity in professional backgrounds and skills, we sought to achieve
regional diversity among the experts we consulted both in terms of the jurisdictions
where the investigators were located and the jurisdictions in which they had experience
conducting investigations.
5.2 Methodology
Information from investigators was gathered chiefly by means of a confidential questionnaire. (See Figure B.2) An initial draft questionnaire was sent to various experienced investigators for their feedback. Based on their input, the questionnaire was
finalized and sent by e-mail to nearly 200 prospective respondents in 51 jurisdictions
from March to June, 2010. In total, 42 responses were received from 25 jurisdictions.
The questionnaire sought to obtain insights of investigators on the obstacles they face,
as well as the tools and sources of information they find most useful in identifying thebeneficial owners of corporate vehicles involved in grand corruption and other financial crimes. It also asked investigators for their “wish lists” and the good practices they
employ to unravel the beneficial ownership of involved corporate vehicles.
Although individual investigators completed the questionnaires, a number of investigators had sought and incorporated the insights of colleagues in their respective agencies.
Some respondents indicated that they had received specialized training in investigating
corporate vehicle misuse, whereas others responded that their training had been “onthe job.” Most of the respondents possessed between one and two decades of experience, with a few respondents having had three decades of experience or more in thefield, thus providing the benefit of a historical perspective on this issue.
In addition, two regional roundtable discussion meetings were organized in Washington, D.C. (April 2010) and in Miami, Florida (May 2010) with law enforcement
investigators. These meetings included investigators from Brazil, the British Virgin
The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 145

Islands, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, the Netherlands, Panama, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. A third meeting was heldin Mauritius (March 2010) with civil practitioner members, on the margins of a meeting of the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) FraudNet, a private networkof top law firms from around the world working in the area of financial crimes.101
These civil practitioners were drawn from both civil and common law jurisdictions(the Bahamas, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,
Mauritius, Nigeria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ukraine)and possessed direct experience in working on grand corruption cases involving corporate vehicle misuse, having been retained by affected governments or other victims. During January to June 2010, the study researchers also undertook in-person
meetings and teleconferences with investigators and other experts to test early findings from the completed questionnaires and the roundtable discussion meetings. In
total, more than 77 investigators and experts from 33 jurisdictions were consulted.

101. FraudNet is a private organization of the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce’s Commercial Crime Services. Membership in the group is by invitation and is limited to only those law firmsthat represent victims of fraud or other financial crimes. Additional information about ICC FraudNet may
be accessed at http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com.content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=11.

146

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.2

Questionnaire: Investigator Project

Confidentiality Pledge: Please be assured that your participation and your responses
will be kept strictly confidential.
PRELIMINARY MAT TERS
Please fill in the following:
Name: _________________________________________________________
Title: __________________________________________________________
Organization: ___________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
Telephone: _____________________________________________________
E-Mail: ________________________________________________________
Number of years worked as an investigator or prosecutor: _________________
Please describe your experiences and training on investigating corporate vehicles
involved in grand corruption (or other financial crimes) cases:
Glossary for the Questionnaire:
Grand Corruption

A broad range of offenses, including bribery, embezzlement, trading in
influence, misappropriation of state funds, illicit enrichment, and abuse
of office committed by high-level public officials or senior officers ofstate-owned entities.

Corporate Vehicles

A broad concept that refers to all forms of legal entities and legal
arrangements (examples: corporations, trusts, partnerships, foundations, etc.)

Beneficial Owner

The natural person who ultimately owns or controls the Corporate
Vehicle or benefits from its assets, and/or the person on whose(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 147

FIGURE B.2 (continued)
behalf a transaction is being conducted. It also encompasses those
persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or
arrangement.
Designated Non-Financial

Includes real estate agents and lawyers, notaries, other independent

Businesses and Professions

legal professionals and accountants.

Trust and Company Service

Any person or business that provides any of the following services toProviders

third parties: acting as a formation agent of legal persons; acting as (orarranging for another person to act as) a director or secretary of acompany, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation toother legal persons; providing a registered office, business address or
accommodation, correspondence or administrative address for acompany, a partnership, or any other legal person or arrangements;
acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a trustee of an
express trust; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a
nominee shareholder for another person.

INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONNAIRE BASED ON YOUR
EXPERIENCES OF THE PAST 10 YEARS IN INVESTIGATING GRANDCORRUPTION CASES INVOLVING THE MISUSE OF CORPORATE VEHICLES.
SECTION I. IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF CORPORATEVEHICLES
1. How often have you encountered obstacles in identifying the beneficial owners of
involved corporate vehicles? Please check the box that best applies:
Infrequently

Sometimes

Frequently

Almost Always/
Always

2. Which three types of corporate vehicles have been the most challenging for you interms of identifying their beneficial owners? Please describe:
Jurisdiction

CV Type(of CV Incorporation or(Exact legal form,

Establishment)

if known)(example: Delaware)

LLC

Obstacle(s) Encountered

No director and shareholder information
filed with corporate registry

1.
2.
3.
(continued)

148

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.2 (continued)

SECTION II: OBSTACLES TO IDENTIFYING THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF
CORPORATE VEHICLES
3. Please review the following characteristics that may be used for obscuring the beneficial ownership of corporate vehicles, and please specify:a. How frequently you have encountered such a characteristic,b. To what degree it constituted an obstacle,c. Whether you were able to overcome the obstacle, andd. How you were able or unable to overcome the obstacle.
Characteristics
of Corporate

Frequency ofDegree ofAble to be

Obstacle

Obstacle

Overcome?

you were able or(Yes/No)

unable to overcome

NA = not encountered/not

Vehiclesapplicable; 1 = least; 5 = mostPlease specify how

the obstacle(s)Bearer Shares
Nominee Shareholders
Nominee Directors
Corporate Directors
Shares Held by Trust
Power of Attorney
Use of Intermediaries toEstablish, Own or Manage
Use of Multiple Jurisdictions (e.g.,
Corporate Ownership, Management or Control/Registration inJurisdiction Different from theJurisdiction of Incorporation)

4. OTHER OBSTACLES: Please tell us about the most vexing and recurrent obstacles
you have encountered that are not listed in Q3, the reason(s) why they were an
obstacle, and explain how you were able or unable to overcome them:
Obstacle

Please explain why

Please specify how you were able or

it was an obstacle

unable to overcome the obstacle(s)(e.g., claim ofLocated and interviewed the TCSP thatlegal privilege)established the CV but the TCSP had
sold the CV to a law firm, which invokeda claim of legal privilege in withholding
the beneficial owner’s name.

1.
2.
3.
(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 149

FIGURE B.2 (continued)

5. TRUSTS AND FOUNDATIONS: Please tell us about the obstacles you haveencountered that were particular to identifying the natural persons who were related
to the involved trusts and foundations, including their beneficial owners. Please
explain why they were obstacles, and specify how you were able or unable to overcome them:
Obstacle(s)particular to:
Trusts:Please explain why it was

Please specify how you were able or unable

an obstacle

to overcome the obstacle(s)1.
2.
Foundations:
1.
2.

SECTION III: TOOLS AND SOURCES FOR IDENTIFYING BENEFICIALOWNERSHIP
6. Based on your investigations on identifying the beneficial owners of corporate vehicles, please rate each of the following Tools and Sources of Information on how
useful you found them and the timeliness of your access to them:Tools and Sources

UsefulTimelyAccess(NA = not used/not
available; 1 = least
useful/timely; 5 =most useful/timely)
Corporate Registries
Public Registries (not including corporate registries)(e.g., land registries, licensing, etc.)
Personal Inspection and/or Observation(e.g., site visit to address given for a corporate vehicle on its incorporation form)
Law Enforcement Databases
Information Sharing among domestic law enforcement agencies, including financial intelligence units and tax authorities
Law Enforcement Compulsory Powers(e.g., seizure of business records and interview of Trust and Company Service
Providers)
Undercover Informants
Wire Taps/Surveillance
Regional and International Law Enforcement Organizations(e.g., Egmont, Interpol)(continued)

150

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.2 (continued)
Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies—via informal channels
Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies—via legal channels(e.g., Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, Memorandum of Understanding, Letters
Rogatory)

7. BEST TOOLS AND SOURCES: Please tell us about the tools and sources (forexample, specifying the particular public registry or compulsory power) that you consider the most useful and provide the timeliest access in identifying the beneficial
owners of corporate vehicles, and specify the reason(s):Tools and/or Sources

Reason1.
2.
3.

8. Based on your experience, how can the following be better sources of informationthat are more useful and provide you with timelier access to assist in identifying
the beneficial owners of corporate vehicles?
Source of Information

Please specify how the source can be made more useful andprovide you with timelier accessCorporate Registries
Trust and Company Service
Providers
Designated Non-Financial
Businesses and Professions

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY
9. What legal or practical obstacles, if any, have you encountered in seeking and/or
obtaining assistance from foreign law enforcement agencies through the Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT)?
10. What types of international assistance resulted in your obtaining the most useful information in identifying the beneficial owners of the involved corporate
vehicles?
SECTION IV: BANK ACCOUNTS OF INVOLVED CORPORATE VEHICLES
11. Please tell us of three jurisdictions that have been the most challenging for you
in locating the bank accounts of involved corporate vehicles and in identifying(continued)

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 151

FIGURE B.2 (continued)

the accounts’ beneficial owners. Please list the jurisdiction, describe the obstacles
you encountered, and explain how you were able or unable to overcome them:
Jurisdiction

Obstacles

Please specify how you wereable or unable to overcome the
obstacle(s)(e.g., Panama)

The Bank where the account was

Was able to obtain information

established did not have information on

about the signatory to the bankits ultimate beneficial owner because theaccount who turned out to be

Bank was not legally required to collect it

the BO

as part of its customer due diligence.
1.
2.
3.

12. What obstacles, if any, did you encounter when the bank accounts were establishedin a jurisdiction different from the jurisdiction where the corporate vehicle wasincorporated or established? How were you able or unable to overcome theseobstacles?
13. Please tell us which jurisdictions’ banks held the most useful and provided thetimeliest access to the information on the involved bank accounts’ beneficial owners, and explain:
14. Based on your experience, what can be done to make banks become better sourcesof useful and timelier information regarding the beneficial ownership of bankaccounts?
SECTION V: “WISH LIST” AND GOOD PRACTICES FOR IDENTIFYING THE
BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF CORPORATE VEHICLES
15. “WISH LIST” OF TOOLS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Based on yourexperience, please tell us your wish list of tools and sources of information to assist
you in identifying the beneficial owners of corporate vehicles, drawing from thefollowing categories or others:a. Tools
b. Sources of informationc. Modifications to domestic or international legal/regulatory framework or
standards(continued)

152

I The Puppet Masters

FIGURE B.2 (continued)

d. Traininge. Methods of information sharing (domestic, regional and international)“Wish List” Item

Reason(s)

1.
2.
3.

16. GOOD PRACTICES: Please tell us about the good practices that you have used(or seen used by other investigators) in identifying the beneficial owners of
involved corporate vehicles in grand corruption (or other financial crimes)
cases:
Good Practice

Explanation

1.
2.
3.

CLOSING M AT T E RS
17. Would you be interested in participating in any follow-up efforts related to thisquestionnaire, including helping to review its preliminary findings or being interviewed by the study’s researchers?
___ Yes___ No___ Please contact me at ___________________________ to discuss.
18. Would you be willing to share with us the names of other experienced investigatorsof grand corruption (or financial crimes) cases involving corporate vehicle misuse,in order that we may invite them to participate in this questionnaire?
___ Yes, their names and contact information are: ________________________.
___ No___ Please contact me at ___________________________ to discuss.
Thank you for your participation. Please return the questionnaire via e-mail.

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 153

5.3 Summary of Findings
The findings of the Investigator Project are summarized below. The responses coverfour main areas of interest: (1) obstacles frequently encountered; (2) sources of information; (3) tools and good practices; and (4) recommendations.
5.3.1 Obstacles Frequently Encountered
Investigators frequently encountered obstacles identifying the beneficial owners of
involved corporate vehicles.
•

Jurisdictions of corporate vehicles cited as most challenging
These jurisdictions encompassed both “tax haven” and non-tax haven jurisdictions, the challenge arising from the fact that the involved corporate vehicle had
been formed outside of the investigator’s jurisdiction. An exception to this was in
the responses by U.S. investigators, who listed those corporate entities formed in
U.S. states for which the beneficial ownership information is not collected at thetime of incorporation. The lack of availability of beneficial ownership information
in a given jurisdiction was a common underlying challenge for investigators.
Investigators also cited as challenging a jurisdiction’s stringent bank secrecy orother anonymity laws that impeded, or prevented altogether, their access to beneficial ownership information that may be held by banks, corporate service providers, or other third parties.

•

Types of corporate vehicles cited as most challenging
Coupled with a legal and regulatory environment that provides for opacity inbeneficial ownership information, investigators pointed out certain types of corporate vehicles as particularly challenging. They included corporate entities suchas IBCs, which are not required to have a physical presence in the jurisdiction of
their formation, and Limited Liability Corporations whose simple structures
allow for formation with as few as one member. Investigators also pointed to theprivate nature of trusts that make it particularly challenging to ascertain their
existence and to locate the trust deed or document to establish the identities of
their settlors, beneficiaries, or trustees.

• Obstacles in identifying beneficial ownership of corporate vehicles
A chief obstacle cited by investigators was the lack of availability of beneficial
ownership information in the first place because it is not required to be collected
and maintained by the corporate registry or a corporate service provider, or
because it was required but not collected because of negligence or willful blindness by, for example, the bank or service provider. At other times, the challenge isbeing able to access persons with direct knowledge or third parties who may holdbeneficial ownership information.
• Characteristics used for obscuring beneficial ownership
Where bearer shares are still permitted, investigators found them to be one of themost challenging obstacles to overcome. The use of nominee shareholders and154

I The Puppet Masters

nominee directors were obstacles that investigators could overcome as they
involve natural persons. The use of corporate directors, while more challenging as
it involves another layer of corporate vehicle, was not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle for investigators. If the corporate director was located in ajurisdiction that was different than the original involved corporate vehicle, thenthe ability to overcome this obstacle depended on the availability of and accessto the beneficial ownership information in that jurisdiction, including being
able to have the assistance of the law enforcement counterparts in the foreign
jurisdiction. Use of intermediaries to form corporate vehicles can range frominformal strawmen, such as family members or close associates, to formal nominees, including professional intermediaries who may be innocent agents in thescheme. Intermediaries sometimes possess beneficial ownership information anddisclose it to investigators. But investigators also pointed out that an intermediary can be a low-level associate who can only provide nonuseful informationsuch as a mobile number or e-mail address that has been changed. Even if these
persons have an incentive to cooperate with the investigation, they can provide
little assistance in reaching the beneficial owner.
•

Layering of corporate vehicles and use of multiple jurisdictions
Similar to the use of corporate directors, layering and multiple jurisdictions werecited as among the most challenging obstacles to overcome. Time and resources
needed to peel away the layers of concealment are two main factors. In addition,
when corporate vehicles span multiple jurisdictions, investigators must rely on
the assistance and cooperation of their foreign counterparts, which may notalways be available on a timely basis, if at all. This lack of cooperation may be due
to a lack of legal basis for cooperation or practical barriers such as shortages inthe staff power needed to carry out the requested assistance.

• Lack of harmonization of international standards
Lack of harmonization of international standards regarding covered entities
under domestic AML regimes was a gap that criminals would be able to takeadvantage of simply by moving to jurisdictions that afforded lax customer due
diligence (CDD) and recordkeeping requirements, or by working with professionals that were not covered. The use of attorney-client privilege and lack ofreporting requirements on monies transferred through attorney-client trust
accounts were frequently cited as roadblocks or even insurmountable walls in
an investigation.
5.3.2 Sources of Information
Investigators have access to, and utilize, a wide range of sources of information, including publicly available information, law enforcement databases, information held byFinancial Intelligence Units, and information derived from individuals with knowledgeof the corporate vehicles in question. To the extent possible, investigators also accessinformation held by covered entities, such as TCSPs and financial intermediaries, aswell as banks and other financial institutions.
The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 155• Banks as sources of information
The jurisdictions with the most useful information tended to be those jurisdictions with significant Know-Your-Customer requirements that were strictly
enforced; jurisdictions where obstacles were most frequently encountered
included those with stringent bank secrecy laws or lack of recordkeeping.
• Company registries as sources of information
Company registries are often the starting point for investigations, although it isimportant to recognize the inherent limitations of the fact that virtually all company registry information is unverified information. Online access would enable
investigators to access information in a quicker and more direct manner, as would
the availability of more information—such as the names of directors and shareholders, and the ability to search by the names of directors or shareholders rather
than just the name of the corporate entity. A longer period of retention of records
would also be helpful. In addition, some investigators remarked that beneficial
ownership information, along with a copy of government-issued ID, while notdeterring abuse, might help to prevent mass, bulk incorporations.
5.3.3 Tools and Good Practices
The most useful tools for investigators were their compulsory powers, such as subpoena
powers, search and seizure and production orders, as well as “gag” or “nontipping off ”
orders to prevent information about the investigation being leaked. For civil practitioners, common law tools, such as Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust disclosure
orders, as well as Anton Piller search orders and insolvency proceedings against a corporate vehicle (which may enable the victim to step into the role of receiver/liquidator/
trustee), were powerful aids.
• Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
MLA was cited as the most useful—indeed, critical—tool in investigations oftransnational corporate vehicle misuse schemes. In some instances, relevant
information can be obtained through informal channels with foreign law enforcement counterparts, but if the information is to be used as evidence at trial, it musthave been obtained through the MLA process. The lengthy delays or complete
unresponsiveness of the requested jurisdiction were cited as obstacles, and investigators pointed to the need for an increased capacity of both the requesting andthe requested states to enhance the effectiveness of the MLA process.
• Good Practices
Many good practices were suggested by investigators, ranging from investigatory tips to ideas for systemic undertakings, such as the following: (1) the creation of interagency task forces, which would bring different perspectives andskills to the investigation; (2) greater cooperation among investigators fromdifferent jurisdictions, including greater informal contact and assistance to theextent permitted by domestic law and the embedding of formal liaisons within
foreign law enforcement counterpart agencies; and (3) greater coordination of156

I The Puppet Mastersmultijurisdictional investigations, including joint investigations in which jurisdictions work together at the outset to divvy up responsibilities and work out
information-sharing arrangements.
5.3.4 Recommendations
Finally, a number of recommendations were made by the investigators, including:
•

•

•

•

•

•

Overcoming the adherence by some banks, corporate service providers and others to a rigid definition of the concept of beneficial owner, and combating theirinsistence that CDD obligations have been met when owners of a certain minimum threshold percentage ownership have been identified, without a real attempt
to understand the corporate vehicle and its ownership or control.
Encouraging greater information-sharing among domestic law enforcement
and regulatory agencies, including eliminating legal and practical barriers to
information-sharing.
Setting up funds within investigative agencies to cover travel expenses of investigators because, as one investigator put it, transnational corporate vehicle misuse
investigations are akin to putting together a jigsaw puzzle, with investigators in
different jurisdictions each holding the pertinent pieces of the puzzle. Face-toface meetings enable the exchange of information necessary to piece together thewhole puzzle.
Harmonizing international standards, and in particular, eliminating the current
gap of certain professionals being subject to CDD and recordkeeping obligations
in one country but not in another.
Extending greater international assistance, including considering taking noncoercive measures even when the criterion of dual criminality is not fulfilled. Or incases in which MLA assistance is not available, being flexible about finding
another basis to provide requested assistance.
Building the investigatory capacity—in both knowledge and manpower—that is needed to take on the increasingly complex corporate vehicle misuse
investigations.

The Five Component Projects: Methodology and Summary of Findings

I 157

Appendix C. Short Description of
Selected Corporate Vehicles

Legal Persons
Before the 20th century, most business or commercial activity was undertaken by sole
proprietorships or partnerships. They remain a significant feature of the 21st century
economic landscape.
The sole proprietorship is the legal recognition of an individual conducting economic
activity, such as providing a service or product to a purchaser for remuneration, orinvesting to generate income, without the need to create a formal entity structure or to
engage in legal arrangements such as a trust. A sole proprietorship represents the simplest way of conducting business—the individual has no formal registration requirements or filing fees, does not need to create an operating agreement or to be held
accountable to anyone, and files taxes as a part of personal duties.

General Partnerships
General partnerships are formed when an association of more than one person agrees
to come together to pursue a business activity. This agreement is usually the determining feature that dictates whether a court will acknowledge the existence of partnership.
Many jurisdictions allow for the existence of a partnership to be (a) predicated on an
expressed acknowledgment on the part of partners to enter into the joint undertakingor (b) based on inference derived from actions taken. This means that a partnershipmay be found to exist without any documentation or admission on the part of partners
to confirm this. Global laws lack uniformity dictating what independent legal personality a partnership may have, distinct from its individual partners. From one jurisdiction
to the next, or even between different types of partnerships in the same jurisdiction, any
given statute-specific partnership form may be recognized in law as, variously, (a) alegal person, (b) a legal relationship between individuals, or (c) a hybrid of the two, that
is, a legal relationship that allows possession of an “incomplete legal personality”—anincomplete set of those capacities that are usually reserved for legal persons (for example, the right to own property, to sue or be sued, and so on).102
102. Due to space limitations, readers are referred to a joint report by The Law Commission of England &Wales and The Scottish Law Commission (advocating an attempt at reconciling the contradictory partnership laws of their different jurisdictions) for the issues surrounding the legal makeup of partnerships,
comprehensively approached in a practical and jurisdiction-specific context. The Law Commission and
The Scottish Law Commission. (LAW COM No 283) (SCOT LAW COM No 192). Partnership Law. ReportFIGURE C.1

Composition of Economic Activity Undertaken in the UnitedStates as Ascertained by Internal Revenue Service Tax Dataa

Figure A—Composition of the Number of Businesses,Tax Years 1980–2002
100

Percentage

80
60
40
20

02
20

00
20

98
19

96
19

94
19

92
19

90

88

19

19

86
19

84
19

82
19

19

80

0

Tax Year
C Corps

S CorpsPartnerships

Sole props

Source: Graphic from Tom Petska, Michael Parisi, Kelly Luttrell, Lucy Davitian, and Matt Scoffic, An Analysis of Business
Organizational Structure and Activity from Tax Data, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/
05petska.pdf (accessed on August 15, 2010).
Note: The “C corp” is a company that is taxed at the company level and again at the member level when distributions are
made; the “S corp” is a company that has pass-through taxation, that is, only the member is taxed; the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service does not formally acknowledge limited liability companies (LLCs), so they may be classed (at thediscretion of the filer, subject to restriction) as either an “S corp” or a disregarded entity (In the case of single-member
LLCs, the member files tax returns as would an individual in a sole proprietorship, while in multiple-member LLCs, themembers each file tax returns as would partners in a partnership.)These unincorporated forms of business activity necessarily vest both ownership andcontrol of business assets in the partners, unless contracts with third parties (creditors) determine otherwise.103 With respect to partnerships, a contract among thepartners divides the relative rights of each partner to ownership and control. Partners, however, need not be physical persons. Common law countries do not requirebusiness partnerships to register with a government entity or court or to commit the
governing contract to a written document. Civil law countries, by contrast, generally
require both. Although a review of both partnership agreements and any contracts
with third parties can help determine ownership and control among partners andcreditors, in common law jurisdictions, these documents normally are not publicly
on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Presented to the Parliament of theUnited Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty. Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers November 2003. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc283.pdf (accessed on
August 1, 2010).
103. In most common law jurisdictions, partnerships, although not separate legal persons, are deemed to
be separate “entities” in that they may hold assets and make contracts in their own name rather than in justthe names of the partners themselves. This creates additional problems for determining ownership andcontrol in that “ABC Partnership” may hold legal title to the assets, with the operation of law extending thatownership to the partners themselves.

160

I The Puppet Masters

available, if they exist at all. Historically, these forms of business did not limit theliability of proprietors or partners to the business’s creditors, which created a disincentive to investment. In response, the original French Commercial Code of 1807
created a new form of partnership that allowed for a general partner (with generalliability to creditors) and limited partners (whose liability was limited to the amountof their investment). The code, however, significantly restricted the control rights oflimited partners. In most cases of modern limited partnerships, the general partner is
a company with few attachable assets as a protection against any creditor litigation.
Because of the liability issues inherent to sole proprietorships or partnerships, many
persons engaged in business sought to establish companies.

Limited Partnerships
Limited partnerships (LPs) are partnerships in which limited liability is granted to certain partners and not others. This statutory partnership form, which can only be brought
into existence through a formal process that includes the creation of a written partnership agreement, is most useful as a way to encourage silent investment partners (those
persons who contribute capital to an endeavor but do not meaningfully act in its management or operations). This limited liability is conditional, as limited partners whotake too active a role in the partnership business can be found to have breached theirlimited status and be held jointly and severally liable, along with the general partners,
to settle creditor obligations occasioned by criminal, tort, or other civil actions. In mostjurisdictions, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) convey limited liability status on allpartners.104 Unlike general partnerships, for which nations have little consistency as towhether a distinct legal entity is created, LPs and LLPs have complete independent legal
personality from their owners. The attractiveness of this liability shield comes at thecost of anonymity, however; these partnerships are subject to registration and supervisory regimes that are quite similar in scope to those for companies. In the Grand Corruption Database Project (see appendix B), these partnership forms were not found tohave been used specifically achieve opacity of beneficial ownership.

Companies
Companies are the primary engine of economic activity in the world. Every jurisdictionin the world provides for one or more domestic company types in one form or another.
As mentioned as a key consideration in the design of the Trust and Company Service
Providers (TCSP) Project (see appendix C), companies exist in numbers of an order ofmagnitude greater than all other forms of legal persons. Panama’s estimated 26,000
foundations (already almost the largest number of that entity type in any given jurisdiction) pale before its 320,000 total active companies. Legal arrangements such as trusts

104. Arthur O’ Sullivan and Steven M. Sheffrin, Economics: Principles in Action (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2003), p. 190.

Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles

I161may be as prevalent as companies, but because virtually no country in the world registers those, we do not have a precise way to determine their total number.
Companies were originally envisioned with the intention of protecting investors andcreditors. The legal separation of the individual from the assets vested to a company
was a means to achieve this protection. In the twenty-first century, this separation ofasset from individual has become an end in itself, sought after not for protection ofinterest but for camouflage. Companies are the most significantly misused vehicle
documented within this study. Because so much can be said about their misuse,
those issues that deal with companies have been divided into two categories: one
dealing with public companies and the other dealing with private companies. For the
purposes of this report, the limited liability company (LLC) will be included in thatlatter category. In its report of 2001, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD)105 dismissed LLCs with a brief mention that they were at
the time of writing a recent, spreading phenomenon, presenting the potential for
misuse in the furtherance of anonymity. Now, 10 years later, the significant presenceof LLCs in the database of grand corruption schemes confirms this potential (seeappendix B).
Although different jurisdictions have different company laws (and related securities
laws), they share a number of similar key elements with respect to ownership andcontrol.
All jurisdictions require companies to register with a government agency or court. In
general, basic company law separates ownership (through shares) and control (througha board of directors). Jurisdictions typically require a certain minimum number of
directors. Shares come in two basic types: those that carry votes and those that do not.
Voting shares may be split into different categories, with shares in different categories
carrying different voting rights. Generally, voting shareholders elect directors to serve
for a fixed period, typically between one and three years. The directors set general policies for the company and select company officers, who manage the day-to-day operations of the company. Although shareholders may serve as directors and officers, inmany common law jurisdictions, controlling shareholders may not, because this would
breach the separation of ownership and control. Certain key decisions—typically
including mergers, divisions, windings-up, and sometimes dividend payments—must
be ratified by a majority of shareholder votes. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, companies are required to keep a share register so that they may consult shareholders whenrequired and so that they may know to whom to pay dividends when declared. In somecases, pure bearer shares are allowed (that is, in cases in which they do not need to be“immobilized” in the hands of a custodian); here, shareholders must approach the company to exercise any shareholder rights. Most company laws require that shares be freelytransferable, meaning that shareholders may not form agreements that would deny free105. See Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Behind the Corporate Veil:
Using Corporate Entities for Illicit Purposes (Paris: OECD, 2001), p. 23.

162

I The Puppet Masters

transferability. Laws also require that certain information, such as the names of board
members and officers, be made available to shareholders.
Civil law jurisdictions typically divide companies into two types: (a) those that are public, usually defined as exceeding a minimum number of shareholders, and (b) those thatare private. For public companies, certain additional rules apply, the most important of
which are securities laws and stock exchange rules that are designed to protect theinterests of the investing public. Among these are requirements that shareholders voluntarily disclose when they control a certain percentage of the total voting rights of thecompany or when they make tender offers (offers to buy all shares) to any remaining
shareholders. Common law countries do not typically distinguish between public or
private at the company level, but rather they do so based on whether share offerings are
made to the general public.
In most jurisdictions (those that do not allow pure bearer shares), it is easy to determine if any single shareholder of record has sufficient votes to control board elections and to approve (or veto) major company decisions, as well as to determine
board and officer composition, by inspection of share registers and board or officer
lists. Such examination, however, will not identify who the ultimate physical person
is who controls the vote of voting shares because the vast majority of company sharesare held by other legal persons or arrangements, including other companies, trusts,
and foundations. As a result, it is impossible for any company to know for certain
who the ultimate physical persons are who control the voting shares of the company
unless shareholders have so informed the company. Even if one were to identify thephysical person who commands a voting share majority, shareholders, directors,
and officers may be severely constrained in their decision-making power. Companies may cede much of their authority to third parties via contract. A typical example involves company finance: Loan covenants often restrict what companies may do
to guarantee debt repayment. Therefore, to determine the extent of control of ashareholder, director, or officer, it is necessary to determine whether any suchcovenants cede control to a third party. Such documentation is not normally available to shareholders because it is deemed to constitute matters of “control” rather
than “ownership.”In all jurisdictions, the ownership of company assets belongs to the company as a separate legal person. Persons with claims on the company (such as creditors) have firstclaim to those assets up to the amount of the claim: If a creditor has a security interest,
its claim comes before the claims of other creditors (often with some public policy
exceptions for the government or employees). Directors may make payments to shareholders in the form of dividends or share repurchases, although some jurisdictions
restrict such payments to accumulated profits or those profits plus a percentage of
unimpaired (that is, unsecured) property. Different categories of shareholders may havedifferent rights to payment of profits or other property. In the event of dissolution or
winding-up, most jurisdictions require that creditors be paid before any residual property is distributed to shareholders.

Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles

I163

Limited Liability Company
The LLC is rapidly replacing partnerships and LPs. The typical LLC adopts the basic
rule of partnerships—ownership and control rights are determined by a contract, often
referred to as the operating agreement—with limited liability for equity investors, who
are known as members. Unlike typical common law partnerships, however, LLCs must
be registered with a government agency and are separate legal persons from their members. As with partnerships, members may be physical or legal persons.
An LLC can be organized as either member managed (the members jointly operate the
LLC, as in a typical partnership) or manager managed (the members select managers
similar to the way company shareholders select boards of directors). The most important feature of the LLC is that it is a creature of contract. That contract—the operating
agreement—defines the rights and responsibilities of its members. This has given themembers of an LLC extraordinary latitude in determining how the LLC should divide
ownership and control among them. Operating agreements may be brief or may be
hundreds of pages long; they may make simple distinctions regarding ownership andcontrol or may define such relationships in exquisite detail. Of course, ownership andcontrol matters may be further complicated by third-party creditor agreements that are
not a part of the operating agreement.
LLCs are used for many legitimate purposes. In addition to organizing a business thathas limited liability but retains flexibility with respect to management and benefits,
LLCs are often used to effectuate particular business transactions and reorganizations.
LLCs are also used to, in effect, extend limited liability to individuals. For example,
physicians in tort-plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the United States often use LLCs toprotect their assets from satisfaction of tort judgments beyond what is provided by liability insurance. In effect, they transfer assets that would normally be held directly (forexample, residence, investments) to the LLC. In general, U.S. laws restrict such transfers
once a tort has occurred and the legal process has begun, but they do not restrict transfer earlier.
The U.S. state of Delaware is rapidly becoming the most important jurisdiction in the
United States for forming LLCs. The general rules regarding the centrality of the operating agreement are the same in Delaware as in most jurisdictions. It is, however,
especially inexpensive and easy to create and maintain an LLC in Delaware. The initial fee is $90 with a $250 annual fee, and registration can be completed online withapproval granted in less than 24 hours. Although Delaware requires the disclosure ofan agent for service of process, it does not require the disclosure of member or manager names. In fact, Delaware law specifically states that the names of members or
managers may be included in LLC registration, but they are not required.106 In addition, agents are not required to keep any information on the members or beneficial
owners of an LLC, and Delaware does not require that the beneficial owner’s identity
be disclosed to the agent.
106. Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, sections 18–102.

164

I The Puppet Masters

Foundations
A foundation (based on the Roman law universitas rerum) is the civil law equivalent to
a common law trust, in that it may be used for similar purposes. A foundation traditionally requires property from a donor dedicated to a particular purpose or purposes
for an undetermined period of time. Typically, the income derived from the principal
assets (as opposed to the assets themselves) is used to fulfill the statutory purpose. A
foundation is a legal entity and, as such, may engage in and conduct business. It is controlled by a board of directors and has no owners. In most jurisdictions, a foundation’s
purpose must be public. In certain jurisdictions, however, foundations may be createdfor private purposes. Different legal definitions reflect either common law traditions
with an emphasis on trusteeship, or civil law traditions and the distinction between
membership and non-membership-based entities (see box C.1 and C.2 for examples in
Liechtenstein and Panama).

Legal Arrangements
The term “corporate vehicles” in this report is used to refer to all possible legal constructs that can engage in business, that is, in Financial Action Task Force on Money
Laundering (FATF) terms, “legal arrangements” and “legal persons”:“Legal arrangements” refers to express trusts or other similar legal arrangements . . .
including fiducie, treuhand and fideicommiso. “Legal persons” refers to bodies corporate,
foundations, Anstalten, partnerships, or associations, or any similar bodies that can establish a permanent customer relationship with a financial institution or otherwise own
property.107

The distinctive difference between the two is the fact that the legal person can engage inbusiness on its own behalf and be the holder of rights and obligations, whereas a legal
arrangement, as the term suggests, is rather a relationship between different people, theessential characteristic being that one person holds the legal title while another holds a
beneficial title. A fideicommiso, for instance, is an arrangement of Roman law extraction used, in testate law, to leave an estate to one person, entrusting him to pass it on toanother person. A usufruct achieves something similar, often used to allow a surviving
spouse the full benefit of an estate, while the title rests with the children. The mosttypical and certainly most discussed legal arrangement when it comes to the use of
corporate vehicles for illicit purposes is the trust.

The Trusts
The trust relationship was originally created by the English Court of Equity. In a typical trust, a grantor or settlor transfers the legal title to property (the right to control
107. See Methodology for Assessing Compliance with the FATF 40 Recommendations and the FATF 9 Special
Recommendations, p. 67, available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/16/54/40339628.pdf.

Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles

I

165

BOX C.1

The Liechtenstein Anstalt

The Anstalt (Establishment) is a flexible corporate form particular to Liechtenstein, where it is closely related to the trust enterprise (Treuunternehmen) but
distinct from a foundation (Stiftung) or trust (Treuhanderschaft). Unusual for a
civil law jurisdiction, it has a relatively long history in the Principality dating backto 1928.
Unlike a trust, an Anstalt has a legal personality like a company or foundation. Its
capital may be divided into shares; however, because this incurs a withholding
tax liability, it is rare. An Anstalt can be formed in three to five days when thefounder, who may be a legal or natural person, transfers rights to assets to aboard of directors by an act of assignment. Capital of at least either CHF 30,000
or US$30,000 must be paid up, with the Anstalt created by entry into the Public
Register. The board, which may only have one member, administers the Anstalt,
subject to the bylaws of the Anstalt. The bylaws do not have to be registered, andthey may be revoked or modified by the founder, who is also the beneficiary
unless the bylaws specify otherwise. Historically, Anstalten could be used for
either commercial or noncommercial purposes, although recently the former purpose has been restricted. Since 1980, Anstalten pursuing commercial activity
have had to lodge annual audited accounts. Those used like a holding company
must also have a local representative in Liechtenstein, who usually is the board
member, although the representative may be a local company. Often an individual from the TCSP creating the Anstalt will be both the sole board member andrepresentative. TCSPs charge in the order of CHF5,000 to form an Anstalt, plus
CHF3,000 annually for administration. The Anstalt is taxed annually at 0.1 percent
of capital, or CHF1,000, whichever is the greater.
Source: Adapted from ATU Allgemeines Treuunternehmen (international trust company) specialist brochure, “Forms of companies
in the Principality of Liechtenstein” (Liechtenstein, 2010) and Caroline Doggart, Tax Havens and Their Uses (London: EconomicIntelligence Unit, 2002).

BOX C.2

The Panamanian Foundation

The Panamanian Foundation (formally the Panama Private Interest Foundation)
was established by legislation in 1995, being jointly modeled on the Liechtenstein foundation, the Panamanian corporation, and the common law trust. Rather
than commercial operations, Foundations are designed for use in estate planning, holding shares and property, asset protection, or charitable purposes. A
foundation is established when the founder transfers assets to the foundation,
which becomes the legal owner of these assets. The founder specifies the purposes of the foundation in a charter (a public document) or in bylaws (which areprivate). A foundation council carries out administration of the assets. The charteror bylaws specify one or more beneficiaries, which may include the founder. In(continued next page)

166

I The Puppet Masters

BOX C.2(continued)

its founder-foundation-council-beneficiary structure, the foundation resembles acommon law trust, with its settler-trustee-beneficiary arrangement. Unlike trusts,
however, foundations are, like companies, legal persons.
While separating the founder from legal ownership of the assets transferred to
the foundation, this vehicle also combines a high level of practical control withtight confidentiality. Founders, foundation council members, and beneficiaries
may be corporate entities from any jurisdiction, any of which may be controlled
by the founder. Furthermore, it is common to use nominee founders (usually a
law firm in Panama, which must act as the registered agent), so that the identityof the original founder, which would otherwise be included in the public charterdocument, remains unregistered. Aside from setting the rules governing thefoundation through the charter and bylaws, the founder may be a member of thefoundation council, or a beneficiary, or a protector, the latter who may be empowered to veto certain decisions of the foundation council. The foundation pays no
tax in Panama and is specifically not covered by foreign inheritance laws.

the property) to a trustee, and the equitable title (the right to enjoy the benefits of theproperty) to beneficiaries. The terms of such transfer are set out in the trust instrument. If the trustee and beneficiary are the same, legal and equitable title are said tomerge and the trust ceases to exist. As a general rule (but see below, discussion onsome exceptions), the separation of legal and beneficial interests prevents creditors of
the beneficiary from seizing trust assets in satisfaction of claims.
Trustees owe beneficiaries a duty of loyalty, meaning that with respect to the trust
relationship, they must prefer the interests of the beneficiary over their own interests. A trust relationship may be created involuntarily in instances in which someone has a claim to property or its benefits but in which transfer of legal title is impossible for some reason. This is called a constructive trust. In most jurisdictions, thegrantor may select the law that governs the operation of the trust. Although the trustis the product of the English Court of Equity, some civil law jurisdictions haveadopted specific trust statutes. Most common law jurisdictions have modified trust
law by statute.
Many jurisdictions have added to the role of trustee a type of “super” trustee known as
the trust protector. In many cases, grantors choose professional managers as trustees,
and the trust protector is a close friend or attorney of the trustee. Although not managing the day-to-day operations of the trust, the protector acts as a kind of overseer of
the trust, and is often given the right to replace the trustee or to change the trust’s
governing law.
Trusts and similar legal arrangements (as a general rule) are distinguishable from othercorporate vehicles in that they usually will not possess a separate legal personality like
Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles

I167

a company or a civil law foundation. This means, among other things, that a trust cannot own property, engage in business, or be a party to contracts.
The vast majority of trusts are used for legitimate purposes, such as family estate planning, managing charitable donations, and various corporate functions (for example, atrust may be used to isolate the funding of an employee pension plans from the attachable assets of a business). Settlor, trustee, beneficiary, and assets may be companies orother corporate vehicles. Although many jurisdictions have moved toward greater levels of transparency in the arena of government (and often public) access to information on legal persons like corporations and LLCs, trusts have always been granted
confidentiality. With one or two exceptions, no jurisdiction in the world currently
requires trusts to register in a publicly accessible register. Many jurisdictions haveenacted strict confidentiality laws, prohibiting the disclosure of any information
regarding trusts. In Panama, for example, if a trustee, government agent, or any person transacting with the trust discloses information about the trust, except as requiredby law, then that person will be sanctioned with a penalty of up to six months in jailand a fine of up to US$50,000.108
Trust relationships are also used to protect an individual’s assets from creditors. For
example, many physicians have chosen to place their personal assets (for example,
homes, investments) into a trust so that patients who receive a malpractice judgmentthat exceeds insurance cannot directly attach those assets in satisfaction of that judgment. Some trusts have been set up primarily to hold company stock with the specificintention of retaining control over a company either after the grantor has died or, if still
alive, simultaneously to act as an asset protection trust. In jurisdictions that follow English law, this has created some difficulty. The duty to manage assets for the benefit of thebeneficiary would suggest the sale of stock, for example, if the company were losing
money, or voting the voting stock in ways that may be contrary to the wishes of the
grantor, who may be the company director. In the United States, this is not a problem,
because the courts follow the terms of the trust instrument over general fiduciary duty
rules, which can require retention of stock or forbid voting the stock contrary to the
grantor’s wishes. A number of Commonwealth offshore centers (including many thatare British dependencies or overseas territories) have adopted a similar rule by statute,creating the so-called Virgin Islands Special Trust Act (VISTA) trust (see box C.3).
Although the confidentiality of trusts serves many legitimate functions, it has led to a
popular perception of trusts and similar legal arrangements as particularly useful
instruments for illicit activities.109 Broadly speaking, trusts can be used to assist in
108. Panama Law No. 1, Art. 37.
109. “[T]rusts which hide the identity of the grantors and the beneficiaries have become a standard partof money laundering arrangements.” Jack A. Blum, Esq., Prof. Michael Levi, Prof. R. Thomas Naylor andProf. Phil Williams, Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering, United Nations Office forDrug Control and Crime Prevention, Global Programme Against Money Laundering (1998), p. 95. See
also European Commission and Transcrime, University of Trento (Italy), Euroshore: Protecting the EU
financial system from the exploitation of financial centres and off-shore facilities by organized crime, January
2000, p. 46 (“Trusts can be easily exploited for money laundering purposes, considering the rules

168

I The Puppet Masters

BOX C.3

The British Virgin Islands VISTA Trusts

Trusts established under the British Virgin Islands Special Trust Act of 2003
(referred to as VISTA trusts) provide a recent example of a sophisticated corporate structure. The main purpose of the VISTA trust is to provide the advantagesof a conventional trust (such as asset protection and succession planning), whileallowing the settlors more control over the business activities carried on within
the structure than is possible within the bounds of a conventional trust.
A VISTA trust structure must consist of at least two basic elements: (a) the trust
itself, and (b) an underlying British Virgin Islands (BVI) company whose shares are
owned entirely by the trust. The trustee of the VISTA trust must be a licensed
service provider in the BVI. This service provider is responsible for collecting andretaining customer due diligence records. The settlors typically act as directors of
the underlying company. These settlors retain business control, because thetrustees are excused from the normal fiduciary duty to monitor the performanceof the company owned by the trust, and the responsibility of maximizing thevalue of the company’s shares (the “Prudent Man of Business” Rule). Trustees
are thus disengaged from the actual management of the company, and the operational conduct of its business, even to the point of being prevented from changing company directors. Aside from their role as directors of the underlying company, settlors may retain control through appointing a protector, who may be able
to veto certain decisions by the trustees, or even replace them.
Ownership of the underlying company remains vested with the trust, however,and the company is protected against attacks on its assets. These attacks mightcome in the form of a disputed inheritance or a commercial dispute with creditors. VISTA trusts might be particularly useful for the head of a family business
who wants to plan ahead for succession while retaining practical control of operational activities in the meantime. They may be devoted to charitable purposes,
in which case no beneficiary is named. VISTA trusts may be part of an overarching, more complex structure. For example, the underlying company owned by
the VISTA trust may be a Private Trust Company that acts as trustee over one ormore other normal, non-VISTA trusts, which in turn might hold the shares ofother operational companies.

laundering the proceeds of corruption (or other crimes) in two main ways: (a) throughcamouflaging the existence of assets, and (b) through creating barriers to the recoveryof these assets. By acknowledging the nature of a trust deed as a private document,
allowing corporate vehicles to be parties to all aspects of trusts, and further having
governing them, such as those which do not require the disclosure of the identity of the beneficiary or of
the settlor, those which do not require any governmental license to operate and those which allow for fleeclauses pursuant to which a trustee is able to move the trust to a different jurisdiction in the event of acriminal investigation.”). See also the FATF typologies report on the Misuse of Corporate Vehicles including Trust and Company Service Providers, October 13, 2006, p. 61: “Responses to the questionnaires [sentout for the purposes of this study] support the conclusion that Trusts and Private companies are thevehicles that are most susceptible to abuse.”

Short Description of Selected Corporate Vehicles

I

169

often eschewed implementation of any requirement to register trust particulars, it
often is difficult for a jurisdiction (and investigators in particular) to determine
whether a trust exists at all, let alone the “who” and “what” with which it is concerned.110 In such a situation, the assets are camouflaged, in that they appear to be theunqualified property of a trustee, who cannot volunteer the information that he is atrustee for any particular party, with no readily ascertainable link to the providers or
enjoyers of the assets. In terms of creating barriers to asset recovery, once the trust has
been formed, the trust assets legally do not belong to the settlor or to beneficiary parties, although the trustee has a fiduciary duty to manage the assets on behalf of another.
Having split legal and beneficial ownership, it is difficult for other private or public
parties to enforce claims against these assets, unless it can be shown that the trust was
specifically set up to defeat legitimate claimants (for example, creditors).
Asset protection trusts do not always prevent action against the settlor or beneficiary.
For example, courts may order the trustee to release assets to creditors if they find thatthe transfer of assets to the trust breached a specific statute or was otherwise a fraudulent attempt by the transferor to escape liability. To do so, however, the court must havejurisdiction over the trustee (or the protector, if he or she has such powers) to enforce
asset release under threat of punishment for contempt of court. To guard against suchpossibilities, many trusts were created with specific flee clauses: In the event of litigation
against the trust or trustee (typically on behalf of a creditor), a trustee is required totransfer those assets to another jurisdiction. Once such a transfer was made, the litigant
would have to bring an action in the new location with jurisdiction over the new trustee.
The development of the Mareva injunction (and similar techniques in the United States)
made such flee clauses less effective. The Mareva injunction, whereby a court can orderthe trustees not to transfer or otherwise move assets, or the more recent “Mareva byletter,” whereby a creditor puts the trustee on notice that they will seek court action
declaring that a constructive trust in favor of creditors exists by automatic operation oflaw, has made flee clauses less effective. These injunctions can prevent asset transfer
before legal requirements are completed. In many cases, flee clauses have been replacedwith Protector Resettlement Clauses, which give the protector power to move assets ina manner that can be implemented more easily and quickly, and may make it easier todefeat Mareva actions.

110. Some qualifications to this statement are addressed more comprehensively in Part 4 of this study.

170 I The Puppet Masters

Appendix D. Grand Corruption:
10 Case Studies

Case Study 1: Bruce Rappaport and IHI Debt Settlement
Overview
In 1990, the Government of Antigua and Barbuda (GOAB), under former Prime
Minister Lester Bird, issued to GOAB Ambassador Bruce Rappaport111 the authority
to renegotiate the GOAB’s debt with the Japanese company Ishikawajima-Harima
Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IHI).112 According to the civil
complaint filed in Florida, the United States, by the GOAB, Rappaport manipulated
the debt settlement numbers so that the GOAB in effect agreed to make periodic overpayments to IHI Debt Settlement Company Ltd. (IHI Debt Settlement)—a company
beneficially owned by Rappaport and that purportedly was used to administer theterms of the debt.113 The IHI debt required monthly payments of only US$199,740.25
to IHI for 25 years; Rappaport had allegedly manipulated the numbers so that the
GOAB instead was to pay US$403,334 on a monthly basis for 25 years.114 The GOAB
actually began making the payments on December 31, 1996, eight months before Rappaport claimed to have reached an agreement with IHI.115 As a result of this scheme,
the GOAB was deceived into making payments in excess of US$14 million.116 As will
be described later, in further detail the GOAB eventually was able to recoup the majority of the US$14 million through a settlement with IHI Debt Settlement and Bruce
Rappaport.117

111. As stated in the second amended civil complaint filed in Florida by the Government of Antigua andBarbuda, “ ‘World-Check,’ a leading provider of intelligence to the financial community, which tracks theidentities of known heightened-risk financial customers, including money launderers, fraudsters, terrorists,
PEPs, [and] organized criminals . . . reports that Rappaport is linked to various financial controversies overthe last 25 years, including an investigation into his relationship with the Bank of New York andInter-Maritime Bank.” Second Amended Complaint at 12-13, Antigua and Barbuda v. Rappaport,
No. 06-03560 CA 25 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct. March 21, 2006).
112. Ibid.
113. Ibid., p. 15.
114. Ibid., pp. 15, 17.
115. Ibid., p. 16.
116. Ibid., p. 3.
117. Press Release, Government of Antigua and Barbuda, “Government of Antigua and Barbuda
Recoups US$12 million in case against former government officials and others” (February 10, 2009),
http://www.ab.gov.ag/gov_v2/government/pressreleases/pressreleases2009/prelease_2009Feb10_1.html (accessed July 3, 2010).

From December 1996 to October 2003, the monthly payments were made into IHI
Debt Settlement’s bank account at Bank of N.T. Butterfield in Bermuda.118 After themoney was moved into the account of IHI Debt Settlement, court documents show that
Rappaport then funneled the stolen overpayments to a web of various other corporate
vehicles (CVs).119 Among those CVs named in the complaint were a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Debt Settlement Administrators LLC; IHI Debt Settlement Company Ltd. and National Petroleum Ltd.120
This scheme was predicated on the misuse of CVs. As a result of Rappaport’s status asambassador, the success of the scheme was reliant on maintaining anonymity and 121
hiding behind the shield of entities.122 Two notable issues from this case were the choiceof jurisdictions employed in the scheme and the use of shelf c­ ompanies.
Choice of Jurisdictions: From Hong Kong SAR, China,
to Florida, United States
IHI Debt Settlement, the corporate predecessor to Rappaport’s Debt Settlement
Administration LLC (discussed in the section “Use of Shelf Companies”) was set up
in Hong Kong SAR, China, by Bruce Rappaport or his wife Ruth Rappaport.123
Although both were listed as directors on the company’s 2006 annual return, only
Ruth Rappaport’s signature appeared on the return.124 According to the annual
return, IHI Debt S­ ettlement issued Hong Kong SAR, China dollars (HKD) $200
worth of shares, with two other ­companies—Dredson Limited (Dredson) and Gregson Limited (Gregson)—listed as the principal shareholders.125 IHI Debt Settlement,
Dredson, and Gregson all shared the same registered office and corporate secretary inHong Kong SAR, China.126
In late 2003, the banking component of the scheme moved from Bermuda to Florida.127
On September 24, 2003, Debt Settlement Administrators LLC (DSA) was formed in

118. Complaint at 22, Antigua and Barbuda v. Rappaport, No. 06-03560 CA 25 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct. March 21,2006).
119. Ibid., pp. 6, 22-24.
120. Ibid., pp. 9­–10.
121. Ibid., p. 4.
122. Ibid., pp. 22–25.
123. Ibid., pp. 9, 12.
124. IHI Debt Settlement Co. Ltd., Annual Return (Form AR1), p. 9 (May 29, 2006) (H.K.)
125. Ibid., p. 3.
126. Ibid., p. 1. See also Dredson Ltd, Annual Return (Form AR1), p. 1 (July 31, 2006) (H.K.). See also
­Gregson Ltd. Annual Return (Form AR1), p. 1 (July 31, 2006) (H.K.).
127. Complaint at 22, Antigua and Barbuda v. Bruce Rappaport, No. 06-03560 CA 25 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct.
March 21, 2006).
172

I The Puppet Masters

Florida.128 The GOAB alleged that DSA was created for the sole purpose of facilitating
and administering the fraud of the GOAB. In October 2003, IHI Debt Settlement wiretransferred US$569,767.92 from its Bermuda bank account to the Florida bank accountof DSA. One month later, the GOAB began making payments directly to DSA’s bankaccount. Essentially, DSA was taking over IHI Debt Settlement’s role in the scheme,
whereby DSA would transfer the US$199,740.25 payments to IHI.129
The broad protection against creditors and civil court judgments provided under thehomestead exemption of the Florida Constitution may make the state an attractive
destination for incorporators seeking asset protection.130
Use of Shelf Companies
IHI Debt Settlement, Dredson, and Gregson were all shelf companies. IHI Debt Settlement was incorporated under the name Offshore Services Limited in 1970.131 It was
not until September 1997 that the company changed its name to IHI Debt Settlement.132
The other two companies—Dredson and Gregson—were both incorporated in 1972,
17 years before being named as IHI Debt Settlement’s principal shareholders.133
People may choose to use shelf companies for a variety of reasons. One such reason
may be to create the appearance of legitimacy that comes with longevity. Anotherreason might be to circumvent information requirements required at incorporation.
According to then–senior counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, Jennifer
Shasky,criminals can easily throw investigators off the trail by purchasing shelf companies and thennever officially transferring the ownerships. In such cases the investigation often leads to aformation agent who has long ago sold the company with no records of the purchaser and no
obligation to note the ownership change.134

Investigation and Asset Recovery
A potential obstacle in this case dealing with the Hong Kong SAR, China, entities was
the corporate ownership structure. The listing of Gregson and Dredson as the principal
128. Debt Settlement Adm’rs LLC, Electronic Articles of Organization (September 24, 2003).
129. Complaint at 22, Antigua and Barbuda v. Rappaport, No. 06-03560 CA 25 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct. March 21,2006).
130. Fla. Constitution §4 (1968), http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=Statutes#A10S04 (accessed July 3, 2010).
131. Offshore Services Ltd., Certificate of Incorporation (May 29, 1970) (H.K.).
132. Offshore Services Ltd., Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name (September 24, 1997) (H.K.).
133. Supra note 126. See also Dredson Ltd, Certificate of Incorporation (July 21, 1972) (H.K.). See also
­Gregson Ltd., Certificate of Incorporation (July 21, 1972) (H.K.).
134. Business Formation and Financial Crime: Finding a Legislative Solution Before the Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs for the U.S. Senate (2009) (statement of Jennifer Shasky, then–Senior Counsel
to the Deputy Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice).
Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies I

173

shareholders to IHI Debt Settlement, created a further layer of anonymity, potentiallyallowing the Rappaports to further separate their ownership from the CV.135
Another potential obstacle to investigators was the fact that,136 for both corporations
and limited liability corporations (LLCs) formed in Florida, ownership information
does not need to be disclosed upon incorporation, and it does not need to be disclosed
in annual reports filed with the state.137 Legal ownership information is required to be
kept only with the corporation or the LLC.138 Information on ownership structure is
critical to learning who ultimately is controlling the scheme—or, at least, the particular
CV. When such information is not publicly available, the only remaining option is toobtain it from the company through legal procedure.
Fortunately for the GOAB, they were able to recover some of the stolen assets despite
these obstacles. In March 2006, GOAB Attorney General Justin Simon filed a civil
claim concerning the IHI matter in the High Court of Antigua and Barbuda for special damages in the sum of US$14,414,904 plus interest, as well as general damages
and exemplary damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and misfeasance in public
office.139 The GOAB also brought a similar suit in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Courtin Miami-Dade Country, Florida, to recover assets there.140 Along with Rappaport,
IHI Debt Settlement was among the named defendants, as the United States recognizes the liability of legal entities.141 The GOAB secured the services of forensic
investigator Mr. Robert Lindquist to prepare an investigative report on the matter.142
The collaboration between the GOAB and Lindquist proved essential in reaching asettlement with Rappaport.
On February 10, 2009, Bruce Rappaport agreed to settle the civil claim against himself
and IHI Debt Settlement by paying to the GOAB US$12 million.143 The settlement was
the result of months of hard negotiations between the GOAB and the Rappaports

135. Supra note 126.
136. Fla. Stat. § 607.0202.
137. Ibid. Fla. Stat. §607.1622 (2009), http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_
Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0607/SEC1622.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0607->Section%201622#0607.1622 (accessed July 3, 2010). Fla. Stat. § 608.407 (2009), http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_
mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0608/SEC407.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0608->Section%20407#0608.407 (accessed July 3, 2010). Fla. Stat. § 608.4511 (2009), http://www.leg.state.fl.us/
statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0608/SEC4511.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0608->Section%204511#0608.4511 (accessed July 3, 2010).
138. Fla. Stat. §608.4101 (2009), http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&
Search_String=&URL=Ch0608/SEC4101.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0608->Section%204101#0608.4101(accessed July 3, 2010).
139. Press Release, supra note 117.
140. Second Amended Complaint at 12-13, Antigua and Barbuda v. Rappaport, No. 06-03560 CA 25(11th Fla. Cir. Ct. March 21, 2006)
141. Press Release, supra note 117.
142. Ibid.
143. Ibid.

174

I The Puppet Masters

based on information provided in Mr. Lindquist’s report.144 A Notice of Discontinuance was filed in the High Court of the GOAB with respect to the two defendants; theeffect of the notice was to inform the court and seek the court’s permission to discontinue the civil claim against Rappaport and IHI Debt Settlement.145 A similar notice
was filed in the Miami, Florida, court.146 In announcing the discontinuance of civil
action against Mr. Rappaport and his company, the Attorney General and Minister ofJustice stated that, “I am pleased to advise that the government is in receipt of the payment [of $12 million].”147
Case Study 2: Charles Warwick Reid
Overview
Charles Warwick Reid, a lawyer from New Zealand, arrived in Hong Kong SAR,
China,148 to join the Attorney General’s Chambers in 1975 and eventually worked
his way up to principal crown counsel and the head of Hong Kong SAR, China’s
Commercial Crime Unit.149 By 1989, he had acquired control of assets amounting
to roughly HK$12.4 million.150 In October 1989, Reid was suspended from duty
and arrested by Hong Kong SAR, China’s then–Independent Counsel Against Corruption (ICAC) on suspicion of corruption.151 Reid jumped bail two months later,
fleeing through Macau152 and China before being apprehended in and deported
from the Philippines.153 Accepting a deal with Hong Kong SAR, China prosecutors,
Reid pled guilty to a single count of unexplainable possession of pecuniary resources
and property disproportionate to his present and past official emoluments. He testified in the trials of several barristers and solicitors who had participated in his
corrupt activities that the funds were in fact bribes received for obstructing prosecutions of certain criminals.154 He served four-and-a-half years of his eight-year
sentence, and then was deported to New Zealand, arriving November 30, 1994.155
Despite being stripped of his status and reputation, Reid became embroiled inanother bribery scandal shortly upon his return to New Zealand.156
144. Mr. Robert Lindquist was also instrumental in the forensic investigation of the Piarco International
Airport scandal in Trinidad and Tobago. Ibid.
145. Ibid.
146. Plaintiff ’s Notice of Dropping Certain Parties. Antigua and Barbuda v. Rappaport, No. 06-03560 CA
25 (11th Fla. Cir. Ct. February 20, 2009).
147. Now Hong Kong SAR, China.
148. Now Hong Kong SAR, China.
149. In re Reid, [1993] No. CACV149/1993, ¶4 (H.K.).
150. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (P.C.) (appeal taken from N.Z.) (N.Z.).
151. In re Reid, [1993] No. CACV149/1993, ¶5 (H.K.). The Independent Counsel Against Corruption was
the precursor to the current Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption.
152. Now Macao SAR, China.
153. Ibid., ¶¶6-9.
154. Ibid., ¶11, ¶¶13-14.
155. Ch’ngPoh v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR, [2002] No. HCAL182/2002, ¶74 (H.K.).
156. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies I

175

Although dated, the case of Charles Warwick Reid is informative because of the noteworthy strategies that he employed to maintain anonymity through the use of corporate
vehicles (CVs) to keep distance from the laundering of the bribery funds, namely, his
misuse of legal arrangements. Additionally, the challenges encountered in recovering
the ill-gotten gains and Reid’s ostensible cooperation with the recovery process provide
valuable insight as well.
Misuse of Legal Arrangements
The evidence presented in the various trials involving Reid show the frequent use of trust
arrangements on his part to obscure the ownership and control of his illegal assets. Reid
held money in trust in the trust accounts of his local solicitors,157 and his family lived ina home that was legally registered to Solicitor Marc Molloy, who served as trustee.158 Following his deportation from Hong Kong to New Zealand, Reid was alleged to havereceived an additional bribe payment to help derail another trial, with a trust being created by Reid’s accountant; the bribe giver acted as settlor, the accountant as trustee, andReid and his family as beneficiaries. The trust money was transferred to and managed
from a foreign bank account.159
A short time passed between Reid’s release from incarceration in Hong Kong SAR, China,
to his setting up of a new trust. In a period of just over a week, Reid was again in possession of corrupt assets that flowed from a foreign jurisdiction into New Zealand andback out to another foreign jurisdiction.160 Circumstances in New Zealand have certainly changed since Reid operated.161 However, the risks of money laundering fromtactics employed by Reid (transferring assets into and out of the jurisdiction’s financial
institutions through trusts and similar arrangements, especially by utilizing agents,
lawyers, and straw persons) still exist.162 As in a number of countries throughout theworld, New Zealand faces a dangerous absence of regulatory and due diligence safeguards specifically designed to detect and mitigate the risks of these abuses.163
157. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1992] Appeal No: 44 of 1992, at 10-27 (C.A.) (reasons for judgment of
Penlington J) (N.Z.).
158. Ibid.
159. Ch’ng Poh v. Chief Executive of the HKSAR, [2002] No. HCAL182/2002, ¶74 (H.K.).
160. Ibid.
161. In 1996 the Financial Transactions Reporting Act (FTRA) came into effect, however the 2009 FATF
New Zealand Mutual Evaluation Report reported specific deficiencies with the New Zealand’s AML regime:“Even though it is not explicitly stated, the application of the FTRA prevents financial institutions fromkeeping anonymous accounts or accounts in fictitious names, but the CDD [customer due diligence]
requirements of the FTRA do not apply to accounts opened before the FTRA entered into force in 1996. In
addition, clarification is needed of the verification requirements to ensure that the documents being used
are reliable and from an independent source.” Financial Action Task Force & Asia-Pacific Group, Mutual
Evaluation Report, Executive Summary ¶18 (2009).
162. Ibid., Table 1.
163. According to the MER, “[m]ost money laundering occurs through the financial system; however, thecomplexity usually depends on the sophistication of the offenders involved. There appears to be a higher
degree of sophistication in laundering the proceeds of crime now than in previous years. Since 2007, the176

I The Puppet Masters

Development of the Constructive Trust Doctrine
As a result of Reid’s crime, the attorney general of Hong Kong was forced to fight a
precedent-setting battle through New Zealand’s lower courts all the way up to the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. These steps were necessary torecover the portions of approximately HK$12.4 million of bribe money that had been
converted into property after passing through various CVs and legal owners in New
Zealand on Reid’s behalf.164
The issue at stake was that the Government of Hong Kong maintained it held a caveatable interest in the Reid-owned properties in New Zealand, as they represented theproceeds of bribery, while Reid was in dereliction of his fiduciary duties as a civil servant. The Privy Council judgment took for granted that the New Zealand properties
were purchased with Reid’s bribe money, and that neither Mrs. Reid nor Mr. Molloy
was a bona fide purchaser of a legal estate without notice.165
The Privy Council judgment was based on the principle of equity, which considers “asdone that which ought to have been done.” The Council determined that the assets
received by Reid as bribe payments should have been “paid or transferred instead tothe person who suffered from the breach of duty.”166 This point is of great consequence to the legal relationship held between the bribe-receiving fiduciary and theparty whose trust has been betrayed; it provides a means of redress.167 Due to the
Privy Council ruling, English common law (and many other legal systems) now recognizes that property acquired—either innocently or criminally—in breach of trust
belongs in equity to the cestui que trust; in other words, persons holding such property do so on constructive trust for the true owner.168 Although not without its controversies, the Constructive Trust Doctrine is now a useful tool for those who seek toprevent the dispersal of corrupt funds and recover the proceeds of corrupt activities,
such as bribery.

purchase of real estate, the use of professional services and foreign exchange dealers have been popularmeans to launder funds.” Ibid., ¶4. According to the MER’s Ratings of Compliance with FATF Recommendations, New Zealand, while found to have a “quite robust” AML/CFT measures in place, was rated NonCompliant with Recommendations 5, 6, 9, 12, 34. Ibid., Table 1. For explanation of these relevant recommendations, please see FATF 40+9 Recommendations.
164. In re Reid, [1993] No. CACV149/1993, ¶4 (H.K.).
165. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (P.C.) (appeal taken from N.Z.) (N.Z.).
166. Ibid.
167. Had the precedent on the treatment of bribes not been overturned by the Reid case, the absence ofsuch a proprietary remedy would mean that the government of Hong Kong, would first have to procure apersonal restitutionary order and see it enforced in order to recover assets. This would have meant that the
government’s only option would have been to pursue a claim in personam against the fiduciary. Additionally, if the fiduciary in breach is bankrupt, the injured party (i.e., the owner of a debt) would be required tocompete with any other unsecured creditors for what assets are available. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1992]
Appeal No: 44 of 1992, pp. 50-51 (C.A.) (reasons for judgment of Penlington J) (N.Z.).
168. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (P.C.) (appeal taken from N.Z.) (N.Z.).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I

177

Investigation
The bribery schemes involving Reid used several CVs, agents, straw persons, and a
combination of foreign and domestic bank accounts to evade detection. He kept his
name from being attached to the bribe money, as the funds were transferred into secretive trusts and portions converted into real property purchases. These several methods
created investigative obstacles and were employed across a range of jurisdictions; thepersons, accounts, and properties stretched across Hong Kong, SAR, China; Singapore;
Vanuatu; and New Zealand.
An additional investigative obstacle was caused by Reid’s dual foreign and domestic
status. Reid took advantage of the fact that while his residence was in Hong Kong,
SAR, China, during his tenure as a civil servant, he remained a citizen of New Zealand.169 As noted, his bribe money stayed out of his name and out of Hong Kong,
SAR, China, in Hong Kong, SAR, China, it appeared as though he had not been accruing such assets at all. Had things gone as planned, the assets would have been waitingfor him upon retiring to his homeland.170
Proving every instance of bribery would have been a challenging task for the prosecution. ICAC was able to rely on an “illicit enrichment” provision of the Prevention ofBribery Ordinance of the Hong Kong Legal Code to investigate and arrest Reid.171 Illicit
enrichment laws, although not embraced by all nations,172 are listed in the United
Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).173 By convicting Reid on the illicit
enrichment charge, ICAC was able to leverage an offer of immunity from further prosecution into getting a detailed account of Reid’s misdeeds and money laundering174
while still getting a sentence of eight years imprisonment and an order of restitution in
the amount of HK$12,415,900.72.175

169. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1992] Appeal No: 44 of 1992, at 16 (C.A.) (reasons for judgment of
Penlington J) (N.Z.).
170. Reid admitted to receiving official emoluments of HK$4,795,123.77 over his 14 years of service inHong Kong and had expended nearly the entire amount of those licit funds on living expenses for himself
and his family. Ibid. p. 27.
171. Ibid. p. 34.
172. The United States and Canada have refused to adopt illicit enrichment provisions, on the basis thatsuch provisions would be incompatible with their constitutional principles and legal systems. United States,
B-58: Inter-American Convention against Corruption, http://www.oea.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-58.html (accessed July 1, 2010).
173. According to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, “Subject to its constitution and thefundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative andother measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence, when committed intentionally, illicit
enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably
explain in relation to his or her lawful income.” G.A. Res. 58/4, Art.20, U.N. Doc. A/RES/58/4 (October 31,2003).
174. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1992] Appeal No: 44 of 1992, p. 26 (C.A.) (reasons for judgment of
Penlington J) (N.Z.).
175. Ibid. p. 19.

178 I The Puppet Masters

Asset Recovery
In May 1990, the Government of Hong Kong SAR, China, lodged caveats in New
Zealand, claiming an estate or interest in the properties listed as belonging to Reid, hiswife, and his solicitor. The caveats were accepted and registered by the Assistant Land
Registrar.176 In December 1990 and February 1991, Reid and the others tried to register instruments of mortgage on the caveated properties; such an application has theeffect of causing the caveats to lapse unless the caveator gets an order from the High
Court of New Zealand.177 In the summer of 1991, the High Court of New Zealandjudged in favor of Reid,178 although he acknowledged the strength of the attorney general of Hong Kong SAR, China’s, claims that the bribe money Reid had received had
been funneled into the properties and that the nominal owners had knowledge ofthese facts.179 This ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 1991.180
Upon final appeal to the Privy Council, however, a favorable judgment for the attorney
general was reached on November 1, 1993, restoring the Crown’s claim of beneficial
ownership interest in the Reid properties.181 In this manner, through the civil legal
process, asset recovery was effected.182

Case Study 3: Diepreye Alamieyeseigha
Overview
Diepreye S. P. Alamieyeseigha was arrested at Heathrow Airport in September 2005 by
the London Metropolitan Police on suspicion of money laundering offences.183 A
search of “his” apartment (it was registered in the name of a company) revealed nearlya million pounds’ worth of British, European, and U.S. currency.184 After his arrest, hefled the United Kingdom and returned to Nigeria where he was impeached and dismissed from his position as governor of Bayelsa State.185 During Alamieyeseigha’s initial two terms of public office in Nigeria, from 1999 to 2005, the Federal Republic of

176. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1992] Appeal No: 44 of 1992, ¶7 (C.A.) (case for the respondents) (N.Z.).
177. Ibid., ¶8.
178. Ibid., ¶12.
179. Ibid., ¶14.
180. Ibid., ¶1.
181. Att’y Gen. for H.K. v. Reid, [1994] 1 A.C. 324 (P.C.) (appeal taken from N.Z.) (N.Z.).
182. It should be noted that none of the money in the accounts at the time of Reid’s flight from Hong Kongwas ever recovered. Supra note 149. Speculating as to the reasons for Reid’s prolonged legal efforts to prevent asset forfeiture, Lord Templeton bluntly stated in his judgment that: “Since an unfulfilled order has
been made against Mr. Reid in the courts of Hong Kong to pay HK$12.4m, his purpose in opposing therelief sought by [the government of Hong Kong at the time] in New Zealand must reflect the hope that theproperties, in the absence of a caveat, can be sold and the proceeds whisked away to some Shangri La whichhides bribes and other corrupt monies in numbered bank accounts.” Ibid.
183. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶6 (Eng.).
184. Ibid.
185. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I

179

Nigeria alleged that by participating in corrupt activities, he had enriched himself bytens of millions of dollars worth of internationally held monetary assets and property
holdings, often registered in the name of corporate vehicles (CVs).186
Alamieyeseigha created at least five CVs that separated his name and beneficial interest
from the legal ownership and control of various financial and real estate assets. Following typical trends of misusing CVs, the majority were private limited companies in avariety of jurisdictions (acquired and managed through a variety of banking and administration trust and company service providers[TCSPs]): Santolina Investment Corporation (incorporated in the Seychelles), Solomon & Peters Limited (incorporated in the
British Virgin Islands), Falcon Flights Inc. (incorporated in the Bahamas), and Royal
Albatross Properties 67 (Pty) Limited (incorporated in South Africa).187 The ownershipand control of Falcon Flights, Inc. was held by a Bahamas trust that he established, as
settlor, for the benefit of his wife and children.188 As will be described in the section“Misuse of Trusts to Obscure Beneficial Ownership of CVs and Assets,” the misuse ofthis trust to obscure his beneficial ownership of these CVs and assets was an essential
part of his scheme.
Misuse of Trusts to Obscure Beneficial Ownership of CVs and Assets
In May 2001, upon the advice of Alamieyeseigha’s bank, UBS AG,189 Alamieyeseighasettled “the Salo Trust” for the benefit of his wife and children.190 Alamieyeseigha later
acknowledged that he was a beneficiary of the trust, but he maintained that he was initially unaware that he was himself listed as a beneficiary along with his wife and children.191 The trustees of the Salo Trust either purchased or incorporated Falcon Flights,
Inc. pursuant to the terms of the trust agreement.192
In the first claim made against Alamieyeseigha and his companies in early 2007, theEngland and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) held that it was either commonground or incontrovertibly established by documentation that in September 1999
Alamieyeseigha opened a U.S. dollar account with UBS in London (No. 323940.01)
with an initial deposit of US$35,000 and a balance in December 2005 of US$535,812
attributable to various sources. The originator often was recorded simply as “Foreign
Money Deposit.”193 Alamieyeseigha stated that the UBS account funds amounted to“contributions from friends and political associates towards the education of my186. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶1 (Eng.).
187. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶6 (Eng.).
188. Ibid. at ¶34. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶¶4, 13, 39 (Eng.).
189. UBS AG, a Swiss bank, was named as the 9th defendant in the civil case in London. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶1 (Eng.).
190. Defence of the Third Defendant [10.1]. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶1(Eng.).
191. Defence of the Third Defendant, ¶37.
192. Defence of the Third Defendant, ¶10.2.
193. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶6, ¶38 (Eng.).

180

I The Puppet Masterschildren,” a claim that the court would later find dubious in light of the governor’s
inconsistent and changing explanations as to why money entered the account.194
Alamieyeseigha’s defense further stated that the UBS account’s status as a trusteeaccount led him to not list the account on the declaration-of-assets form that isrequired for all Nigerian governors.195
The net effect of the preceding evidence was that Alamieyeseigha represented himself
as or admitted to being, in various capacities, (a) the settlor, though claiming the true
economic settlements came from “friends” whom he could not specifically recall; (b)the trustee, insofar as the UBS account legally opened and controlled in his own
name was held out to be a trust account; and (c) a beneficiary, a concession made byhis defense. The existence of this trust separated Alamieyeseigha from the legal andbeneficial ownership and control of the assets contained therein, and added anotherlayer of complexity to those who would have tried to discover that he did indeed holdsuch assets.
In addition, this account received funds in the amount of approximately US$1.5 million, through two deposits made in 2001 by one Aliyu Abubakar (described elsewherein the judgment as the “moving spirit” behind a company called A Group Property thatreceived contracts with Bayelsa state either in 2001 or 2002.)196 Abubakar, a state contractor, made the acquaintance of Alamieyeseigha just one year earlier in 2000.197 These
deposits were immediately converted into bonds, which were then transferred to theportfolio holdings of Falcon Flights, Inc. (the private company procured by the trust) in
January of 2002, effectively burying Alamieyeseigha’s claim over the assets within anested CV structure.198
Investigation
As mentioned earlier, the London Metropolitan Police arrested Alamieyeseigha in
the United Kingdom on September 15, 2005, for suspicion of money laundering andfled the country while on bail. On December 9, 2005, immediately following his
impeachment—which stripped him of government immunity—Alamieyeseigha wasarrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) of Nigeria.
Charged along with him were the following private companies: Solomon & Peters
Limited, Santolina Investment Corporation, Pesal Nigeria Limited, Salomein & Associated (Nig) Limited, Kpedefa Nigeria Limited, Jetty Property Limited, and Herbage
Global Services Limited.199

194. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶70 (Eng.).
195. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶39 (Eng.). As stated earlier, Alamieyeseigha’s
defense to the charge was that he was unaware that he was the beneficiary of the trust, despite the fact the
UBS account was opened under his name. Defence of the Third Defendant, ¶¶10.1, 37.
196. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶¶14, 40 (Eng.).
197. Ibid.
198. Ibid., ¶¶26, 28, 38.
199. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2006] No. CA/L/01/2006, pp. 1-2 (Nig.).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 181

Concurrent with the criminal proceedings in Nigeria, the federal government of Nigeria went abroad to seize suspect assets in a number of jurisdictions. The most significant
attempt was a petition for summary judgment filed in a civil asset recovery case in the
U.K. High Courts to claim various identified monetary and real estate properties in thatcountry.200 The hearing took place on February 27, 2007, and judgment was deliveredon March 7, 2007.201 While conceding that the Federal Republic of Nigeria had presented a strong case for such a ruling, the court concluded that by presenting onlyinferential arguments, relying on suspect witness testimony, and lacking a criminal
conviction from the home jurisdiction, any move to deprive the defendants of the rightto a trial by seizing his assets would have been ill-advised.202
In July 2007, Alamieyeseigha pleaded guilty before a Nigerian High Court to six
charges of making false declaration of assets and caused his companies to plead
guilty to 23 charges of money laundering. Alamieyeseigha was sentenced to two
years in prison and the court ordered the seizure of assets in Nigeria. He also pledguilty on behalf of Solomon & Peters Limited and Santolina Investment Corporation, two of the CVs he had employed as part of his money laundering scheme (thegovernor’s signing of the guilty plea for each company being a sign of control thatwas noted as significant in mid-2007).203 All of the companies charged were foundguilty and subsequently wound up and had their assets forfeited to the government.204 This change in circumstances destroyed any possibility that Alamieyeseigha
would had been able to mount a reasonable defense against the suit and, accordingly,
the Chancery Division allowed a second hearing for summary judgment, which was
granted on behalf of Nigeria.205 Claims were initiated against Alamieyeseigha’s realestate in South Africa.
Asset Recovery
Nigeria was able to reclaim a sizable amount of Alamieyeseigha’s tainted assets that had
been dispersed among CVs and bank accounts around the world. US$2 million belonging to Alamieyeseigha was also returned to Nigeria by the British government.206 The
Lagos High Court ruling of 2007 contained an explicit seizure order for the government

200. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶1 (Eng.).
201. The basis of summary judgment is to save the time and expense of going to a whole trial in thoseinstances where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the issue, and must be decided
on such grounds, if such a matter can be decided without conducting a “mini-trial” to determine thereasonableness of the defense. Ibid.
202. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 437, ¶¶72-74 (Eng.).
203. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] No. FHC/L/328C/05, at 3-4 (Nig.). Nigeria v. Santolina Inv.
Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶¶3-5 (Eng.).
204. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] No. FHC/L/328C/05, at 6 (Nig.).
205. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶¶52-54 (Eng.).
206. Damilola Oyedele culled from This Day Newspapers, posted on the website of the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission, “UK to Return £40m Stolen Funds to Nigeria” (June 2, 2008), at
http://efccnigeria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=34 (accessed March
23, 2011).

182

I The Puppet Masters

to take control of millions of pounds of assets of the various CVs involved in Alamieyeseigha’s misdeeds, as well as 10 properties held in Nigeria and abroad.207 As a result of
the civil suit in London, the government recovered three residential properties in London (registered to Solomon & Peters) and assets held at the Royal Bank of Scotland PLC(in the accounts of Santolina Investment Corp).208
This recovery process culminated in a July 2009 ceremony whereby the current head of
the EFCC participated in a handover ceremony in which the federal government remitted to Bayelsa state the misappropriated funds. The funds totaled 3,128,230,294.83
Nigerian Naira ( ), US$441,000, €7,000, and £2,000.209 Additionally, control of two
unsold real properties (valued respectively at 2.8 billion and 210 million) was transferred to Bayelsa. In May 2011, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer announced
that the U.S. Department of Justice’s Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative had filed, inMarch and April 2011, two civil asset forfeiture actions to recover more than $1 million
in Alamieyeseigha’s alleged illicit proceeds in the United States. According to Mr.
Breuer’s May speech, in the state of Maryland, the Department of Justice was seeking
forfeiture of a private residence worth more than US$600,000 and in Massachusetts, theforfeiture of close to US$400,000 in a brokerage account.210

Case Study 4: Frederick Chiluba
Overview
Dr. Frederick Jacob Titus Chiluba was the President of the Republic of Zambia from1991 to 2001.211 In 2007, the attorney general of Zambia brought a private civil
action in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Republic of Zambia to recover funds
that had been transferred from Zambia’s Ministry of Finance for the private use ofthen-President Chiluba and various other co-conspirators.212 Although the U.K.
case was composed of three different sets of allegations, this study’s focus is limited
to the Zamtrop conspiracy and the BK conspiracy.213 Both schemes were complex,
involving dozens of persons, corporate vehicles (CVs), and intermediaries as tens of
millions of dollars were siphoned out of the Zambian treasury. Charges were brought

207. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] No. FHC/L/328C/05, pp. 6-8 (Nig.).
208. Nigeria v. Santolina Inv. Corp., [2007] EWHC (Ch) 3053, ¶¶7-8, ¶¶52-54 (Eng.).
209. Press Release, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, “Remarks by the Executive Chairman,
Mrs. Farida Waziri, AIG (RTD), at the Handover Ceremony of Chelsea” (July 14, 2009), http://efccnigeria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=34 (accessed July 1, 2010).
210. U.S. Department of Justice, “Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer of the Criminal Division Speaks
at the Fritz-Hermann Bruner Memorial Lecture at the World Bank,” May 25, 2011, available at www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/2011/crm_speech_110525.html (accessed June 2, 2011).
211. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶5 (Executive Summary) (Eng.).
212. Ibid. at ¶3.
213. The three separate components are individually known as ‘The Zamtrop Conspiracy,” “The BK conspiracy,” and “The MOFED Claim.” This case study does not delve in the claims of fiduciary breaches
involved in the MOFED claim, as the presiding Justice dismissed it. Ibid., ¶¶3, 51.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 183

against 18 defendants, and 76 other individuals and companies were implicated in
the convoluted web of illicit activities in President Chiluba’s misdeeds.214
The Zamtrop conspiracy centered around the alleged misuse of a significant portionof US$52 million of Zambian Ministry of Finance funds that had been transferred
into a bank account (known as Zamtrop) at the Zambia National Commercial Bank
Limited in the United Kingdom.215 This account was opened in December 1995 by
Xavier Franklin Chungu, a close associate of President Chiluba and the head of theZambia Security Intelligence Service (ZSIS).216 The account opening forms were filled
out improperly and Chungu was, at various times over the life of the account, the solesignatory.217 Funds originating in the Zambian Ministry of Finance entered theaccount from the official state budget as a result of the overpayment of debts originating in fraudulent contracts with Wilbain Technology, Inc., and Systems Innovations,
Inc.—corporations based in Delaware and Virginia, United States, respectively.218
The money was then routed through Access Financial Services Limited (AFSL), a
Zambian non-bank financial institution, and into the control of the various otherindividuals and companies to make payments and purchases on behalf of theconspirators. Total misappropriations by the conspiracy were demonstrated to be
US$25,754,316.219
The BK conspiracy was a similar scheme in which President Chiluba, Chungu, and others allegedly acted in breach of their fiduciary duties to the Republic of Zambia.220 A
fraudulent financing agreement involving a 10-year US$100 million loan for the purpose of purchasing military equipment for Zambia was entered into in 1999.221 No
evidence existed of any such deal and yet US$20,200,719 was paid into bank accounts
in Belgium and Switzerland created for this purpose. The England and Wales High
Court (Chancery Division) concluded that the money had been “dissipated away” infavor of the conspirators.222
A common theme in both of these schemes was the misuse of professional intermediaries, otherwise known as Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions(DNFBPs). Two other interesting aspects of the case were the misuse of a publicly tradable entity and the distance between the conspirators and the CVs.

214. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952 (Dramatis Personae) (Eng.).
215. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶2, ¶123 (Eng.).
216. Ibid., ¶127. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952 (Dramatis Personae)(Eng.).
217. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶¶127-128 (Eng.).
218. Ibid., ¶151. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952 (Dramatis Personae)(Eng.).
219. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶¶40-42 (Executive Summary)(Eng.).
220. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶1054 (Eng.).
221. Ibid., ¶¶1056-1059.
222. Ibid., ¶¶1058, 1069.

184

I The Puppet Masters

Misconduct by DNFBP Intermediaries
Figuring prominently in both the Zamtrop and BK conspiracies were two firms of English solicitors: Meer Care & Desai (MCD) and Cave Malik & Co. (CM), as well as its
Zambian offshoot, Cave Malik & Ndola, Zambia.223 Both firms participated in the creation and operation of various corporate vehicles and their bank accounts for the benefit of the two conspiracies.224
Iqbal Meer, a partner of MCD, undertook an agreement with Chungu to act on behalfof AFSL in the receipt and disbursement of Republic funds for official ZSIS business.225
MCD, through Meer, effectively “washed” the illicit government money through theirclient accounts.226 Although Meer and MCD had made little or no money at all for
their participation in these activities,227 Chungu singled out Meer for this role becauseof his perceived susceptibility to the benefit of being associated with the politicallypowerful.228
In court, Meer maintained that he held himself to a higher professional ethical standard and received a character reference from Nelson Mandela, another client of his
firm.229 Nevertheless, the court found that Meer’s professional responsibilities, as wellas his international savvy, should have prevented him from carrying out the dubioustransactions he unquestionably performed.230 MCD and CM were both found liablefor conspiracy and dishonest assistance with judgments entered against them for several (U.S.) million dollars each, although the ruling against MCD were later overturnedon the grounds that the judge had made an inappropriate leap between negligence anddishonest assistance.231
Distance between the Primary Conspirators and the Corporate Vehicles
The attorney general of Zambia alleged that both conspiracies materially concerned
President Chiluba and Chungu. They were, in the case of the Zamtrop conspiracy, its
primary architects; in the BK matter, they breached their fiduciary duties to the Republic and knowingly received tainted money.232 The court expressed a belief that the223. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952 (Dramatis Personae) (Eng.).
224. Ibid.
225. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶544 (Eng.).
226. Ibid., ¶435.
227. Professional intermediaries, because of their knowledge, abilities, and the deference shown to them,can help parties to grand corruption smoothly navigate the world’s financial systems. Justice Smith highlights this notion in his decision: “[t]he sad thing however is that there have been many cases in the courts
where professionals have become embroiled in fraud for little or no personal benefit. They often commit
the fraud out of a desire to please clients whom they wish to impress. They are sometimes flattered thatfamous or powerful people use them. Ibid., ¶¶556-561.
228. Ibid., ¶561.
229. Ibid., ¶543.
230. Ibid., ¶¶564-565.
231. Ibid., ¶¶128-129, ¶¶133-134.
232. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶¶87, 1054 (Eng.).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 185

secrecy surrounding Chungu and the ZSIS was used as “an engine of fraud at theexpense of the Republic” to shield the conspirators’ illicit activities from challenge or
enquiry.233 Chungu also recruited another primary figure to the conspiracy to act on hisbehalf: Faustin Kabwe, a friend since childhood.234
The primary conspirators sought to maintain as much distance as possible between
themselves and the illegal activity by inserting friends and associates between themselves and the various transactions. In addition, they created further distance by using
their prestige and the secrecy prerogative of the ZSIS to convince others to assist themwithout asking too many questions. As noted, to operate the various CVs and theirbank accounts, Chungu sought out intermediaries from whom he maintained a degreeof separation on a personal level.235
Misuse of a Publicly Tradable Entity
One of the 18 defendants in this matter was a Belgian company, Belsquare Residence
N.V. (Belsquare).236 Belsquare was part of a chain of CVs; it was a naamloze vennootschap, the equivalent of a public limited liability entity, and was wholly acquired by
Jarban S.A., a Luxembourg company that in turn was owned by Harptree Holdings, a
British Virgin Islands International Business Company with bearer shares.237 Harptree
Holdings and Jarban both were incorporated by Iqbal Meer of MCD for the benefit ofFaustin Kabwe/ZSIS.238
Because publicly traded companies are usually subject to a number of disclosure regulations, reported cases of the misuse of these entities are rare. Through this chain ofCVs, however, a person engaging in grand corruption, by holding a bearer share in his
hand, was able to acquire control of a publicly held Belgian entity. This entity converted
misappropriated Ministry of Finance funds into European real estate purchases.239
Investigation and Asset Recovery
President Chiluba stepped down in 2001 and Xavier Chungu retired in 2002 after
the election of Levy Mwanawasa SC.240 The schemes perpetrated by the two men andother conspirators began receiving widespread publicity after the Zambian newspaper
233. Ibid., ¶¶145, 150.
234. Ibid., ¶486.
235. Iqbal Meer had been friends with Faustin Kabwe for over 20 years, but was not shown to have any
personal connection to Chungu. Ibid.
236. Ibid., ¶¶593-597. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952 (Dramatis
Personae) (Eng.).
237. Ibid.
238. Ibid.
239. Publicly held entities typically qualify for simplified due diligence measures by financial institutions(less oversight); the use of real estate for money laundering, while a common practice and known in theory,is also still not regarded as particularly high risk. Ibid.
240. Ibid., ¶¶222-224.

186

I The Puppet Masters

The Post ran an article that uncovered the Zamtrop account activities. Chiluba, Chungu,
Kabwe, MCD, and CM were implicated as recipients of the Zamtrop funds.241 Shortly
thereafter, Chungu departed from Zambia.242
Zambia initiated criminal proceedings against Chiluba, Kabwe, and former AFSL executive director Aaron Chungu on October 11, 2004, centering on charges of theft andpossession of stolen assets (by a public official in the case of Chiluba; by private citizens
in the case of Kabwe and Chungu).243 This trial would last just short of five years, withan eventual verdict being rendered that saw Chiluba acquitted on the grounds thatthe defense failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the assets traced to
Chiluba originated from the stolen money.244 Kabwe and Aaron Chungu were foundguilty of three theft-related charges.245 The judge speculated that the undoing of theprosecution’s case was their failure to produce Xavier Chungu, whose flight had precluded any opportunity to gather his testimony.246
Concurrent with these criminal proceedings, the attorney general of Zambia initiated a civil case in the United Kingdom. The trial opened on October 31, 2006, andthe final judgment was rendered on April 5, 2007.247 The full range of defendants
involved in the Zamtrop and BK conspiracies and subconspiracies were found guilty
and collectively held liable for the roughly US$25 million (from the Zamtrop conspiracy) and US$20 million (from the BK conspiracy); damages for fiduciary
breaches and dishonest assistance were also awarded.248 At the time of writing, theSupreme Court of Zambia is weighing whether the London judgment can be registered locally.

Case Study 5: Jack Abramoff
Overview
In 2006, Jack Abramoff pled guilty to charges of fraud, bribery, and tax evasion.249 He
was later ordered to pay more than US$23 million in restitution to his victims, withmost of it going to the Native American gaming tribes he had defrauded through a241. Ibid., ¶¶226-227.
242. Ibid., ¶75.
243. The People v. Chiluba (2009) No. SSP/124/2004, at 1 (Zambia).
244. Ibid., ¶178.
245. Ibid., ¶¶179-180.
246. Ibid., ¶178.
247. Republic of Zambia v. Meer Care & Desai, [2007] EWHC (Ch) 952, ¶49, ¶53 (Eng.).
248. Ibid. at ¶¶1119-1136. In the words of Justice Smith, “[t]he people of Zambia will know that wheneverFJT [Chiluba] appears in public wearing a smart handmade suit of a pair of his ‘signature’ shoes that they
were acquired by stealing money from the people—the vast majority of whom live at subsistence levels.”
Ibid.
249. Plea Agreement and Factual Basis for the Plea of Jack A. Abramoff, United States v. Abramoff, No.
06-cr-001-ESH, (D.D.C. January 6, 2006).
Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 187

secret kickback scheme with his coconspirator, Michael Scanlon.250 According toAbramoff ’s plea agreement, he and his associates “offered and provided a stream ofthings of value to (high) public officials”251—generally congressmen and their staffers—
in exchange for official acts and influence favorable to Abramoff ’s objectives. The U.S.
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which conducted a two-year investigation into thecase, concluded that Abramoff and Scanlon’s use of corporate entities and nonprofit
organizations to “receive funds [and] conceal their destination” was a constant in theirscheme.252
As of August 2009, 20 individuals connected to Abramoff had been convicted, pleaded
guilty, or were awaiting trial.253 They include Michael Scanlon, a former top aide tothen–House Speaker Tom DeLay;254 Congressman Robert Ney;255 and senior administration officials, senior legislative aides, and lobbyists.256 House Speaker Tom DeLay
resigned from Congress three days after his top aide, Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection with the Abramoff scandal in 2006.257
The Abramoff case raises two key issues relating to CV misuse: (a) the role of a Delaware, United States, nonprofit corporation in the scheme, and (b) the role of a tax advisor in facilitating Abramoff ’s misuse of a private charitable foundation.
Misuse of Sham Delaware Nonprofit Corporation
The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a 2000 report examining the use of Delaware shell corporations by Russian Federation entities for possible money laundering
activities, concluded that, “[i]t is relatively easy for foreign individuals or entities tohide their identities while forming shell corporations that can be used for the purposeof laundering money.”258

250. United States v. Abramoff, No. 06-cr-001-ESH, (D.D.C. September 19, 2009) (order granting restitution).
251. Plea Agreement, p. 9, United States v. Abramoff, No. 06-cr-001-ESH, (D.D.C. January 3, 2006).
252. Ibid. See also Comm. on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong., “Gimme Five”—Investigation of Tribal Lobbying
Matters (2006).
253. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Government Official Indicted on Public Corruption Charges Related to Ongoing Abramoff Investigation” (August 21, 2009). Abramoff himself pleaded
guilty in January 2006 to charges of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, honest services fraud andtax evasion, and was sentenced in September 2008 to 48 months in prison. Ibid.
254. Plea Agreement and Attachment A: Factual Basis for the Plea of Michael P.S. Scanlon, United Statesv. Scanlon, No. 05-cr-411-ESH, (D.D.C. November 11, 2005).
255. Plea Agreement and Attachment: Factual Basis for the Plea of Robert W. Ney, United States v. Ney,
(D.D.C. September 13, 2006).
256. U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress of the Activities and Operations of the Public Integrity
Section for 2009, pp. 22–23 (2009).
257. Plea Agreement and Information, United States v. Rudy, No. 06-cr-082, (D.D.C. March 31, 2006).
See also Jonathan Weisman and Chris Cillizza, “DeLay to Resign from Congress,” Washington Post,
April 4, 2006.
258. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Suspicious Banking Activities: Possible Money Laundering by U.S. Corporations Formed for Russian Entities 11 (2000). In a later report, the GAO noted that
Delaware ranked fourth in 2004 among all U.S. states for the most number of domestic corporations and
188

I The Puppet Masters

Although Abramoff and Scanlon employed a number of entities that they or their associates owned or controlled as part of their scheme, the U.S. Senate Committee on IndianAffairs (Senate Committee) investigating the scheme delved into the two men’s use of
the American International Center (AIC), a supposed think-tank based in Rehoboth
Beach, Delaware. According to information retrieved from the Delaware corporate registry, AIC was formed on February 28, 2001, as a domestic nonprofit corporation. Its
registered agent is listed as American International Center, Inc. at 53 Baltimore Avenue,
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware 19971.259
According to the Senate Committee’s 2006 investigative report, “With two of Scanlon’sbeach buddies sitting on its board, AIC’s purpose was actually to collect fees associatedwith activities conducted by others and, in some cases, divert those fees to entities
owned or controlled by Scanlon or Abramoff. In other words, AIC was a sham.”260 The
Senate Report continues, “[e]arly in 2001, Scanlon called his long-time friend and fellow lifeguard David Grosh and asked him whether he wanted to serve as a director ofan ‘international corporation.’ Grosh, who knew quite well that his background was
unsuited for such a position, thought that this was a joke but finally agreed.”261 Grosh
was paid $500 per month to serve as director of AIC.262 The other “director” of AIC was
Grosh’s housemate, Brian Mann, a yoga instructor.263
For his part in making AIC appear to be a legitimate entity, on January 19, 2002,
Abramoff e-mailed to Benjamin Mackler of MackDesign Studios: “Ben, I need to set up
a website for the American International Center, which should have all sorts of goodies
to make it look real.”264 The website set forth AIC’s mission statement as “a Delawarebased corporation with the global minded purpose of enhancing the methods of
empowerment for territories, commonwealths, and sovereign nations in possession of
and within the United States.”265

Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) formed within its jurisdiction. U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Company Formations: Minimal Ownership Information Is Collected and Available 13 (2006).
259. See https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/GINameSearch.jsp (type “American International Center” in“Entity Name”; follow “American International Center, Inc.” hyperlink) (accessed July 3, 2010).
260. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong., “Gimme Five,” supra note 252, p. 12.
261. Ibid. p. 257.
262. Ibid.
263. Grosh told Senate investigators that, “Scanlon enticed Mann and [Grosh] to work for AIC by promising, among other things, that AIC would pay for both to go surfing at the island of St. Barts. Ibid. at 259.
The Senate Report noted that between February and July 2001, “AIC had no office; AIC’s business address
was the beach house that [Grosh] and [yoga instructor Brian Mann] rented in Rehoboth Beach.” Scanlon
had a telephone installed that “he instructed Grosh never to answer.” Ibid. at 258. Grosh and Mann told the
Senate investigators that AIC had fewer than five meetings of its board, and that Scanlon “characterizedthese meetings as ‘a paperwork formality.’” Ibid. at 260. They also testified before the Senate Committee todoing little to no work in their capacities as “directors,” and that they were, to their knowledge, the only
employees of AIC. Ibid. p. 261.
264. Ibid. p. 262.
265. Grosh and Mann told Senate investigators, “they had no idea what this meant.” This is despite the factthat the AIC website stated that AIC was a “premiere international think tank” founded “under the highpowered directorship of David A. Grosh and Brian Mann.” Ibid. p. 264.
Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 189

In actuality, AIC played three main roles in the Abramoff-Scanlon scheme: (a) as
conduit for more than US$4 million in payments by Native American tribes to bepassed to entities controlled by their one-time friend and business associate who performed grassroots lobbying work on behalf of the tribes but did not want to be associated publicly with the tribes;266 (b) as a domestic entity cover, to receive paymentsfrom foreign government clients as a way to circumvent disclosure requirements
under the Foreign Agents Registrations Act (FARA),267 which would have had to bemade to Congress regarding lobbying activities for foreign entities; and (c) as a means
for Scanlon to funnel US$1.3 million in Native American tribe payments from AIC tohis own company, Capitol Campaign Strategies, and then execute “shareholder draws”
to use these funds for personal expenses, including the remodeling of his beachhome.268
Role of Abramoff’s Tax Advisor in Facilitating Misuse of a Foundation
The Senate Report also offered insights into the role played by Abramoff ’s tax advisor
in the misuse of the Capital Athletic Foundation (CAF), the ostensibly private charitable foundation that Abramoff formed and managed. He and his wife were CAF’s sole
directors. CAF’s stated mission was to promote “sportsmanship” among disadvantaged
youth in the Washington, D.C. area, but the Senate Committee stated that “Abramoff
treated CAF as his own personal slush fund, apparently using it to evade taxes, financelobbying activities such as a golfing trip to Scotland, purchasing paramilitary equipment, and for other purposes inconsistent with CAF’s tax exempt status and statedmission.”269
For example, the third largest recipient of CAF funding in 2002 was “Kollel Ohel
Tieferet, a purported educational institution in Israel; according to CAF’s 2002 tax
return, the grant was supposedly used for education, athletics, and security.” Upon
review, however, the Senate Committee found that “the Kollel Ohel Tieferet wasnothing more than an entity established on paper to conceal the ultimate recipient of
CAF grants: Shumel Ben Zvi,” Abramoff ’s high-school friend, who had moved to
Israel.270 In fact, the Senate Report goes on to detail the role played by Gail Halpern,
Abramoff ’s tax advisor, in helping to make the payments to Ben Zvifor a jeep andmilitary equipment appear compatible with CAF’s stated charitable mission.271

266. Ibid. p. 270. The friend and business associate was Ralph Reed, the politically influential first executive
director of the Christian Coalition. The Reed-controlled entities were Century Strategies and Capitol
Media. Ibid. p. 290.
267. Ibid., pp. 266-267. From 2001 through 2003, AIC was Abramoff ’s largest lobbying client, paying him
and Greenberg Traurig about US$1.7 million in lobbying fees. In 2002 alone, AIC paid Greenberg Traurig
US$840,000, making it the firm’s fifth largest client that year. Ibid. p. 255.
268. Ibid.
269. Ibid. p. 278.
270. Ibid. p. 308.
271. Halpern had “labeled the purchases for Ben Zvi as ‘spy equipment.’ ” Ibid. p. 309.

190

I The Puppet Masters

On November 11, 2002, Halpern wrote specifically about the payments to Ben Zvi:“[W]e need to work this into the tax exempt purpose of the foundation.”272 In response,
Abramoff wrote to Ben Zvi, “if possible, it would be easier for me to get you funds
through a kollel over there or something like that.”273 Ben Zvi replied, “Anyone can havea Kollel here.”274 A month later, Ben Zvi e-mailed Abramoff with wiring information for
the “KOLLEL OHEL TIFERET (for: Shmuel Ben Zvi).”275 When Abramoff informed
Halpern, she stated “at the end of the year, he’ll need to write us a letter on Kollel stationary [sic] thanking the Foundation for the money to promote their educational
purpose.”276
Although Halpern is the only person whose photograph is not shown in the firm’s
profiles of its principals, it is not known what consequences, if any, she faced for herrole in assisting Abramoff in his misuse of the CAF.
Investigation
In February 2004, the Washington Post, which had been tipped off by a whistleblower
close to the Native American tribe client-victims, published a front-page story delving
into Abramoff ’s lobbying activities on behalf of the Native American gaming tribes andhis ties to influential policy makers.277 Soon after, the U.S. Senate Committee on IndianAffairs commenced its investigation, exercising its subpoena power to interview witnesses and holding five public hearings in 2004 and 2005.278 Once the investigation was
launched, the committee did not appear to face significant investigatory hurdles.
Although it had been seemingly easy for Abramoff and Scanlon to form the entities
involved in their scheme—in their work, home, or nearby state—it appears that the
Senate Committee with its full investigatory resources and compulsory powers was able
to unravel the veil of control and ownership of those entities and their illicit activities.
Abramoff and Scanlon invoked their constitutional privilege against self-incriminationand declined to testify, but many other witnesses did appear and testify. They included
AIC nominee directors David Grosh and Brian Mann and Abramoff ’s tax advisor Gail

272. She subsequently wrote to Abramoff, “[B]ut let’s try to figure it out in a way where we don’t screw up
the foundation. we [sic] need to get the money to a 501c3 [sic] or an educational institution, not directly tohim. can [sic] you ask him if he can work something out w/ the kollel so the money goes from the kollel tohim?” Ibid. pp. 310–311.
273. Kollel is a gathering or institute for advanced study of the Talmud. Ibid.
274. Ben Zvi also added, “If I set up the account name in the name of a Kollel and send you papers with a
Kollel stationary [sic] would that work?” Ibid.
275. Ibid. p. 311.
276. Ibid. p. 312.
277. Susan Schmidt, “A Jackpot from Indian Gaming Tribes,” Washington Post, February 22, 2004. Schmidt
and fellow journalists from the Washington Post would go on to win the Pulitzer Prize, the top journalism
award in the United States, for their reporting of the scandal. Ibid. p. 6.
278. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 108th Cong., Oversight Hearing Regarding Tribal Lobbying Matters, et al(2006). Michael Scanlon was “invited, but did not appear before the Committee on this date.” Comm. on
Indian Affairs, 109th Cong., “Gimme Five,” supra note 252, p. xii.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 191

Halpern.279 At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice Public Integrity Sectioncommenced their probe. A number of U.S. law enforcement agencies were involved in
the investigation: the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service’s(IRS) Criminal Investigation Division, the General Services Administration’s Office ofInspector General, and the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Inspector General.
With testimonial and documentary evidence of corruption and fraud mounting against
the conspirators, Scanlon entered a guilty plea in November 2005. Abramoff followed
suit in January 2006.
Asset Recovery
In September 2008, Jack Abramoff was ordered to pay US$23,134,695 in restitution
to his victims.280 The Restitution Order noted that an amount of US$15,673,232 was
uncompensated loss as of the date of the Order.281 Abramoff was required to makerestitution payments upon his release from prison.282 Less than a year later, the U.S.
government filed a Motion for Immediate Modification of Restitution Order, the day
after being advised by Abramoff ’s counsel that Abramoff and his wife had received arefund from the U.S. IRS totaling US$520,189 and in two weeks prior to giving noticeto the government, paid a total of US$422,000 to 10 nonrestitution creditors.283 The
government motioned the court to order Abramoff and his family to cease spending
the remains of the IRS refund, to provide a complete accounting of how the refund
had been spent, and to order Abramoff to provide notice to court of any debt or
assets in excess of US$2,500 incurred or acquired by him or his family members.284
In October 2009, the court ordered Abramoff to pay US$16,500 toward restitution in
the present case, with the rest of the remaining tax refund authorized mainly for
personal expenses.285
279. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 109th Cong., “Gimme Five,” supra note 252, pp. xii–xiv.
280. United States v. Abramoff, No. 1:06-cr-0001-ESH (D.D.C. September 4, 2008) (order granting restitution Order). The order stated that when Scanlon was sentenced, that “both defendants will be jointly andseverally liable” for the amount of losses incurred by the Indian tribes. Ibid. at 2. See also Press Release, U.S.
Department of Justice, “Former Lobbyist Jack Abramoff Sentenced to 48 Months in Prison on Charges
Involving Corruption, Fraud, Conspiracy and Tax Evasion” (September 4, 2008).
281. United States v. Abramoff, No. 1:06-cr-0001-ESH, 1 (D.D.C. September 4, 2008) (order granting restitution Order).
282. Abramoff was released from prison in June 2010. See “Jack Abramoff,” New York Times, updated:
June 24, 2010, available at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jack_abramoff/index.html.
283. Motion for Immediate Modification of Restitution Order, United States v. Abramoff, No. 1:06-cr-0001ESH (D.D.C. May 21, 2009). The non-restitution payments included payments for legal and accounting
fees, back taxes owed to the State of Maryland, credit card debts and a US$87,000 loan from Abramoff ’s
father. Ibid.
284. Ibid.
285. United States v. Abramoff, No. 1:06-cr-0001-ESH (order modifying restitution order) (D.D.C. October
19, 2009). The Order authorized Abramoff to pay up to US$35,000 for the repair of the roof of his house,
US$16,500 to restitution creditors in his Florida case, and the remainder of the tax refund to cover his family’s ordinary living expenses and professional services. The Court also ordered that “In the event that
Mr. Abramoff receives, directly or indirectly, any sum or property valued in excess of $2,500 while
incarcerated, Mr. Abramoff shall report the receipt of those funds or property” to the U.S. Department of

192

I The Puppet Masters

On February 17, 2011, Michael Scanlon was sentenced to a prison term of 20 months.
He was ordered jointly and severally liable with his former coconspirator, Jack Abramoff,
for the payment of US$20,191,537.31 in restitution to the Native American tribes that
had been the victims of their fraud scheme.286 A week later, Scanlon appealed his judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.287

Case Study 6: Joseph Estrada
Overview
Joseph Estrada was President of the Republic of the Philippines from June 1998 toJanuary 2001. He stepped down during his Senate impeachment trial on charges of corruption and amid growing public protests against his presidency.288 He was arrested in
April 2001 and charged with violating the Anti-Plunder Law289 for allegedly having
amassed more thanUS$87 million in unlawful and unexplained wealth.290

Justice and the Court as soon as possible but not spend or distribute the funds or property before providing
notice. He was precluded from spending or distributing the funds or property until the court issued anorder authorizing such expenditure or distribution. Ibid.
286. United States v. Michael P.S. Scanlon, Case No. 05-cr-00411-ESH (D.D.C.), Restitution Order filed on
February 11, 2011; Judgment in a Criminal Case filed on February 17, 2011; and Order Amending Judgment filed on March 7, 2011.
287. According to his February 23, 2011 Notice of Appeal, “Specifically, defendant Scanlon appeals theDistrict Court’s November 30, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to
Modify or Amend His Plea Agreement In Conformity With The Supreme Court’s Skilling Decision.” Notice ofAppeal, United States v. Scanlon, Case No. 05-cr-411-ESH (D.D.C. February 23, 2011); Opinion, Skilling v.
United States, No. 08-1394 (S.Ct. June 24, 2010).
288. People v. Estrada, No. 26558, at 14 (Sandiganbayan, Special Div., September 12, 2007) (decision forplunder) (Phil.)
289. Ibid. at 3–4. Anti-Plunder legislation was enacted “in the aftermath of the Marcos regime wherecharges of ill-gotten wealth were filed against former President Ferdinand Marcos and his cronies. Government prosecutors found no appropriate law to deal with he [sic] multitude and magnitude of the acts allegedly committed by the former President [Marcos] to acquire illegal wealth. They also found out that under
the then existing laws such as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Revised Penal Code and otherspecial laws, the acts involved different transactions, different time and different personalities. Every transaction constituted a separate crime and required a separate case and the over-all conspiracy had to bebroken down into several criminal and graft charges. The preparation of multiple Informations was a legalnightmare but eventually, thirty-nine (39) separate and independent cases were filed against practically thesame accused before the Sandiganbayan. R.A. No. 7080 or the Anti Plunder Law was enacted precisely toaddress this procedural problem.” Ibid. at 293. For a conviction under the Anti-Plunder Law, all three of thefollowing elements must be met: (a) the offender must be a public official who acting by himself or in conspiracy with others, (b) amassed or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of criminal
acts, and (c) the aggregate amount of the ill-gotten wealth is at least US$1,065,500 (PHP 50 million). Ibid.
at 261. See also The Anti-Plunder Law, Rep. Act No. 7080 (July 12, 1991), http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/37/19/46816908.pdf (accessed March 23, 2011).
290. People v. Estrada (decision for plunder), at 9-12. The total amount given in Pesos was 4,097,804,173.17.
Ibid. Estrada had also been charged with Perjury for his allegedly false filings of his assets; he was tried andacquitted of this charge by a different Sandiganbayan court. People v. Estrada, No. 26905 (Sandiganbayan,
Special Div., September 12, 2007) (decision for perjury).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 193

On September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan (antigraft court) convicted Estrada ofplunder,291 holding that, from June 1998 to January 2001, Estrada had (a) conspiredwith Governor Luis Singson292 and others, and had collected US$11.6 million in kickbacks from illegal jueteng gambling operators as protection money, of which US$4.26
million were found to have been concealed in the bank accounts of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation, and (b) directed two government agencies to purchase shares in the
Belle Corporation (Belle) and unjustly enriched himself by receiving US$4 million incommission for the sale which was held in a bank account under the fake name “JoseVelarde” of which he was the beneficial owner.293
As part of the plunder decision, the Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of Estrada’s
illegally acquired assets from the jueteng collections and the commissions from theBelle Corporation shares.294
Two noteworthy issues in the Estrada case were the use of a foundation to conceal illicit
proceeds and the involvement of a large number of individuals who acted in various
capacities to help Estrada carry out his illicit schemes.
Misuse of Corporate Vehicles—Erap Muslim Youth Foundation
As part of its ruling in the plunder case, the Sandiganbayan held that the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation had been misused to conceal US$4.26 million of the illicit proceedsfrom the jueteng collection scheme.295 The funds were deposited into the Foundation’s
accounts during April and May 2000.
“Erap” was Estrada’s nickname, and also the acronym for Education, Research andAssistance Program.296 President Estrada testified that he had asked his brother-in-law,
Dr. Raul de Guzman, to form the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation to assist poor youth.297
According to testimony at the plunder trial, the foundation did indeed carry out its

291. People v. Estrada (decision for plunder), p. 300.
292. Luis “Chavit” Crisologo Singson had been governor of the Ilocos Sur region, and Estrada’s chief coconspirator in the “jueteng” collections scheme. After a falling out, however, he publicly revealed thescheme and testified against Estrada at the Plunder trial. Jueteng is an illegal numbers game. Ibid. p. 22.
293. Estrada had also been charged with misappropriating, converting and misusing for his gain and benefit public funds in the amount of US$2.77 million (PF 130 million) from the PF 170 million tobacco excise
tax share allocated for the Province of Ilocos Sur. The Court did not convict him of this charge, holding that“the paper trail in relation to the P130,000,000.00 diverted tobacco excise taxes began with Gov. Singson
and ended with Atong Ang. This Court does not find the evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that Pres. Estrada or any member of his family had instigated and/or benefited from the diversion ofsaid funds.” Ibid. p. 193.
294. Ibid. p. 301.
295. Ibid. p. 158. Additional details on the bank paper trail for the sums deposited in the Foundation’s
account are provided in the Sandiganbayan decision. Ibid. p. 100–101.
296. Ibid. p. 121. “Erap” is also the Tagalog word “Pare” (friend) reversed.
297. Ibid. p. 122.

194

I The Puppet Masters

education mission.298 The Sandiganbayan itself wrote that it was “not prepared to conclusively rule [that] Erap is not a legitimate foundation or [that it was] set up purely tohide [Estrada’s] illegally amassed wealth.”299
Estrada publicized the foundation’s activities and solicited donations on its behalf,300
but he had no legal ties to it. Among its incorporators was attorney Edward S. Serapio,
a codefendant in the plunder trial who was acquitted,301 but Estrada was not among
them. Estrada was considered the foundation’s chairman emeritus, but he did not serveon its board of directors and he was not a signatory on its bank accounts. Based on this,the defense for Estrada argued that it was “impossible” for him to use the foundation formoney laundering because “he was not a signatory . . . [and] its treasurer was the Chairman of the bank who would not allow his name to be used in money laundering.”302
They further argued that when Estrada had learned from Serapio that Governor Singson had given US$4.26 million to the foundation, he ordered Serapio to return it toSingson because “his immediate reaction was that it was ‘jueteng’ money.”303
Nonetheless, relying on the testimonial and documentary evidence of Singson, bank
employees, and others, the Sandiganbayan held that the funds deposited in the foundation’s account could be traced to the illegal jueteng collections, and ordered the money
forfeited.304 According to the court,[t]he paper trail of the [funds] deposited for the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, Inc. incontrovertibly established that the said sum of money came from jueteng collections through the
cashier’s/managers checks purchased by [Estrada’s auditor Yolanda] Ricaforte using thedeposits in the accounts that she opened in the different branches of [the bank].305

Use of Front Men and Others
As detailed in the Sandiganbayan’s decision in the plunder trial, many individuals
played major and minor roles in Estrada’s schemes.306 Luis Singson, then-governor of
298. According to the testimony given at the Plunder trial, Danilo Dela Rosa Reyes, Member of the Boardof Trustees of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, stated that the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation’s predecessor, “Erap Para sa Mahirap” foundation was duly established in 1988 and had 14,000 recipients of scholarships as of the year 2000. Among the incorporators of the foundation was former President Estrada. The“Erap Para sa Mahirap” encountered financial constraints, however, and folded. The Erap Muslim YouthFoundation, Inc. came into existence in its place. Ibid. p. 135.
299. Ibid. p. 161.
300. Ibid. p. 122.
301. Ibid. p. 1. Other incorporators were prominent politicians, business people and academicians. Ibid.
302. Ibid. p. 124.
303. Ibid. p. 123.
304. Ibid. p. 301.
305. Ibid. p. 156.
306. It should be noted that Jinggoy Estrada, the former President’s son who was a named co-defendant in
the Plunder case, was acquitted of the charge by the Sandiganbayan which held that there was no evidenceof his collecting or receiving the “jueteng” proceeds. Ibid. at 159. The Sandiganbayan also held that theGrand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 195

the Ilocos Sur region,307 orchestrated the jueteng collection scheme for Estrada. He
testified at the plunder trial to a long and close relationship with Estrada, and was eventhe baptismal godfather to Estrada’s son. Estrada and Singson later had a falling out,
and Singson publicly revealed the jueteng scheme and was a chief witness at Estrada’splunder trial. The Sandiganbayan wrote that Singson did not have the “purest motives
in exposing the ‘jueteng’ collections,” but nevertheless found him credible.308 Singson,in turn, was aided by a number of his employees, including his assistant Emma Lim,
Ma. Carmencita Itchon, and others.309
Charlie “Atong” Tiu Hay Sy Ang was also a key coconspirator in the scheme. Singson
testified that Ang was the person who met with the jueteng operators and fixed theamount to be collected from each province.310 In 2006, Ang was extradited from theUnited States, and in March 2007, he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of Corruption of
Public Officials.311 Yolanda Ricaforte, mentioned earlier, was designated in April 1999
by Estrada as his auditor in the jueteng scheme.312 She worked out of a building owned
by Singson and testified that Estrada told him to pay her a monthly salary of US$1,705(Philippine Peso 80,000),313 and kept a detailed log of the twice-monthly collections(and expenses) in two sets of ledgers.314 She opened numerous bank accounts and handled the transfers to and from the many accounts.315
The Belle Corporation shares sale scheme also involved Estrada friends and associates.
Jaime Dichaves, a business associate of Estrada, was a director of Belle, a gaming company.316 Estrada testified that Dichaves had spoken to him about the Belle shares, andhe in turn mentioned it to Carlos A. Arellano, chairman of the Social Security System(SSS) and Federico Calimbas Pascual, president of the Government Service Insurance
government had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that attorney Edward Serapio, who had been
appointed in April 1999 by Estrada as Presidential Assistant for Political Affairs, had engaged in money
laundering; he was also acquitted. Ibid.
307. Ibid. p. 24.
308. Ibid. p. 152.
309. Ibid. p. 32. Additional names are provided in the Sandiganbayan decision. Ibid. pp. 298–299.
310. Ibid. p. 31.
311. Ibid. pp. 20–21. Ang ultimately received probation.
312. Ibid. p. 32. Estrada admitted that he knew Ricaforte, whom he had appointed as director of Campo
Carne. Estrada had appointed her husband Orestes Ricaforte as Undersecretary of Tourism and given him
a black Lexus. Ibid. pp. 70, 120. Singson testified that Estrada had introduced Ricaforte to him and had
appointed her as auditor because Estrada was “strict with money.” Ibid. p. 120.
313. Ibid. p. 33.
314. The ledgers covered periods November 1998 to July 1999, and August 1999 to August 2000.
315. Ibid. p. 120.
316. Governor Singson had also testified that Dichaves had been a “front” for Estrada in Fontaine Bleau,Inc. “which was a casino owned by Pres. Estrada and built with the use of jueteng protection money. . . .
According to Gov. Singson, the shares in the company were distributed as follows: five percent (5%) to
Butch Tenerio, the President of the casino; twenty-five (25%) for Gov. Singson; seventy percent (70%) for
Pres. Estrada which were placed in the names of Jaime Dichaves and his classmate Susie Pineda.” Ibid. at
75. The Sandiganbayan did not make a finding about the ownership of Fontaine Bleau, which was dissolvedin August 2000. Ibid. p. 72.

196

I The Puppet Masters

System (GSIS). Both Arellano, a childhood friend of Estrada, and Pascual had been
appointed to their posts by Estrada.317 They testified that they were uncomfortable withthe pressure they received from Estrada to have their agencies purchase 329,855,000
and 351,878,000 shares respectively in Belle, which was involved in jai alai sporting andgambling and had a “speculative flavor.”318 Nevertheless, the two agencies spent nearly
US$39.4 million in Belle shares.319 Ocier, an owner of Belle and a cousin of Dichaves,testified that the commission check was made payable in cash and given to Dichaves,
who deposited it in his account and then later transferred the money to the Jose Velardeaccounts.320 Although Dichaves testified that the Jose Velarde account belonged to him,
the Sandiganbayan rejected his testimony and held that Estrada was the beneficial
owner.321 The Sandiganbayan relied on testimonial and documentary evidence in making its ruling, including the fact that Estrada’s secretary, Lucena Baby Ortaliza, handled
the transactions for the Velarde account.322
Investigation
Although Estrada was convicted of plunder, the approximate US$18.6 million the Sandiganbayan was able to trace to Estrada’s illegal activities fell far short of the US$87
million that the government had charged him of illegally accumulating. The Sandiganbayan held that the government failed to offer sufficient evidence of the sources of thenumerous deposits in the Joseph Velarde accounts, except for the Belle share commission and jueteng collections.323
One investigative obstacle in the case, as mentioned earlier, was that Estrada did nothave legal ties to the foundation, that is, his name did not appear on the incorporation
documents. Although Estrada had no legal ties to the foundation, the Sandiganbayan
held him to be the beneficial owner of the funds deposited in its bank account that the
Court traced to the illicit proceeds from the jueteng collection scheme. Estrada also had
no legal ties to the Boracay Mansion in which his mistress lived.324 The Sandiganbayan
held that the funds used to purchase it could be traced to the Jose Velarde account, ofwhich Estrada was the beneficial owner.
The Estrada case was prosecuted by the Office of the Ombudsman. It was tried over thecourse of six years by the Sandiganbayan, which noted that it had encountered anddealt with a number of novel issues, including a challenge by Estrada against the constitutionality of the plunder law. The Philippines Supreme Court’s November 2001 decision
317. Ibid. p. 25.
318. Ibid. pp. 193, 245.
319. Ibid.
320. Ibid. p. 222.
321. Ibid. p. 234.
322. Ibid. pp. 235, 256–257.
323. Ibid. p. 297.
324. Ibid. p. 239. Boracay Mansion was owned by the St. Peter Holdings Corp., to which Estrada had nolegal ties.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 197

upholding the constitutionality of the plunder law allowed the Estrada case toproceed.325
Asset Recovery
At the conclusion of the plunder trial, the Sandiganbayan ordered the forfeiture of the(a) US$11.62 million with interest and income earned, inclusive of US$4.26 million
deposited in the name and account of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation; (b) US$4.02
million inclusive of interests and income earned, deposited in the “Jose Velarde”
account; and (c) the Boracay Mansion.326
On October 25, 2007, then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo granted Estrada a pardon, restoring his civil rights but maintaining the Sandiganbayan’s forfeiture order.327

Case Study 7: Saudi Arabian Fighter Deals and BAE Systems
Overview
Beginning in the mid-1980s, BAE Systems plc (BAE) began serving as contractor to thegovernment of the United Kingdom.328 Under an arrangement known as the KSAFighter Deals, BAE sold to the United Kingdom, which then sold to Saudi Arabia, military aircrafts, hardware, training, and services. Additional equipment, parts, and services have continued to be sold to Saudi Arabia since then.329 Included in the agreements were “support services” that BAE provided to an unnamed KSA public official(Saudi official), who was in a position of influence regarding the sale of fighter jets andother defense materials.330 The benefits were conferred through various means, including through the use of intermediaries and shell entities to conceal payments to those
who assisted with the deals.331
BAE admitted it failed to undertake adequate review or verification of these benefits
provided to the Saudi official, including inadequate review or verification of more than
US$5 million in invoices submitted by a BAE employee from May 2001 to early 2002 to
determine whether the listed expenses were in compliance with previous statements
made by BAE to the U.S. government regarding its anticorruption compliance325. Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of Philippines, G.R. No. 148560 (S.C. November 19, 2001) (Phil.), http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2001/nov2001/148560.php.
326. Ibid. p. 301.
327. Pardon by the President of the Philippines for Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Philippines Office of the Press
Secretary (October 25, 2007), http://www.ops.gov.ph/records/pardon.pdf.
328. Plea Agreement, p. 11, United States v. BAE Sys’s PLC., No. 1:10-cr-0035-JDB (D.D.C. February 2,2010).
329. Ibid.
330. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “BAE Systems PLC Pleads Guilty and Ordered to Pay $400
Million Criminal Fine.” (March 1, 2010), http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-crm-209.html.
331. Plea Agreement, p. 13.

198

I The Puppet Masters

procedures.332 In connection with these same defense deals, BAE also agreed to transfer
more than British Pounds (£) 10 million, plus more than US$9 million, to a bank accountin Switzerland controlled by an intermediary, being aware of the high probability thatthe intermediary would transfer part of these payments to the same KSA official.333
On March 1, 2010, BAE pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding its lawful government functions, to making false statements about its
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance program, and to violating the Arms
Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.334 As a result,
BAE was ordered to pay a US$400 million criminal fine, one of the largest criminal fines
in the history of U.S. Department of Justice’s effort to combat overseas corruption ininternational business and enforce U.S. export control laws.335
The following discussion highlights two interesting aspects of the case: (a) BAE’s use ofshell companies to conceal the role of its intermediaries and (b) the passive yet criticalrole of the Saudi official in the scheme.
BAE’s Use of Shell Companies to Conceal Intermediary Relationships
BAE regularly retained what it referred to as “marketing advisors”336 and intermediaries
to assist in the soliciting, promoting, and securing of the Saudi Arabian Fighter Deals.337
BAE made payments to these advisors through offshore shell companies—despite thefact they failed to perform the requisite due diligence under the FCPA.338 Various offshore shell entities beneficially owned by BAE were used to pay some of these market
advisors.339 BAE also encouraged these advisors to establish their own offshore shell
entities to receive payments to disguise the origins and recipients of such payments.340
One such entity, used by BAE to conceal the marketing advisor relationships, was established in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).341 Under the BVI Business Companies Act
2004, incorporation of a legal entity in BVI requires minimal information at the time ofregistration, namely, only a registered office342 and a registered agent.343 The physicallocation of the place of business, legal ownership information, management information, or beneficial ownership information are not required to be filed in the central

332. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “BAE Systems PLC Pleads Guilty,” supra note 330.
333. Ibid.
334. Plea Agreement, p. 1.
335. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “BAE Systems PLC Pleads Guilty,” supra note 330.
336. Plea Agreement, p. 7.
337. Ibid. p. 13.
338. Ibid. p. 7.
339. Ibid.
340. Ibid.
341. Ibid. p. 8.
342. British Virgin Islands Bus. Co’s Act § (9)(1)(c) (2004).
343. British Virgin Islands Bus. Co’s Act § (9)(1)(d) (2004).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 199

registry at any time. Both the register of members344 and the register of directors345 arerequired to be kept with the registered agent; however they are available only for inspection by directors and members of the company.346 Incorporating in the BVI not onlyoffered anonymity to conceal the identity of the agents, the intermediary relationships,
and the stream of payments, but also inhibited the ability of authorities to penetrate thearrangements.347
The Role of the KSA Official
Like many cases of grand corruption, this case is exemplary of the often “passive” roleof the Politically Exposed Person (PEP). Underlying the formal understanding andrelated framework between BAE, the United Kingdom, and the KSA were certain operational written agreements for specific component provisions of the KSA Fighter
Deals.348 The written agreements were divided into numerous Letters of Offer andAcceptance (LOAs) that were added and revised over the years; these LOAs identified
the principal types of expenditures, work to be undertaken, services to be provided, andprices and terms.349
At least one of the LOAs identified “support services” that BAE considered it was
obliged to provide to a Saudi public official who, as mentioned earlier, was in a position of influence regarding the Saudi Arabian Fighter Deals.350 BAE provided thesebenefits through various payment mechanisms both in the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States and elsewhere.351 Additionally, BAE provided some of these “support
services” to the Saudi official through travel agents retained by a BAE employee, who
was also a trusted confidant of the Saudi official. These benefits included the purchaseof travel, accommodations, security services, real estate, automobiles, and personal
items.352
The role of the Saudi official and the degree of separation he maintained from theadministration of the scheme is interesting. He did not function as the facilitator orintermediary behind the scheme; this role was fulfilled by BAE’s marketing advisors.
Although the Saudi official received money from the shell companies, his name appeared
nowhere on the incorporation papers. He did not devise the scheme, but was merely—tono lesser fault—opportunistic. His role was limited to receiving the bribe payments in
exchange for exerting his influence behind the scenes. It is often the case in grand corruption that the PEPs attempt to minimize their chances of getting caught by maintaining a more passive role in the scheme. Such was the case with the KSA official.
344. British Virgin Islands Bus. Co’s Act § (41)(1)(d)(iv) (2004).
345. British Virgin Islands Bus. Co’s Act § (96)(1)(c) (2004).
346. British Virgin Islands Bus. Co’s Act §§ (100)(1)-(100)(2) (2004).
347. Plea Agreement at 8, United States v. BAE Sys’s, No. 1:10-cr-0035-JDB (D.D.C. February 2, 2010).
348. Ibid. p. 12.
349. Ibid.
350. Ibid.
351. Ibid.
352. Ibid.

200

I The Puppet Masters

Investigation and Asset Recovery
An investigatory obstacle specifically cited in the plea agreement was BAE’s establishment of the offshore entity in the BVI.353 Penetrating an arrangement involving an
incorporated BVI entity can be difficult because of the lack of information recorded oncompanies during registration; this difficulty, of course, does not apply only to entities
incorporated in the BVI, but unfortunately, to numerous jurisdictions.
Another obstacle to the investigation may have been the inadequate information BAE
maintained on its intermediary advisors, namely, who they were and what work they
were doing to advance BAE’s business interests. According to the plea agreement, BAE
avoided communicating with the intermediaries in writing, obfuscating and failing torecord the key reasons for the suitability of the advisor or any relevant document pertaining to work performed.354 Often, the contracts355 with these advisors were maintained by secretive legal trusts in offshore locations. This conduct thus served to conceal
the existence of certain payments through the BAE advisors.356
According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s press release, the BAE case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office’s FCPA squadand special agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Counter Proliferation Unit. Investigative assistance was provided by the Department of Defense’s
Criminal Investigative Services, the General Services Administration’s Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division’s Office of International
Affairs. The press release stated that “[t]he Department of Justice acknowledges andexpresses its appreciation of the significant assistance provided by the U.K.’s Serious
Fraud Office, and further expresses its gratitude to that office for its ongoing partnership in the fight against overseas corruption.”357

353. Ibid. p. 8.
354. Ibid. p. 8.
355. As described in detail in the sentencing memorandum, BAE has now replaced nearly all of its top
leadership, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. BAE also overhauled andexpanded its Corporate Responsibility efforts. New positions include Chief Counsel, Compliance andRegulation (which carry global responsibility), and the Managing Director of Corporate Responsibility,
who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, during the investigation, BAE imposed a
moratorium on entering into new marketing advisor agreements or making payments under existing business marketing advisor agreements until a complete collection and review was undertaken of all suchagreements. In 2007, BAE also initiated a review of all advisors with whom it had agreements, and terminated the majority of pre-existing agreements with advisors. In light of past problems, BAE enhanced its
review procedures for marketing advisors and created an External Review Panel composed of U.S. and U.K.
lawyers with experience in the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws. The new advisor review process
requires any BAE employee who wishes to engage an advisor to formally propose the advisor to the Panel,
which then examines corruption risk and potential reputational risk arising from hiring that advisor before
making a recommendation to BAE’s Group General Counsel. United States’ Sentencing Memorandum at
11-12, United States v. BAE Sys’s PLC, No. 1:10-cr-0035-JDB (D.D.C. February 22, 2010).
356. Plea Agreement p. 8.
357. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I201

Together, these agencies were able to overcome the various investigative obstacles.
On March 1, 2010, BAE pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia to conspiring to defraud the United States by impairing and impeding its
lawful functions, to making false statements about its FCPA compliance program,and to violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR). BAE was ordered to pay a $400 million fine for its criminal
conduct—one of the largest criminal fines ever levied in the United States against acompany for business-related violations.358 As part of its guilty plea, BAE agreed tomaintain a compliance program designed to detect and deter violations of the
FCPA, other foreign bribery laws implementing the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention, and any applicableanticorruption laws designed to detect violations of U.S. export control laws, and to
appoint a compliance monitor for three years.359

Case Study 8: Pavel Lazarenko
Overview
Pavel Lazarenko was prime minister of Ukraine from May 1996 to July 1997, when heleft the position amid allegations of corruption.360 He previously served as first viceprime minister of Ukraine and, before that, as governor and party official for the
Dnepropetrovsk region. After being dismissed as prime minister, he formed and led the
opposition Hromada Party.361 As a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Lazarenko
enjoyed immunity from prosecution. When the Ukrainian Parliament voted in February 1999 to lift his immunity, however, Lazarenko fled to the United States. He wasarrested upon his arrival.
In 2000, the United States filed a 53-count indictment, accusing Lazarenko of involvement in five corruption schemes: (a) extortion of Peter Kiritchenko; (b) extortion ofAlexei Alexandrovich Dityatkovsky and his company Dneproneft; (c) diversion offunds from accounts belonging to two state enterprises, Naukovy State Farm andNikopolsky Metal Works factory; (d) receipt of US$97 million from Somolli, a company
related to the United Energy Systems of Ukraine in exchange for official concessions;and (e) through GHP Corp. (a Panamanian company that Lazarenko and Kiritchenko allegedly controlled), sale of prefabricated homes to the Ukrainian Cabinet
Ministers at an inflated price.362

358. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “BAE Systems PLC Pleads Guilty,” supra note 330.
359. Ibid.
360. United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).
361. Ibid.
362. United States v. Lazarenko, No. 00-cr-0284-01 CRB (N.D. Cal. February 4, 2010) (amended judgment
in a criminal case).

202

I The Puppet Masters

Lazarenko was subsequently convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money
laundering and seven counts of money laundering.363 He was sentenced to 97 months’
imprisonment and fined US$9 million for his role in laundering $30 million in proceeds from extortion.364 The U.S. conviction had been preceded by a 2000 conviction inabsentia in Switzerland on charges of diverting US$72 million from a Ukrainian government contract, depositing US$43 million of it in Swiss accounts and then transferring them to accounts in Antigua and the Bahamas.365 The Swiss court sentenced Lazarenko to an 18-month suspended prison term, and confiscated US$6.6 million from his
Swiss accounts.
In a civil asset forfeiture claim filed in 2005, the U.S. alleged that Lazarenko misused his
public office in amassing more than US$326 million in criminal proceeds that he laundered through a web of corporate vehicles and bank accounts all around the world.366
Two notable aspects of Lazarenko’s money laundering scheme were the misuse of corporate vehicles (CVs) to shield his illicit assets and money laundering activities as wellas the purchase and use of an offshore bank through which he further sought to conceal
his assets. As described below, however, neither provided the bullet-proof protection
from prosecution that Lazarenko may have sought.
Corporate Vehicle Misuse—Not a Bullet-Proof Shield
Although Lazarenko was convicted in the United States on only the eight counts related
to the first scheme of extortion of Kiritchenko, his case still serves as proof that CVs are
not a bullet-proof shield against prosecution.

363. Ibid.
364. Ibid. See also Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Sentenced
to 97 Months in Prison/Fined $9m for Role in Laundering $30m of Extortion Proceeds” (November 19,2009).
365. The Swiss Federal Tribunal case decisions were 125 II 356 and 125 II 238. See also, David Chaikin & J.
C. Sharman, Corruption and Money Laundering: A Symbiotic Relationship 138 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009),
pp. 137-39.
366. First Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture at 21-22, United States v. All Assets Held at Bank
Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., No. 1:04-cv-00798-PLF (D.D.C. June 30, 2005). The amounts and entities listed in
the civil asset forfeiture claim are (a) in 1996, at least US$84 million from Somolli Enterprises; (b) in 1996,
at least US$65 million from United Energy International Limited; (c) between 1996 and 1997, at least
US$42 million from L.I.T.A.T. Offshore, Limited; (d) between 1994 and 1998, at least US$30 million frombusinesses established by Kiritchenko, such as Agrosnasbnyt/ASS and GHP Corporation; (e) between 1996
and 1997, at least US$30 million from DAV Riga; (f) in 1996, at least US$25 million from ITERA Corporation and its affiliates; (g) in 1997, at least US$15 million from SB Corp.; (h) between 1993 and 1994, at least
US$14 million from Naukovy State Farm; (i) in 1997, at least US$13 million from United Energy Systemsof Ukraine; (j) between 1993 and 1996, at least US$5,886,000 from Ditiakovsky and Dneproneft; (k)between 1995 and 1997, at least US$2 million from Internova Trading Corp., and (l) in 1994, at least
US$375,000 from Nakosta Metal Products, a business owned by Alex Kurkaev. Lazarenko officially reported
his income as US$6,000 per year for 1996 and 1997. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 203

For example, two of the counts that Lazarenko was charged with involved the California
corporate entity Dugsbery, Inc. (Dugsbery), which was used to funnel Lazarenko
funds to purchase a US$6.745 million estate in Novato, California, United States.367
Dugsbery was formed in California in 1994, was registered to an individual with ties to
Kiritchenko, and its business address was a building that Kiritchenko owned. In otherwords, Lazarenko’s name was not attached to any of the incorporation documents.368
Lazarenko had no legal ties to Dugsbery, which normally might have proved an effective shield against criminal liability. What ultimately brought down the scheme was thechange of heart by Lazarenko’s advisor and coconspirator turned state-witness, Peter
Kiritchenko.
Kiritchenko’s relationship with Lazarenko dates back to 1992, when the Ukrainian businessman met with Lazarenko, because according to Kiritchenko, “to do any kind ofserious trade one needed [Lazarenko’s] agreement.”369 Lazarenko informed Kiritchenko
that he did business with everyone “50-50.” In 1993, Kiritchenko transferred a 50 percent interest in his company, Agronadsbyt, to Ekaterina Karova, a relative of Lazarenko.
Over the years, he gave Lazarenko US$30 million in profits from his businesses.
At the same time, Kiritchenko also served as advisor and main coconspirator in
Lazarenko’s money laundering schemes.370 Kiritchenko, who had moved to San
Francisco in the mid-1990s, was arrested soon after Lazarenko. Kiritchenko pleaded
guilty to a charge of receipt of property that had crossed a state or U.S. boundary
after being stolen,371 and became a main government witness in Lazarenko’s trial.
This change of heart by Kiritchenko penetrated the anonymity provided by theincorporation structure of Dugsbery. In convicting Lazarenko, the U.S. court heldthat the funds received by Dugsbery could be traced to Lazarenko’s bank account in
the Bahamas. These funds in turn were traced to Lazarenko’s CARPO-53 Swissaccount, where he had deposited proceeds from his extortion of Kiritchenko.372
Correspondent Banking Accounts—European Federal Credit Bank
As defined by the U.S. federal court in the Lazarenko case, a “correspondent account” is“an account established by a domestic banking institution to receive deposits from,367. United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2009).
368. See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx (follow “Corporation Name” option and select; type “Dugsbery”;
follow “Dugsbery Inc.” hyperlink) (accessed July 3, 2010).
369. United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F.3d, p. 1030.
370. According to Lazarenko’s indictment, Kiritchenko had been named in 1995 and 1996 as advisor to
Lazarenko by Directive No. 568 and Directive 596, respectively, by the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers.
Indictment at 2, United States v. Lazarenko, No. 3:00-cr-00284-CRB (May 18, 2000). The U.S. Federal
Bureau of Investigation, acting on an MLAT request from Ukraine in late 1997, had been investigating
Kiritchenko’s ties to Lazarenko when the latter came to the United States in 1999. See Jason Felch, “To
Catch an Oligarch,” San Francisco Magazine (October 4, 2004).
371. Press Release, supra note 364. See also First Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, United Statesv. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., No. 1:04-cv-00798-PLF (D.D.C. June 30, 2005).
372. United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F. 3d, p. 1037.

204

I The Puppet Masters

make payments on behalf of, or handle other financial transactions for a foreign financial institution.”373 A February 2001 report by the U.S. Senate noted that “[c]orrespondent accounts in U.S. banks give the owners and clients of poorly regulated, poorly
managed, sometimes corrupt, foreign banks with weak or no anti-money laundering
controls direct access to the U.S. financial system and the freedom to move money
within the United States and around the world.”374 In October 2001, the U.S. enacted
the USA PATRIOT Act, which prohibited U.S. banks from having correspondentaccounts with offshore shell banks like European Federal Credit Bank (EuroFed).375
In 1997, Lazarenko and Kiritchenko learned that the EuroFed was for sale. In August
1997, Lazarenko and Kiritchenko purchased a 67 percent majority share in the
Antigua-domiciled bank for US$1.1 million.376 Soon thereafter, EuroFed opened
correspondent accounts with U.S. banks and investment firms, as well as with banks
in Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and elsewhere.377 According to the 2005
U.S. civil asset forfeiture claim, approximately US$85.5 million is alleged to havebeen formerly on deposit in accounts held for Lazarenko’s benefit at EuroFed,378 andin all, almost US$100 million was alleged to have been cycled through the various
Lazarenko- and Kiritchenko-controlled accounts at EuroFed to launder the illicit
proceeds. In addition to an account in his name, Lazarenko is alleged to have controlled accounts held at EuroFed in the following names: Lady Lake Investments
Corporation, Fairmont Group, Ltd., Guardian Investment Group, Ltd., Firstar Securities, Ltd., Nemuro Industrial Group, and Orby International, Ltd.379
373. United States v. Lazarenko, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (N.D. Cal, 2008).
374. Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcomm.on Investigations, “Report on Correspondent Banking: A
Gateway for Money Laundering 1” (February 5, 2001). The report summarizes the problem as follows:“U.S. banks have too often failed to conduct careful due diligence reviews of their foreign bank clients,
including obtaining information on the foreign bank’s management, finances, reputation, regulatory environment, and anti-money laundering efforts. The frequency of U.S. correspondent relationships with highrisk banks, as well as a host of troubling case histories uncovered by the Minority Staff investigation, beliebanking industry assertions that existing policies and practices are sufficient to prevent money launderingin the correspondent banking field.” Ibid. p. 2.
375. See generally U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “Money Laundering: A Banker’s Guide to
Avoiding Problems” (December 2002).
376. United States v. Lazarenko, 564 F. 3d 1026. See also United States v. Lazarenko, 575 F. Supp. 2d,
p. 1141.
377. Further information on these accounts is provided in the amended complaint for forfeiture. See alsoFirst Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer &Co., Ltd., No. 1:04-cv-00798-PLF (D.D.C. June 30, 2005).
378. Ibid. In the fall of 1999, acting on a request by the Ukrainian authorities, the Government of Antigua
and Barbuda began an investigation of EuroFed for alleged money laundering activities and froze its assets.
In November 1999, EuroFed was put into receivership and liquidated. Ukraine and Antigua and Barbuda
talk in London, Latest News: Issue No. 58 (October 2001), http://www.antigua-barbuda.com/news_archive/
newsletter58.asp#s5 (accessed July 3, 2010).
379. First Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture at 6. No details are provided in the Amended Complaint about these entities, except their account numbers and transactions, therefore it is not certain
whether they were corporate vehicles that were actually formed or existed in name only. It should be notedthat these accounts are alleged to be only a part of the vast web of Lazarenko and Kiritchenko-controlled
accounts in the names of other corporate entities, trusts and Stiftungs in several jurisdictions. Some ofthose other accounts allegedly include: (a) Accounts at Credit Suisse (Guernsey) Limited, in the name ofGrand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 205

Investigation
Close cooperation and both formal and informal information sharing among motivated investigators in Antigua and Barbuda, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United States,and other jurisdictions resulted in two criminal convictions.
The Ukraine investigation was conducted by the prosecutor general’s office. In the
United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice, andthe Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation division were involved in theinvestigation and prosecution of the case.380 The lead prosecutor Martha A. Boerschand the lead FBI investigator Bryan E. Earl were both fluent in Russian and both traveled to Kiev and other parts of the world to carry out their investigation. The Swiss
investigation was led by Investigating Magistrate Laurent Kasper-Ansermet, who traveled to the United States under a mutual legal assistance agreement by the two countries to present the Swiss indictment to Lazarenko while he was in U.S. custody, thereby
enabling the conviction in Switzerland to proceed. In the fall of 2009, the Governmentof Antigua and Barbuda began an investigation of EuroFed for alleged money laundering activities.381 In October 2009, it froze the bank’s assets and then put the bank inreceivership and ordered its liquidation.
Asset Recovery
As part of the sentence in his U.S. criminal case, Lazarenko was ordered to pay a fineof US$9 million and forfeit US$22,851,000 and various specified assets resulting
from his conviction.382 He was ordered to pay restitution of US$19,473,309 to Peter
Kiritchenko.383 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed
the lower court’s ruling. The Court wrote “We hold that, in the absence of exceptional
circumstances, a co-conspirator cannot recover restitution. Because no exceptional
circumstances exist here, we reverse and vacate the order of restitution.”384
In a civil asset forfeiture claim filed in 2005, the U.S. alleged that Lazarenko misused his
public office in amassing more than US$326 million in criminal proceeds, which helaundered through a web of CVs and bank accounts around the world.385 The United
Samante Limited as Trustee of the Balford Trust, valued at US$147,919,401.13; (b) Accounts at Credit
Suisse (Geneva), Banque SCS Alliance S.A. (Geneva), and Vilniaus Bankas (Lithuania) in the name ofEuropean Federal Credit Bank Limited, totaling over US$34 million; and (c) Accounts formerly held in
Liechtenstein in accounts in the names of Orilles Stiftung, Gruztam Stiftung, Lesja Stiftung, NRKTO 7541,
which were valued at approximately US$7 million and were being held at banks in Liechtenstein in accounts
in the name of Beranco Engineering Establishment, Ylorex Establishment, Tanas AG, and NRKTO 7541 orin the name of Pavlo Lazarenko. Ibid.
380. “To Catch an Oligarch,” supra note 370.
381. United States v. Lazarenko, 575 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1142 (N.D. Cal, 2008).
382. United States v. Lazarenko, No. CR00-cr-0284-01-CRB (N.D. Cal. February 4, 2009).
383. Ibid.
384. Decision, US (Plaintiff-Appellee) and Kiritchenko (Intervenor) v. Lazarenko, No. 08–10185 (9th cir.
Nov 3, 2010).
385. First Amended Verified Complaint for Forfeiture, United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer &Co., Ltd., et al., No. 1:04-cv-00798-PLF (D.D.C. June 30, 2005).

206

I The Puppet Masters

States is seeking to forfeit more than $250 million in property traceable to a series ofcorrupt acts and money laundering by Lazarenko and located in bank accounts in Antigua and Barbuda, Guernsey, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, and Switzerland.386 At the timeof writing, the case is ongoing.387
Case Study 9: Piarco International Airport Scandal
Overview
From 1996 through 2000, the government of Trinidad and Tobago conducted what was
intended to be a competitive process to award and pay for various contracts in conjunction with the construction of the Piarco International Airport in Trinidad.388 Birk Hillman Consultants, Inc. (BHC), a construction firm co-owned by Eduardo HillmanWaller, was hired as designer, consultant, and project manager to oversee the airport
construction project.389 BHC and others, such as businessmen Raul Gutierrez andArmando Paz, were able to rig the bidding and selection process so that overpriced bids
submitted by the companies they controlled, such as the Florida corporation Calmaquip Engineering Corp. (Calmaquip),390 would be chosen to perform the contracts.391
According to the civil complaint filed by Trinidad and Tobago against the conspirators,
the influence of political appointees, which included chairman of the National Gas
Company Steve Ferguson,392 Minister of Finance Brian Kuei Tung,393 and chairman ofTourism and Industrial Development Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ishwar
Galbaransingh,394 allowed BHC and the other conspirators to guarantee government
approval for the projects.395
386. As part of his 2000 conviction, Switzerland seized US$6.6 million from Lazarenko-controlled accounts.
David Chaikin & J.C. Sharman, supra note 365. See also “The Case against Pavlo Lazarenko,” BBC News
(August 25, 2006), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780743.stm.
387. In 2008, the U.S. judge in the case denied Lazarenko’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ibid.
388. Indictment pp. 2, 4.United States v. Gutierrez, No. 05-20859 CR-HUCK (S.D. Fla. November 17, 2005),(entered in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida as Case 1:05-cr-20859-PCH).
389. Ibid. United States v. Hillman-Waller, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case) (S.D.
Fla. January 29, 2007).
390. Florida Department of State Division of Corporations, Details by Entity Name: Calmaquip Eng’g
Corp., http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=228605&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0001&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=CALMAQUIP&names_filing_type= (accessed July 3, 2010).
391. Indictment, p. 5. United States v. Gutierrez, No. 05-20859 CR-HUCK (S.D. Fla. November 17, 2005).
See also United States v. Gutierrez, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (amended judgment in a criminal case) (S.D.
Fla. March 19, 2007). See also United States v. Paz, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case)(S.D. Fla. January 29, 2007). See also United States v. Calmaquip Eng’g Corp., No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK(judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. January 18, 2007).
392. Complaint at 7, Trinidad & Tobago v. Birk Hillman Consultants, No. 04-11813 CA 30 (11th Fla. Cir.
Ct. April 13, 2007).
393. Ibid. p. 11.
394. Ibid. p. 24.
395. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 207

A contract designated CP-9 was approved for the building enclosure and interior construction of the airport.396 Despite the fact that eight companies had prequalified tosubmit bids, only one company from Trinidad and Tobago, Northern Construction
Limited (Northern), submitted a bid.397 According to the indictment, Northern wasowned by Galbaransingh. Despite the fact that Northern’s bid was approximately US$10
million above the cost estimate, Northern was awarded the contract for CP-9.
The contract designated CP-13 was awarded to Calmaquip for miscellaneous specialty
equipment, such as jetways, elevators, escalators, and x-ray machines. Despite the factthat 10 companies had been prequalified to invite bids for CP-13, only Calmaquip and
SDC, an international construction firm, submitted bids. Neither Calmaquip nor SDC
disclosed that SDC’s subsidiary, SDCC, shared corporate officers, directors, and a business location with Calmaquip. Calmaqup won the bid, despite its bid being US$15 million higher than the estimated cost of CP-13. The proceeds of these fraudulently
obtained contacts were then secreted into various offshore bank accounts connected todifferent shell companies.398
The misuse of corporate vehicles (CVs) was essential in this case. As will be discussed
below, they were used not only to provide additional layers to the scheme, but also togive the scheme the appearance of legitimacy.
Misuse of CVs to Give Appearance of Legitimacy
CVs are often used to protect the anonymity of a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) in
corruption schemes; they are further used to hide the names of those involved in thescheme altogether. Another reason CVs are used is to give a fraudulent scheme theappearance of legitimacy. Because of the large-scale nature of the Piarco airport construction project, the prominent role the government played in awarding the contracts,
and the high-level PEPs allegedly involved, it would have been nearly impossible forthose PEPs to remain completely anonymous throughout the duration of the scheme.
In other words, the primary motivation for using CVs was probably not the protectionof the anonymity of the PEPs. Instead, the conspirators likely employed CVs to convince the public that the bidding and the awarding of contracts was being performed
legitimately.
According to the civil complaint, despite the fact that BHC had been pre-assured ofthe position of project manager before the bidding process even began, BHC was
still asked to give a presentation to the selection committee.399 This was to give theappearance that a legitimate competitive process was being carried out. Furthermore, the selection committee invited Scott and Associates, a company from Toronto,
396. Indictment p. 3, United States v. Gutierrez.
397. Ibid. pp. 2–4.
398. Ibid.
399. Complaint p. 27, Trinidad & Tobago v. Birk Hillman Consultants, No. 04-11813 CA 30 (11th Fla. Cir.
Ct. April 13, 2007).

208

I The Puppet Masters

Canada, to make a presentation to purportedly compete with BHC for the project
manager contract.400 BHC’s role as project manager was essential to the securing of
future subcontracts, so providing a façade of legitimacy was critical to the scheme’s
success.
The fact that payments from Trinidad and Tobago for the CP-9 and CP-13 contracts
were transferred to Northern and Calmaquip also gave the appearance of legitimacy. It
seemed logical that those CVs would receive the payments, because those companies
actually bid on and performed the work.401 It is now clear that the companies werevastly overpaid for their work, but at the time, this fact was obscured by the rigged bidding process, which appeared legitimate to the public eye.
Layering of Corporate Vehicles
The Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (AATT) was the government agency
assigned overall responsibility for the construction of the airport.402 From April to
November 2000, AATT paid funds into Calmaquip’s bank accounts at Dresdner Bank
Lateinamerika, AG (Dresdner) in Miami, Florida, United States, for Calmaquip’s workon CP-13.403 Forty-five payments were made, ranging from US$20,461.95 to
US$5,500,663.75, and amounting to more than US$29,095,477.404
After the money was deposited into Calmaquip’s Dresdner account, the conspirators used a system of layering to create levels of separation. On May 11, 2000, Raul
Gutierrez, president and director of Calmaquip,405 wire transferred US$2,000,000
from Dresdner Bank to Bank Leu Ltd. on behalf of the company, AMA Investment
Group (AMA).406 According to the indictment, that same day, AMA wire transferred
US$1,500,000 from its Bank Leu account to the Bank Leu account of Argentum International Marketing Services, S.A. (Argentum). Over the course of the next month,
Steve Ferguson, on behalf of Argentum, allegedly wire transferred from Argentum’s
Bank Leu account to other bank accounts held in the name of various other CVs, suchas Bocora Holding, Inc. (Bocora) and Maritime Securities Holdings Ltd. In Augustand September 2000, Gutierrez and Armando Paz, both directors for Calmaquip, also
made numerous transfers on behalf of Calmaquip to the Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria accounts of Empresas Sudamericana S.A. (Empresas). Later, Empresas allegedly
would wire transfer money from this account to Argentum’s Bank Leu account. Aftersufficient layers had been created, the payouts were made into the bank accounts ofthe conspirators.407

400. Ibid.
401. Indictment, pp. 3–4, United States v. Gutierrez.
402. Ibid. p. 2.
403. Ibid. p. 8.
404. Ibid. p. 9.
405. Ibid. p. 1.
406. Ibid. pp. 9–12.
407. Ibid.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 209

This tactic of moving money from the bank account of one CV to the next, known aslayering, is often used to disguise the trail of money. Layering separates the illegallyobtained funds from the crime by obscuring the trail of money through a complex webof financial transactions. Rather than having the money transfer directly to one of theconspirators, it is being diverted to a company, thus giving it the appearance of legitimacy. In this case, securing disassociation from the rigged bidding process through thisprocess of layering was a key step for the conspirators before they could enjoy their
payday.
Investigation and Asset Recovery
This case presented various investigative obstacles. As discussed, the tactic of layering
can obscure the trail of funds. The fact that the layered CVs were created in different
jurisdictions also created an additional obstacle. According to the civil complaint,
CVs from a wide variety of jurisdictions including—but not limited to—the Bahamas;
Florida, the United States; Panama; Portugal; and Trinidad and Tobago were employedin the scheme.408 For a criminal, such a structure of international layering can be convenient for hiding the trail of money—but from the perspective of an investigator, itcreates a number of other investigative issues. For one, layering makes an investigation exponentially more costly—as was the case here.409 In addition, when investigations become international, one jurisdiction’s law enforcement must rely on anotherjurisdiction’s law enforcement, and must make mutual legal assistance requests.
A number of CVs involved or allegedly involved in the scheme were from Panama. The
aforementioned CVs, Argentum,410 Bocora,411 and Empresas,412 for example, were allincorporated in Panama. Like a number of other jurisdictions, the Panamanian company registry does not collect legal ownership information (or beneficial ownership
information); for sociedad anónimas/corporations, legal ownership information does
not need to be disclosed upon incorporation.413 Furthermore, in Panama, updating
requirements are not set forth in the legislation for the information that must be submitted

408. Complaint pp. 6–8, 17, 72, Trinidad & Tobago v. Birk Hillman Consultants, No. 04-11813 CA 30 (11thFla. Cir. Ct. April 13, 2007).
409. According to an experienced investigator from the British Virgin Islands, the most effective way toresolve the cost issue from layering is by striking early against exposed assets and liquidating them to add
to available resources.
410. See https://www.registro-publico.gob.pa/scripts/nwwisapi.dll/conweb/prinpage (follow “Mercentil”;
then follow “Sociedad Anónimas”; then follow “Alfabéticamente”; then type “Argentum International Marketing Services” in “Indique Nombre de Sociedad”; follow “Argentum International Marketing” hyperlink)(accessed July 3, 2010).
411. See https://www.registro-publico.gob.pa/scripts/nwwisapi.dll/conweb/prinpage (follow “Mercentil”;
then follow “Sociedad Anónimas” then follow “Alfabéticamente”; then type “Bocora Holdings” in “IndiqueNombre de Sociedad”; follow “Bocora Holdings, Inc.” hyperlink) (accessed July 3, 2010).
412. See https://www.registro-publico.gob.pa/scripts/nwwisapi.dll/conweb/prinpage (follow “Mercentil”;
then follow “SociedadAnónimas”; then follow “Alfabéticamente”; then type “Empresas Sudamericana” in“Indique Nombre de Sociedad”; follow “Empresas Sudamericana, S.A.” hyperlink) (accessed July 3, 2010).
413. Panama Corp. Law, Law 32, (1927) (Art. 2).

210

I The Puppet Masters

at incorporation.414 In essence, no public source exists for this information; the only
place to obtain this information from Panama is from the company.
In spite of these obstacles, successful asset recovery was effected, and as of the date ofthis writing, efforts to recover further assets are ongoing. On November 17, 2005, theUnited States brought a criminal suit against Raul Gutierrez, Rene Diaz de Villegas,
Eduardo Hillman-Waller, Steve Ferguson, Armando Paz, Ishwar Galbaransingh,
Richard Lacle, Leonardo Mora, Northern, and Calmaquip in the Southern District ofFlorida for their involvement in the scheme.415 From that list, Gutierrez,416 Diaz,417
Hillman-Waller,418 Paz,419 Lacle,420 Mora,421 and Calmaquip422 have all pleaded guilty.
In total, the defendants were ordered to pay more than US$25 million in restitution
for their admitted guilt in the CP-13 contract.
A civil suit was brought by the RTT against many of the same defendants in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. In addition to the aforementioned defendants, Ronald Birk, Brian Kui Tung, and various other CVs were414. Ibid.
415. Indictment pp. 2, 4. United States v. Gutierrez, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (S.D. Fla. November 17,2005).
416. On March 19, 2007, Gutierrez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to transfer
money obtained by fraud and bank fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suit brought by the UnitedStates. Gutierrez was ordered to pay US$22,556,100 in restitution. United States v. Gutierrez, No. 05-20859CR-HUCK (amended judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. March 19, 2007).
417. On December 17, 2007, Diaz pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to transfer money
obtained by fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suit brought by the United States. He was ordered
to pay a fine of US$50,000. United States v. Diaz de Villegas, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (amended judgment
in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. December 17, 2007).
418. On December 17, 2007, Hillman Waller pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and totransfer money obtained by fraud and bank fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suit brought by
the United States. Hillman Waller was ordered to pay US$2 million in restitution. United States v. HillmanWaller, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. January 29, 2007).
419. On January 29, 2007, Paz pleaded guilty to bank fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suitbrought by the United States. Paz was ordered to pay restitution of US$489,618.06. United States v. Paz, No.
05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. January 29, 2007).
420. On January 17, 2007, Lacle pleaded guilty to conspiracy to structure financial transactions in theSouthern District of Florida in a suit brought by the United States. Lacle was ordered to pay a fine of
US$15,000. United States v. Lacle, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. January
17, 2007).
421. On January 17, 2007, Mora pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit offense against the United States,that is, transportation of money obtained by fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suit brought by
the United States. United States v. Mora-Rodriguez, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminalcase) (S.D. Fla. January 17, 2007). On April 27, 2007, Mora was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of
US$80,000. United States v. Mora-Rodriguez, No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (ordering setting restitution
amount) (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2007).
422. On January 18, 2007, Calmaquip pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to transfer
money obtained by fraud and bank fraud in the Southern District of Florida in a suit brought by the UnitedStates. It is unclear how much Calmaquip was ordered to pay in restitution. United States v. Calmaquip
Eng’g Corp., No. 05-20859-CR-HUCK (judgment in a criminal case) (S.D. Fla. January 18, 2007).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 211

sued.423 The complaint alleged improper dealings with the contracts CP-3, CP-5, andCP-9.424 According to various news outlets, Ronald Birk, another coowner of BHC,
signed a plea deal with the RTT to give evidence against his alleged coconspirators.425
At the time of writing, this suit was ongoing.

Case Study 10: Telecommunications D’Haiti
Overview
Between 2001 and 2005,426 government officials at Haiti’s state-owned national telecommunications company, Telecommunications D’Haiti (Haiti Teleco), accepted bribes
and laundered funds through corporate vehicles (CVs). As the sole provider of local
telephone service in Haiti, Haiti Teleco contracted with international telecommunications companies to allow customers of those companies to make calls to Haiti.427 Representatives of three such telecommunications companies, based in the United States,
paid bribes to Haiti Teleco officials in exchange for commercial advantages that included
preferential and reduced telecommunications rates and credits toward amounts owed,
thereby defrauding Haiti Teleco of revenue.428
The bribes originating from the U.S. telecommunications companies were funneledsystematically and incrementally through wire transfers and check payments429 tointermediary shell companies.430 These payments were made to appear as being for
consulting services, commissions,431 and vendor payments, although no such services
were ever rendered.432 The funds were dispersed from the intermediary accounts forthe benefit of Haiti Teleco officials and their relatives, including Haiti Teleco’s Directorof International Affairs, a position held by Robert Antoine and subsequently by Jean Rene
Duperval during the period of the scheme.433 In dispersing the funds, false notations,423. Complaint at 7, Trinidad & Tobago v. Birk Hillman Consultants, No. 04-11813 CA 30 (11th Fla. Cir.
Ct. April 13, 2007).
424. Ibid. p. 99.
425. Darren Bahaw, “Birk Signs Plea Deal with State,” Trinidad & Tobago Express (March 5, 2010), http://
www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161603723 (accessed July 3, 2010).
426. Factual Agreement, United States v. Antoine, No. 09-cr-21010-JEM (S.D. Fla. March 12, 2010).
427. Information p. 2, United States v. Diaz, No. 09-cr-20346-MARTINEZ/BROWN (S.D. Fla. April 22,2009).
428. Indictment p. 8, United States v. Esquenazi, No. 09-cr-21010 (S.D. Fla. December 4, 2009).
429. Information p. 6, United States v. Diaz.
430. Indictment p. 10, United States v. Esquenazi.
431. Ibid. p. 8.
432. Information p. 6, United States v. Diaz. See also Indictment p. 9, United States v. Esquenazi. Diazadmitted that he never provided, and never intended to provide, any legitimate goods or services from JD
Locator. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Two Florida Businessmen Plead Guilty to Participating
in a Conspiracy to Bribe Foreign Government Officials and Money Laundering” (May 15, 2009), http://
www.usdog.gov/usao/fls.
433. Factual Agreement, United States v. Robert Antoine. It had been mentioned that bribes were also paid
to the director general of Haiti Teleco, and on July 13, 2011, the U.S. handed down an indictment against
former Haiti Teleco Director General Patrick Joseph. See note 467. Information p. 6, United States v. Diaz.

212

I The Puppet Masters

such as inscribing fabricated invoice reference numbers on the memo portions of thechecks, routinely would be made to conceal the true nature of the payments.434
Two intriguing aspects of this case were (a) the system of corruption at Haiti Teleco thatallowed for the corruption to take place, and (b) the use of family members to administer parts of the scheme.
A System of Corruption
This case exhibits a system of corruption that remained in place even after Jean Rene
Duperval succeeded Robert Antoine as Haiti Teleco’s director of international relations.
While Antoine was the director, he received US$1,150,000 in bribes from three U.S.
telecommunications companies through intermediary shell companies,435 including
the Florida-based JD Locator Services (JD Locator),436 which was formed by a codefendant Juan Diaz.437 As described earlier, the bribes were made to appear as payments for
consulting services, through the writing of false memo notations on checks, and throughdeposits into and withdrawals from accounts of intermediary shell companies.438 At
Antoine’s direction, funds would be disbursed from the JD Locator bank account bysending wire transfers to Antoine’s bank account, issuing checks payable to Antoine,which then were deposited into that same account, withdrawing currency that wasgiven to Antoine, and sending funds to Antoine’s family members and others at his
direction.439 Incremental disbursements were also paid to another intermediary company, Fourcand Enterprises, Inc. (Fourcand Enterprises), which was a Florida-based
company established by Jean Fourcand, who served as its president and director.440
Funds that accumulated in the Fourcand Enterprises account were collectively used topurchase real property, which was subsequently sold, the proceeds of which were transferred to Antoine via Fourcand’s personal bank account.441
Once Antoine completed his tenure as director at Haiti Teleco, he was employed by twoof the three U.S. companies that had paid him bribes. From this position, he facilitatedthe same corruption scheme, as bribes continued to be paid from the telecommunications companies to Duperval, who had succeeded him as director. Funds would be434. Ibid. p. 7.
435. Factual Agreement, United States v. Antoine.
436. At least two other Florida-based corporate vehicles were misused in the corruption scheme in a manner similar to JD Locator. Indictment at 10, United States v. Esquenazi, No. 09-21010 (S.D. Fla. December
4, 2009).
437. Diaz would cash checks typically in amounts no greater than US$10,000, thereby obviating his obligation to file Currency Transaction Reports pursuant to relevant banking regulations and U.S. law. Information p. 7, United States v. Diaz.
438. Factual Agreement, United States v. Antoine.
439. Indictment p. 9, United States v. Esquenazi.
440. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Florida Businessman Pleads Guilty to Money Launderingin Foreign Bribery Scheme” (February 19, 2010).
441. Indictment pp. 23–24, United States v. Esquenazi. See also Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice,“Florida Businessman Pleads Guilty to Money Laundering in Foreign Bribery Scheme” (February 19,2010).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 213

paid to intermediary shell companies, including Process Consulting, which was
Antoine’s company, and to Telecom Consulting Services Corp. (Telecom Consulting),
a company set up by the president and director of one of the U.S. telecommunications
companies, Joel Esquenazi, another codefendant.442 Similar to the disbursements fromJD Locator, funds from Telecom Consulting were disbursed at Duperval’s direction by
the issuing of checks payable to Duperval and his family members, cash withdrawals,
and purchases with such funds for Duperval’s benefit.443 It is alleged that more than
US$1 million was received in the accounts of JD Locator444 in 29 separate transactions
and disbursed in 22 separate transactions445 for the benefit of Antoine, and that
US$75,000 was received in the account of Telecom Consulting in seven separate transactions, more than half of which was disbursed in 12 separate transactions for the
benefit of Duperval.446
The two schemes mirrored each other in many regards: Both schemes were administered from the same director position within the government, and both schemes utilized an intermediary shell company to receive wire transfers. Another common aspectof the two schemes was the use of family members.
Involvement of Family Members
The misuse of CVs in this case was carried out to a substantial extent by and throughthe use of family members of Antoine and Duperval. Whether knowingly or inadvertently, these family members helped to conceal the connection of Antoine and Duperval to the bribes.
Duperval made his sister, Marguerite Grandison, the sole officer and director of intermediary shell company Telecom Consulting.447 Grandison opened a bank account in
the name of Telecom Consulting for which she was the sole signatory, which received
more than US$70,000 in bribe payments via wire transfers and intrabank transfers froma U.S. telecommunications company.448 At her brother’s direction, she disbursed thefunds from the account by issuing checks from Telecom Consulting payable to herbrother and to his relatives, by withdrawing currency for him from the account, and by
making purchases with the funds for her brother’s benefit.449 By having a family member
conduct the money transfers, Duperval and coconspirator Esquenazi were able toenhance their anonymity in connection with the bribery; that is, Duperval was the true442. Jean Rene Duperval’s sister, Marguerite Grandison, served as the president and sole officer of Telecom
Consulting, as described below. Indictment p. 10, United States v. Esquenazi.
443. Ibid. p. 11.
444. Information p. 6, United States v. Diaz, No. 09-20346-CR-MARTINEZ/BROWN (S.D. Fla. April 22,2009).
445. Ibid. pp. 7–10.
446. Indictment pp. 15–16, United States v. Esquenazi. See also Factual Agreement, United States v. Antoine,
No. 09-21010-cr-JEM (S.D. Fla. March 12, 2010).
447. Indictment p. 10, United States v. Esquenazi.
448. Ibid.
449. Ibid. p. 11.

214

I The Puppet Mastersbeneficial owner of Telecom Consulting, and Ezquenazi, who served as the president
and director of one of the bribe-paying U.S. telecommunications companies, had been
involved in establishing Telecom Consulting450 for use in the scheme. The names of
either Duperval or Esquenazi, however, did not appear on any official documents ofTelecom Consulting (such as its articles of incorporation,451 or documentation of moneytransfers into or out of Telecom Consulting’s bank account).452 The only name thatappears on the articles of incorporation is Grandison’s, and that of the general counselof the U.S. telecommunications company, who was listed as the registered agent.453 Similarly, it is only Grandison’s name that appears on banking documentation for Telecom
Consulting.
Family members were used to accept bribery payments intended for Antoine and Duperval. When funds were disbursed from the intermediary shell companies, in certain
instances, they were distributed to relatives of Antoine454 and Duperval.455 Again, theuse of family members added a layer of separation between the bribe-payers and thebribe-takers, thereby helping to conceal the connection of Antoine and Duperval tothe bribery.
Investigation
The systematic way in which the CVs were misused presented obstacles to the investigation. On the face of it, and according to the records kept at both the U.S. telecommunications companies as well as the intermediary companies, the bribe payments
appeared to be made for legitimate services rendered. Furthermore, because theamounts of the checks cashed by JD Locator were each typically at or under US$10,000,
Currency Transaction Reports would not have been filed with the banks in connection
with the transactions.456 In addition, the use of shell companies as intermediaries superficially dissociated the individual bribe-givers from the bribe-takers, by preventing
their names from appearing as direct counterparties in any transactions transferring
bribe money.
The investigation was able to proceed successfully, at least in part because of effective
cooperation between United States and Haitian authorities. U.S. authorities obtained
450. Ibid. p. 10.
451. Ibid. Telecom Consulting Servs Corp., Articles of Incorporation (October 16, 2003).
452. The laws of Florida, where Telecom Consulting was incorporated, impose no obligation for the identity of the legal or beneficial owners of the company to be disclosed to a public authority, whether uponincorporation or on any on-going basis. Fla. Stat. § 607.1622 (2009), http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/
index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0607/SEC1622.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0607->Section%201622#0607.1622 (accessed July 3, 2010).
453. Telecom Consulting Servs. Corp., Articles of Incorporation (October 16, 2003). See also Indictment
p. 10, United States v. Esquenazi.
454. Information p. 6, United States v. Perez, No. 09-20347-CR-MARTINEZ/BROWN (S.D. Fla. April 22,2009). See also Information p. 6, United States v. Diaz, No. 09-20346-CR-MARTINEZ/BROWN (S.D. Fla.
April 22, 2009). See also Indictment p. 9, United States v. Esquenazi.
455. Indictment p. 11, United States v. Esquenazi.
456. Information p. 7, United States v. Diaz.

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I 215

evidence supporting the charges through formal requests made under the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. Once the indictment was issued, Duperval, a
non-U.S. citizen, was arrested by agents of Haiti’s Bureau des Affaires Financières etEconomiques on the basis of a U.S. arrest warrant and then expelled to the United States
to face charges.457
Asset Recovery
In 2009 and 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated criminal cases against eightindividuals involved in the bribery scheme. Informations were issued against Juan Diaz,
Jean Fourcand, and Antonio Perez, who had served as controller of a U.S. telecommunications company. An indictment was also issued against Joel Esquenazi, Robert
Antoine, Jean Rene Duperval, Marguerite Grandison, and Carlos Rodriguez, who was
executive vice president of a U.S. telecommunications company.458 According to theindictment, if convicted, these five defendants collectively would be required to forfeit
to the United States US$963,818 representing proceeds of the conspiracy and offenses,
in addition to all money properties, and commissions paid in connection with, or used
to facilitate, the offenses.459 In addition to forfeiture provisions, the various criminal
charges carry maximum penalties of between 5and 20 years in prison, as well as maximum fines of between US$100,000 and US$500,000, or twice the value of the property
or the proceeds in question, whichever is greater.460
Antoine pleaded guilty to money laundering conspiracy in connection with US$800,000
in bribes.461 He was sentenced to four years in prison462 and was ordered to pay
US$1,852,209 in restitution and to forfeit US$1,580,771.463 Perez pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations and money
laundering,464 involving approximately US$674,193 in bribes to an official at Haiti

457. Press Release, U.S. Department of State, “Haiti Arrests and Expels Former Haiti Telecommunications
Official for US Corruption-Related Charges” (December 8, 2009), http://haiti.usembassy.gov/press_
releases/haiti-arrests-and-expels-former-haiti-telecommunications-official-for-u.s.-corruption-relatedcharges-8-december-2009.
458. Although the FCPA does not provide for prosecution of non-U.S. officials who accept bribes, the U.S.
Department of Justice charged the Haitian officials for money laundering offenses under other (non-FCPA)
legal provisions. Esquenazi and Rodriguez were U.S. citizens, and Grandison was a permanent U.S. resident. Indictment, United States v. Esquenazi.
459. Ibid. pp. 27–28.
460. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Florida Businessman Pleads Guilty to Money Launderingin Foreign Bribery Scheme” (February 19, 2010).
461. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Haitian Government Official Pleads Guilty toConspiracy to Commit Money Laundering in Foreign Bribery Scheme” (March 12, 2010).
462. He was also sentenced to three years of supervised release following the time in prison.
463. United States v. Antoine, No. 09-cr-21010-MARTINEZ (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2010) (order of forfeiture).
See also Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Haitian Government Official Sentenced to
Prison for His Role in Money Laundering Conspiracy Related to Foreign Bribery Scheme” (June 2, 2010).
See also Plea Agreement pp. 8-9, United States v. Antoine, No. 09-cr-21010 (S.D. Fla. February 19, 2010).
464. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Haitian Government Official Pleads Guilty toConspiracy to Commit Money Laundering in Foreign Bribery Scheme” (March 12, 2010).

216

I The Puppet Masters

Teleco. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison and ordered to forfeit US$36,375.465
Diaz pleaded guilty in connection with concealing US$1,028,851 in bribes while serving as an intermediary for three private telecommunications companies, and was sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay US$73,824 in restitution and toforfeit US$1,028,851.466 Fourcand entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which heagreed to forfeit US$18,500 to the United States467 and was sentenced to six months inprison.468
As of end of July 2011, Esquenzi and Rodriguez’s trial was ongoing.469 Duperval andGrandison’s trial was scheduled to commence on August 1, 2011.470 On July 13, 2011,
the United States also handed down a superseding indictment against new defendants,
including former director general of Haiti Teleco Patrick Joseph and other companies
and individuals, as well as additional charges against Duperval and Grandison.471 At
the time of writing, trial has not yet been set for the newly added defendants.472

465. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Comptroller of a Miami-Dade Telecommunications Company Sentenced to 24 Months in Prison for His Role in Foreign Bribery Scheme” (January 21,2011).
466. Plea Agreement at 2, United States v. Diaz, No. 09-20346-Cr-JEM (April 21, 2010). Press Release, U.S.
Department of Justice, “Florida Businessman Sentenced to 57 Months in Prison for Role in Foreign Bribery Scheme” (July 30, 2010).
467. Plea Agreement p. 8, United States v. Fourcand, No. 10-20062-cr-JEM (S.D. Fla. February 19, 2010).
468. Press Release, U.S. Department of Justice, “Former Haitian Government Official Sentenced to Prison
for His Role in Money Laundering Conspiracy Related to Foreign Bribery Scheme” (June 2, 2010).
469. Court Docket Report as of July 27, 2011, U.S. v. Esquenazi, et al, No. 1:09-cr-21010-JEM-4 (S.D. Fla.)
470. Order Regarding the Sequence of Trials, U.S. v. Esquenazi, et al, No. 1:09-cr-21010-JEM-4 (S.D. Fla.
May 27, 2011)
471. Superseding Indictment, U.S. v. Vaconez Cruz, et al., No. 1:09-cr-21010-JEM-4 (S.D. Fla. July 13,2011).
472. Docket Report as of July 27, 2011, U.S. v. Esquenazi, et al, No. 1:09-cr-21010-JEM-4 (S.D. Fla.).

Grand Corruption: 10 Case Studies

I

217

Appendix E. An Overview of Corporate
Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

220

TABLE E.1

Companies

I The Puppet Masters

Country

Information
registered

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Anguilla

Physical address

No

No

✓

✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent✓

Managers/directors✓✓

References
Companies Act 2000, §§1, 5(1),7, 28(5), 99, 188

Legal owners
Officers
Antigua andBarbudaPhysical address
✓

✓

No

No

✓

✓

Companies Act 1995, §§4, 29(2),62(2), 69, 99, 176, 340

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Bahamas, The

Physical address
✓

No

No

✓

✓

✓

Companies Act 1992, §§3, 6, 48,

Registered office(Warrants

118; Business Licenses Act

Registered agent

permitted)

1980; International Business

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Companies Act 2000, §§181,
184, 185

Belize

Physical address
✓

✓

No

Immobilized

Registered office(Warrants

Registered agent

permitted)

✓

✓

✓

Regulations of June 2001;
Companies Act, §§5, 38, 251

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Bermuda✓Registered officeownership,

53, 62(1-2), 91(1-2), 98, 133; CA

Registered agent

unless declared

Amendment 2009, 3rd

an Exempt

Schedule, Part I (§114)

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners

No✓

60% local

Managers/directors

No✓

Physical addressCompanies Act (CA)1981, §§6,

Company

Officers
British Virgin
Islands (BVI)

Physical address

No

Immobilized

✓

✓

✓

Business Companies Act (BCA)✓

Registered office

2004, §§5, 9; BCA Amendment✓

Registered agent

2005, §§2, 55, 67–77, 132;International BCA 2000,

Managers/directors§§185, 186

Legal owners
Officers
Cayman Islands

Physical address✓

No

Immobilized

✓

✓

✓

Companies Law (CL) (2009

Registered office

Revision), §§26, 163, 179,

Registered agent

229(1), 230

Managers/directors
Legal owners

I 221

Officers(continued next page)222
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.1

Companies (continued)

Country

Information
registered

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Cook Islands

Physical address

No

Immobilized

✓

✓

No

✓

References
International Companies Act (ICA)

Registered office(Warrants

1981–82, §§13, 35(1), 36, 83, 91,

Registered agent

permitted)

201, 226A; ICA Amendment
2003,No. 5, §35A

Managers/directors
Legal owners✓
Cyprus✓✓

Officers

Czech RepublicCompanies Law, Ch. 113, §§14,(Warrants

permit of the75, 81, 102, 192, 197, 347;

permitted)

Central Bank

Cyprus Income Tax Law, No.

of Cyprus

N118 (I), 2002✓

Commercial Code (Act No.

To be resident,

No

Registered officecompany must

Registered agent

be managed inManagers/directors
Legal owners✓✓Requires

Physical address✓✓

Cyprus (not justincorporated)

Officers
Physical address

No

Dematerialized

No✓

Registered office(Warrants

513/1991 Coll.), §§24, 28, 62,

Registered agent

permitted)

156, 175, 184(5), 194(5,7), 217a✓

Managers/directors✓

Legal owners✓

Officers

Delaware,
United States

Physical address

No

No

No

✓

✓

Delaware Code, Title 8, Ch.1,✓

Registered office§§101, 132, 141(a), 145, 158,✓

Registered agent

371

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
Dubai, United
Arab Emirates

Physical address
✓

✓

No

No

No

✓

✓

Companies Law 2009, DIFC Law

Registered office

No. 2 of 2009, Art. 11, 38, 51,

Registered agent

115

Managers/directors

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
Florida, United✓

Physical address

States✓Registered office(203, 723, 802, 850, 1401, 1501,✓

Registered agent

1503); OECD Tax Co-operation✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners

✓

No

No

No

✓

✓

Florida Business Corp. Act, §607

2009, “Towards a Level Playing
Field,” p.122

Officers(continued next page)

I 223

224
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.1

Companies (continued)

Country

Information
registered

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Gibraltar

Physical address

No

No

✓

✓

✓

✓

References
Companies Ordinance, §§14, 15,
63, 136, 289

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Guernsey

Physical address

No

No

✓

✓

✓

Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008✓

Registered office§§14, 15, 17, 75, 77(e), 132, 143;✓

Registered agent

Bailiwick of Guernsey Law 2000✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Hong Kong SAR,
China

✓

✓

✓

✓

Hong Kong Companies Ordi-

Physical addressCompany

No

Registered officesecretary must

(Warrants

nance, §§14, 73, 153(B), 154,

Registered agent

be resident

permitted)

333✓

Managers directors✓

Legal owners✓

Officers

Isle of Man (1)Physical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent

No

No

✓

✓

✓

Companies Act 1931, §§5, 12,
64, 312

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
Isle of Man (2)New Manx
Vehicle (NMV)

Physical address
✓
✓

No

No

✓

Registered office

Must beRegistered agent

licensed✓✓Companies Act 2006, §§5, 2, 30,
74, 91, 112, 162

Managers/directors
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
JerseyPhysical address
✓

No

No

Noa

✓

–

Companies (Jersey) Law 1991,
Art. 3, 7, 42, 73, 77

Registered office
Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Liechtenstein

✓

✓b

✓

✓

–

Personen- und Gesellschaftsrecht,

I 225

Physical address

1 board member

Registered officemust be a citizen

Art.180, 279, 291, 263;

Registered agentof an EEA state

Ordinance of 11 Jan 2005 on

and have a

Due Diligence Act,Art. 3; OECD

permanent office

Tax Co-operation 2009, “Towards

in Liechtensteina Level Playing Field,” p.214

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers(continued next page)226
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.1

Companies (continued)

Country

Information
registered

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Luxembourg

Physical address

No

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

References
Loi concernant les SociétésRegistered office

AML rules

Commerciales 27, (10 August

Registered agent

require ID of1915), Art. 11, 27, 51; OECD Tax

beneficial

Co-operation 2009, “Towards aowner

Level Playing Field,” p.221, fn.3

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Mauritius

Physical address
✓

No

No

No

✓

✓

Companies Act2001, §§23, 49,
88, 131, 133, 161, 276

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors✓

Legal owners
Officers✓✓

Physical address

One resident

Antilles✓

Registered officemanaging

Code, Art. 33-155; Civil Code,Art.

✓

Registered agent

director

19; National Decree of Dec. 22,✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners

✓

✓c

✓

Netherlands–

Netherlands Antilles Commercial

2009, implementation of Art. 20of the Trade Register Ordinance(2009 Trade Register Decree),

Officers

Art. 15

Nevada,United States

Physical address

No

No

No

✓

–

Nevada Revised Statutes,✓

Registered office§§78.030, 78.035, 78.235(1),✓Registered agent

78.115, 77.310✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Nevis

Physical address✓✓

No

Immobilized✓Corporate✓✓

Nevis Business Corporations

Registered officedirectors

Ordinance 1999, §25; Compa-

Registered agent

must havenies Act 1996 (No. 22 of 1996),

individuals as§§4, 51, 72, 73, 195

Managers/directors

directors

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
Ontario, Canada

Physical address
✓

✓

No

Dematerialized

No

✓

–

Business Corporations Act, §§5,

Registered office14, 100, 118, 119, 136; Securities

Registered agent

Transfer Act 2006

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

PanamaPhysical address

No

✓d

No

✓

✓

Commercial Code Decree-Law

Registered office

No. 32 of 1927, Decree-Law✓

Registered agent

No. 5 of 1997, Articles 1, 2, 6,✓

Managers/directors

28, 49, 90

Legal owners

I 227

Officers(continued next page)228
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.1

Companies (continued)

Country

Information
registered

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Seychelles

Physical address

No

No

No

✓

✓

✓

References
Companies Ordinance 1972, §§3,
10, 21, 100, 164, 310

Registered office
Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Singapore✓

Physical address

At least one✓

Registered officedirector must be

126, 145, 171, 172, 367;

Registered agent

ordinarily

Business Registration Act,

resident

Ch. 32, §6✓

Managers/directors

No

No

✓

✓

Companies Act, Ch. 50, §§19, 66,

Legal owners✓
South Africa (1)Company

Officers
Physical address✓

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

No

No

✓e

✓

✓

Companies Act 2008, §§14, 19,
23, 50, 51, 56, 66, 69, 78

St. Kitts

Physical address
✓

✓

No

Immobilized✓

Registered office

Must have

Registered agent

individuals as✓✓

Companies Act 1996 (No. 22 of
1996), §§4, 8, 51, 72, 73, 195

directors

Managers/directors
Legal owners✓
St. Lucia

Officers
Physical address

–

–

–

–

–

To conduct local business,

Registered officeincorporate under Companies

Registered agent

Act No.19 of 1996. (Could not
be obtained)

Managers/directors
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
St. Vincent and
the Grenadines

Physical address
✓

✓

No

No

✓

✓

✓

The Companies Act, No. 8 ofRegistered office

1994, §§4, 9, 29, 62, 69, 176,

Registered agent

340

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers(continued next page)

I 229

230
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.1

Companies (continued)

Country

Information
registered

Switzerland✓✓

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Bearersharespermitted?

Corporate Nominee
Foreign
directors
directors companies
permitted? permitted? registered?

Physical address

Directors may be✓

NoRegistered officeforeigners

sul registro di commercio del 17

Registered agent

residing abroad.

ottobre 2007 (Stato 1° gennaio

Someonewho2008), Art. 66–68

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officersf––References
Code of Obligations, Ordinanza

can sign for thecompany (notnecessarily adirector) must
be resident

Turks and Caicos✓

Physical address✓

Registered office

Ordinance (CO) 1998,

Registered agent

Ch.122,§§4, 32, 208; CONo

Immobilized

✓

✓

✓

(Amendment), 2001; Business

Managers/directors

Names Ordinance, (5); CO 1981

Legal owners(as amended), (6)Officers
United Kingdom

Physical address

No

✓g

✓

✓

Registered office

At least one✓

Registered agent

director must✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners✓

Officers

Turks and Caicos, Companies

be anindividual✓–Companies Act 2006, Parts 2, 9,
12, 21 (783, 779), Part 10 (155,232)

Uruguay✓

Physical address✓

Registered office

Comerciales, art. 13; Ley NºRegistered agent

17.904, art. 13, 16; OECD Tax✓

No

Dematerialized

–

–

–

Co-operation 2009, “Towards aManagers/directors

Level Playing Field,” (2009),

Legal owners✓
Wyoming,
United States

Ley Nº 16.060 Sociedades

p. 221
Officers
Physical address

No

No

No

✓

✓

Wyoming Business Corporation✓

Registered office

Act, §17-16-201, -202, -625, -723,✓

Registered agent-802, -803, -851, -1801; §17-17-

Managers/directors

102

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
Note: a. Unless the company is permitted under its registration under the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998 to act as, or fulﬁll the requirements of, a director; and the company has no director that is a company.
b. AML rules require that at least one person acting as director of an entity that does not conduct any business in its country of domicile is obliged to identify and record the beneﬁcial owner.
c. AML rules also provide a mechanism to identify owners of companies: see OECD Tax Co-operation 2009, “Towards a Level Playing Field: 2009 Assessment by the Global forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information” (2009), p. 221, fn. 3.
d. AML regulations allow for identifying holders of bearer shares. OECD Tax Co-operation 2009, “Towards a Level Playing Field: 2009 Assessment by the Global forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information”(2009),
p. 216: “Regulations are in place requiring ﬁnancial institutions, including trust companies, and registered agents to identify their clients and thus to identify the holders of registered and bearer shares.”e. Corporate directors cannot be foreign companies or trusts: see Companies Act, 2008, s. 69 (7): A person is ineligible to be a director of a company if the person . . . is a juristic person (s. 1: a “juristic person” includes(a) a foreign company; and (b) a trust, irrespective of whether or not it was established within or outside the Republic).
f. OECD Tax Co-operation 2009, “Towards a Level Playing Field: 2009 Assessment by the Global forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information” (2009), p. 221, fn. 3.
g. OECD Tax Co-operation 2009, “Towards a Level Playing Field: 2009 Assessment by the Global forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information” (2009), p. 221, fn. 3.

I 231

232

TABLE E.2

Exempt/International Business Companies

I The Puppet Masters

Country

Information
registered

BearerIs there a
Local
Bearershare
Corporate Nominee
residency
businessshareswarrants
directors
directors
requirement? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted?

Anguilla

Physical address

No

No

Immobilized

✓

✓

✓

References
Custody of Bearer Shares✓ Registered office

Regulations, Revised✓ Registered agent

Regulations of Anguilla:
I20-3, §§2–3; International

Managers/directors

Business Companies Act

Legal owners

2000, §§7, 16(1)(a & g),

Officers

39, 56

Antigua and✓ Physical address

Barbuda✓ Registered office

Corporations Act, §§5, 61,✓ Registered agent

97, 111(5),130(2);Compa-

No

No

Dematerialized

✓

✓

✓

International Businessnies Act, §344; Corporate✓ Managers/directors

Management and Service

Legal owners

Providers Act
Officers
Bahamas, The

Physical address✓ Registered office✓ Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

No

Must belicensed

No

–

–

✓

International BusinessCompanies Act 2000,§§4, 13, 10, 40, 58, 187;
Business Licenses Act
1980

Belize

Physical address

No

–

Yes

✓

✓

✓

International Business✓ Registered office(Must be kept

Companies Act 1990, as✓ Registered agent

with local

amended in 2000, §§3, 9,

TCSP)

12, 47, 63; Regulations ofManagers/directors

June 2001

Legal owners
Officers
BermudaPhysical address✓ Registered office
Registered agent
Managers/directors

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers

At least 2

Must bedirectors, or

licensed

–

–

–

–

Companies Act 1981,§§129, 130

secretary anddirector, or asecretary and aresident
representative

British Virgin
Islands(BVI)
CaymanPhysical address

Islands✓ Registered office
Registered agent
Managers/directors

No

No

No

No

✓

✓

Companies Law (2009
Revision), §§26, 163, 179,
229(1), 230; Companies
Law (2009 Revision)

Legal owners
Officers(continued next page)

I 233

234

TABLE E.2

I The Puppet Masters

Country
Cook Islands
CyprusCzech
Republic
Delaware,
UnitedStatesDubai,
United ArabEmiratesFlorida,UnitedStates
Gibraltar
Guernsey
Hong Kong
SAR, China
Isle of Man
JerseyLiechtenstein
Luxembourg

Exempt/International Business Companies (continued)

Information
registered

BearerIs there a
Local
Bearershare
Corporate Nominee
residency
businessshareswarrants
directors
directors
requirement? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted?

ReferencesMauritius (2)Globalbusinesscompany
category 1

Physical address

At least two

May conduct✓ Registered officedirectors mustspecified

as described in Circular

Registered agent

be a resident

activities

Letter (CL201207) of 21✓ Managers/directors

individual;

withinDecember 2007 entitled

Shareholders

Mauritius“New Conceptual✓ Legal owners(GBC1)
Officers

–

–

–

–

Financial Services Act 2007,

must beApproach to Global

nonresident

Business”; Companies
Act, §23

Mauritius (3)GlobalPhysical address

Shareholders

No

–

–

–

–

Financial Services Act 2007,

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions✓ Registered officemust beas described in Circularbusiness✓ Registered agent

nonresident; at

Letter (CL201207) of 21

company✓ Managers/directors

least one

December 2007 entitleddirector must be“New Conceptuala resident

Approach to Global

category 2✓ Legal owners(GBC2)
Officers

Business”; Companies
Act, §23

Netherlands
AntillesNevada,UnitedStates(continued next page)

I 235

236

TABLE E.2

Exempt/International Business Companies (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Country

Information
registered

BearerIs there a
Local
Bearershare
Corporate Nominee
residency
businessshareswarrants
directors
directors
requirement? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted?

Nevis

Physical address

No

No

Immobilized

✓

✓

✓

References
Nevis Business Corporation
Ordinance 1984, §§21, 31,

Registered office56, 123✓ Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
Ontario,
CanadaPanamaSeychelles

Physical address

No

No

No

✓

✓

International Business✓ Registered office

Companies Act 1994, §§5,

✓ Registered agent

12, 15, 41, 56, 82

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
SingaporeNoSouth Africa
St. Kitts

Physical address

No

–

–

–

–

–

Companies Act 1996

✓ Registered office(No. 22 of 1996), §§195,✓ Registered agent

206✓ Managers/directors
Legal owners✓ Officers
St. Lucia

Physical address

No

No

No

No

✓

✓

International Business✓ Registered office

Companies Act 1999, §§4,

✓ Registered agent

7, 28, 42, 57

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
Immobilized✓

and the✓ Registered office

Companies (Amendment

Grenadines✓ Registered agent

and Consolidation) Act

Legal owners

No✓

Physical address

Managers/directors

No✓

St. Vincent

International Business2007, §§4–7, 11, 14, 29,
30, 84

Officers(continued next page)

I 237

238

TABLE E.2

I The Puppet Masters

Country

Exempt/International Business Companies (continued)

Information
registered

BearerIs there a
Local
Bearershare
Corporate Nominee
residency
businessshareswarrants
directors
directors
requirement? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted? permitted?

References

Switzerland
Turks and✓ Physical address

Caicos✓ Registered office

1998, Ch.122. §§4, 32,✓ Registered agent

180, 192, 208; COManagers/directors
Legal owners

No

No

Immobilized

–

–

–

Companies Ordinance (CO)(Amendment) 2001;
Business Names(Registration) Ordinance,

Officers
UnitedKingdom
Uruguay
Wyoming,
UnitedStates
Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: TCSP = trust and company service providers.

§5TABLE E.3

Limited Liability Companies (continued)

Country

Entityregistered?

Anguilla

Physical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent

Corporate
members
permitted?

Residency
Requirement?

Nomineemembers
permitted?

References

No

✓

–

Limited Liability Company Act, §28, 11

No

✓

✓

Antigua and Barbuda International Limited

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Antigua andPhysical address

BarbudaRegistered office✓

Liability Companies Act 2007, §§12, 17

Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Bahamas, The
BelizeBermudaBritish Virgin

The BVI Business Companies Act 2004, §244,

Islands (BVI)

permits the Executive Council to makeregulations for the formation, management,
and operation of LLCs

I 239

Cayman Islands(continued next page)240

TABLE E.3

Limited Liability Companies (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Country

Entityregistered?

Cook Islands

Physical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent

Corporate
members
permitted?

Residency
Requirement?
No

No

Nomineemembers
permitted?
✓

References
Limited Liability Companies Act 2008, §§11, 12,
26Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers
CyprusCzech Republic

Physical address

Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.),

Registered officeindividual may not§§24, 28, 62, 105

Registered agent

be a member ofManagers/directors✓

Legal owners✓

Officers

Delaware,
United StatesNo, but one✓

Physical address
✓
✓

No

No

more than 3 LLCs

No

No

✓

Delaware Code, Title 6, Ch.18,§§ 18-301,

Registered office18-902.; Certificate of formation must be filed

Registered agent

with Secretary of State; foreign LLC must be

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

registered; LLC Act, Ch.II, s. 18-201(a)(2)

Dubai, United
Arab Emirates

Physical address
✓

No

No

✓

Companies Law 2009, DIFC Law No. 2 of2009, Art. 11

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Florida, United✓

Physical address

States✓Registered office✓

Registered agent

No

✓

✓

Florida Limited Liability Company Act,§§608.407(1), 608.409, 608.501

Managers/directors
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Legal owners
Officers
Gibraltar
Guernsey
Hong Kong SAR,
China
Isle of Man

Physical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent✓

Managers/directors✓

Legal owners

No

✓

✓

Limited Liability Companies Act 1996, §§4–7

Officers
JerseyI 241(continued next page)242

TABLE E.3

Limited Liability Companies (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Entityregistered?

Country

Corporate
members
permitted?

Residency
Requirement?

Nomineemembers
permitted?

References

Liechtenstein
Luxembourg

Physical address
✓

No

–

–

Loi concernant les Sociétés Commerciales 27,(10 August 1915), §§11bis

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Mauritius
Netherlands
AntillesNevada, UnitedStatesPhysical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent✓

Managers/directors

No

✓

✓

Nevada Revised Statutes, §§77, 86

No

✓

✓

Nevis Limited Liability Company Ordinance

Legal owners
Officers
Nevis

Physical address✓

Registered office✓

Registered agent
Managers/directors

1995, §§21, 26, 37, 47, 83

Legal owners
Officers
Ontario, Canada
PanamaPhysical address

No

✓

✓

✓

Registered agent✓

Managers/directors✓

Legal owners✓

Officers

Law No. 4 of 2009 (Replaced Law No. 24 of
1966), Art. 5, 38

Registered office

Seychelles
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Singapore
South Africa
St. Kitts
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and
the Grenadines

Physical address
✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Liability Companies Act 2008, §§12, 34,
76

Registered office
Registered agent✓

Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

Switzerland✓

Physical address✓a✓Registered officeregistro di commercio del 17 ottobre 2007✓

Registered agent(Stato 1° gennaio 2008), Art. 73––

Art. 814 Code of Obligations; Ordinanza sul

I 243(continued next page)244

TABLE E.3

Limited Liability Companies (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Entityregistered?

Country✓

Managers/directors✓

Legal owners

Corporate
members
permitted?

Residency
Requirement?

Nomineemembers
permitted?

References

Officers
Turks and Caicos

Physical address
✓

No

✓

✓

Turks and Caicos, Companies Ordinance 1998

No

✓

✓

Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act,

Registered office
Registered agent
Managers/directors
Legal owners
Officers

United Kingdom
Uruguay
Wyoming,

Physical address

United States

Registered office✓

Registered agent✓

Managers/directors§§17-15-106; 17-15-107

Legal owners
Officers
Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: a. Managers can be foreigners residing abroad, though each Swiss AG (stock company) must have someone, not necessarily a director, resident in Switzerland who can sign or act for the company.

TABLE E.4

Partnerships
Entityregistered?

Country

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Nomineepartners
permitted?

Corporate
partners
permitted?

References

Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda

No

No

✓

✓

Governed by the Partnership Act, which does
not discuss restrictions on partners

Bahamas, The

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act, §3

✓

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act 1902 (1989 Revision)

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Law (1995 Revision), §47

✓

No

✓

✓

Partnership and Business Names Law, §§50,

BelizeBermudaBritish Virgin Islands
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions(BVI)
Cayman Islands
Cook Islands
Cyprus53
Czech Republic

✓

No

✓

No

Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.),§§24, 62

Delaware, United

No

No

✓

✓

The Delaware Code, Title 6, Ch.15 §15-202

✓

No

✓

✓

Dubai General Partnership Law 2004, Art. 12,

StatesDubai, United ArabEmirates

13

Florida, United States
Gibraltar

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act

I 245(continued next page)246
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.4

Partnerships (continued)

Country

Entityregistered?

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Nomineepartners
permitted?

Corporate
partners
permitted?

References

Guernsey

No

No

✓

✓

The Partnership (Guernsey) Law 1995

Hong Kong SAR,

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Ordinance

Isle of Man

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act 1909, Part I

Jersey

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnership (Jersey) Law 1994, Art. 4

✓

No

–

–

Loi concernant les Sociétés Commerciales 27,

China

Liechtenstein
Luxembourg

List of partners to(10 August 1915); Loi du 19 decembre 2002

be kept at registryconcernant le registre de commerce et dessociétiés…, Art. 6

Mauritius
Netherlands Antilles

✓

–

–

–

Nevada, United

No

No

✓

✓

Nevada Revised Statutes, §87.4322

Ontario, Canada

No

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act, §3Panama

No

No

✓

✓

No

No

✓

✓

States
Nevis

Seychelles
Singapore

Partnership Act 1994, Ch. 391, §2South Africa
St. Kitts
St. Lucia

Optional

No

✓

✓

✓

–

–

–

Limited Partnerships Act 1996, §4

St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Switzerland
Turks and Caicos
United Kingdom

No

No

✓

✓

Uruguay

–

No

–

–

Wyoming, United

No

No

✓

✓

StatesAn Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Partnership Act 1890, §2

Wyoming Uniform Partnership Act, §17-21202

I 247

248

TABLE E.5

Limited Partnerships

I The Puppet Masters

Country
Anguilla

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?

Nomineepartners
permitted?

Corporate
partners
permitted?

References

✓

✓

–

–

Limited Partnership Act 2000

✓

No

✓

✓

The Limited Partnership Amendment Act

Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas, The
BelizeBermuda2009
British Virgin

✓

No

–

–

The Partnership Act 1996, §§53, 84✓

One partner must be✓✓

International Partnerships Act 1984, §55✓✓

Partnership and Business Names Law,

Islands(BVI)
Cayman Islands
Cook Islands

a foreign company,
international
company or a TCSP
and each partnermust be nonresident
Cyprus✓No§§50, 53
Czech Republic

✓

No

✓

✓

Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.),

Delaware, United

✓

No

✓

✓

Delaware Code, Title 6, Ch.17 §§17-401,§§24, 62

States17-902

Dubai, United Arab

✓

No

✓

✓

Florida, United States

Dubai Limited Partnership Law, DIFC Law
No. 4 of 2006, Art. 11, 12, 45

Emirates
✓

No

✓

✓

Florida Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2005, §§620.1201, 620.9102

Gibraltar

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnership Act

Guernsey

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnerships (Guernsey) Law 1995

Hong Kong SAR,

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnerships Ordinance

✓

No

✓

✓

Partnership Act 1909, Part II, §48

✓

No

–

–

Loi concernant les Sociétés Commerciales

China
Isle of Man
JerseyLiechtenstein
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Luxembourg

List of partners to be

27, (10 August 1915); Loi du 19 decembre

kept at registry

2002 concernant le registre de commerce
et des sociétiés…, Art. 6

Mauritius––✓

Limited Partnerships Bill 2009

No

✓

✓

Nevada Revised Statutes, §88.350

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnerships Act 1996, §§3, 4

At least one member
must be resident

Netherlands Antilles✓

Nevada, United✓StatesFiling with theSecretary of Staterequired

Nevis

✓

I 249

(continued next page)250

TABLE E.5

Limited Partnerships (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Country
Ontario, Canada

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?

Nomineepartners
permitted?

Corporate
partners
permitted?

References

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnership Act, §3✓

At least one general✓✓

Limited Partnership Act 2003, §§4, 5✓✓

Limited Partnerships Act, Ch.163B, 2009,

PanamaSeychelles

partner must be
resident (or a local
company, local
partnership or IBC)
Singapore✓

Where all partners
are nonresident,§§10, 28

registrar may
appoint a local
managerSouth Africa
St. Kitts
St. Lucia

Optional

No

✓

✓

✓

–

–

–

St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
Switzerland

International Partnership Act 2006, §§4, 14

Turks and Caicos✓

At least one general✓✓

Turks and Caicos, Limited Partnership
Ordinance 1992, Ch.126, §§ 4, 7, 15

partner must be
resident orincorporated in the
Islands or if thepartner is apartnership then atleast one of thepartners of thepartnership must be
resident or
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

incorporated in the
Islands
United Kingdom

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnerships Act 1907, §§4, 5

✓

No

✓

✓

Limited Partnership Act, §§17-14-301,

Uruguay
Wyoming, UnitedStates
Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: IBC = international business corporation; TCSP = trust and company service providers.

-1002

I 251

252

TABLE E.6

TrustsI The Puppet Masters

Country
Anguilla

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?
Optional

Where beneficiary is

Flee clauses
prohibited?
No

Settlor can beother parties
in the trust?
Settlor may be theresident, and notrustee, beneficiary, or

trustee is resident,

protector

References
Trusts Act 2000,§§8, 66

beneficiary may apply
for resident trustee tobe appointed
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas, The

No

No

No

Settlor may be

Trustee Act1998, §§3, 94; Registra-

beneficiary, cotrustee,tion of Records Act, Ch.187

or protector
BelizeOptional

No

No

Settlor may be

Trusts Act 2000, §§4 (3-6), 9, 13,

beneficiary, trustee,

20, 63or protector
Bermuda

No

No

No

Settlor may retain

Trusts (Special Provisions) Act 1989,

certain rights and§§2, 12

powers, trustee may
be beneficiary
British Virgin Islands(BVI) (2)No

At least one trustee

Not allowed

Settlor not prohibited

Trustee (Amendment) Act 2003, §11;

must be a BVI TCSP

following court

from being a cotrustee,

BVI Trustee Act 1961, §§2, 81, 86

order, criminal

protector, or benefi-

proceedings or

ciary

investigations

BVI (2) – Virgin

No

Trust deed must provide

Islands Special Trust

appointment of(VISTA)

enforcer and at least

No

No restrictions on

Virgin Islands Special Trusts Act 2003

settlor’s role

one trustee must be a“designated person”(essentially a BVI
licensed trustee)
Cayman Islands

No

No

No

Settlor may be

Trusts Law (2009 Revision), §§13, 14,

cotrustee, protector, or

89; Tasarruf Meduati Sigorta Fonu v.

beneficiary

Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust
Company (Cayman) Ltd of 9 Sept

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

2009, provided confirmation that
‘reserved powers’ legislation isupheld in its home jurisdictions

Cook Islands

No

Only used by local

–

–

–

–

–

Companies Law, Ch.113, §112;

residents
CyprusNo

Either the settlor or anyof the beneficiaries is a

Cyprus Trustees Law, Ch. 193

Cypriot
Czech Republic(continued next page)

I 253

254

TABLE E.6

Trusts (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Country
Delaware (1)Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?
No

No

Flee clauses
prohibited?
–

Common Law TrustSettlor can beother parties
in the trust?

References

Settlor can create an

Delaware Code, Title 12, Ch. 35,

irrevocable trust,§3556; Qualified Dispositions in

where the settlor is a

Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §3570 et seq.

beneficiary, while(1997)

retaining various
interests in, andpowers over, the trust
Delaware (2)Certificate of Trust must

One trustee must be

Statutory Trustbe filed with Secretary

resident in DelawareNoof State

Settlor may be

Delaware Code, Title 12, Ch. 38

beneficiary; any person§§3801, 3802, 3806–7, 3807, 3852

may be manager oftrust

Dubai, United Arab

No

No

No

Emirates

No restrictions on

DIFC Trust Law of 2005, Articles 23,

settlor’s role24, 29, 68

References

Trust (cont.)
Country

Florida, United States

Gibraltar

Entity registered?

NoNo, unless settlor wants
to use special asset
protection underbankruptcy ordinanceIs there a residency

Flee clauses

Settlor can be otherrequirement?

prohibited?

parties in the trust?

No

No

No restrictions on

Florida Trust Code, §§736.0401,

settlor’s role

736.0409

No restrictions on

Registered Trust Act, §§3, 8; Trustee

settlor’s role

Act of Gibraltar. The Registered TrustNo

No

Ordinance 1999

Guernsey

No

No

No

Settlor may revoke or

The Trusts (Guernsey) Law2007, §§8,amend the terms of a15(1), 38

trust; give trustees
directions in relation toinvestments or remove
a trustee, beneficiaryor enforcer; settlor ortrustee of a trust may
also be a beneficiary
Hong Kong SAR,

No, but any interest in

China

land, which is inNo

No

No restrictions on

Hong Kong Trustee Ordinance,

settlor’s role

Ch. 29; Recognition of Trusts

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

writing, must be

Ordinance, Ch. 76

registered with theLand Registry
Isle of Man (1)Isle of Man (2)NoNo

Purpose Trust
JerseyNoMust use at least one

No

No restrictions on

Recognition of Trusts Act 1988; In Re

settlor’s role

Heginbotham’s Petition 1999

No–

Purpose Trusts Act 1996

No

Settlors may maintain

Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, Articles 7,

control and a beneficial

9, 12Isle of Man trustee
NoNo

interest in the trust
Liechtenstein (1)✓At least one trustee

Private TrustIf created for longer
than 12 months must
be registered in the

I 255

Public RegisterNo

Beneficiary may be

Law on Persons and Companies

must be an European

trustee, but not if sole

(PGR), LGBI 4/1/1926, Art. 897–932,

Economic Area (EEA)

beneficiary; settlor may

900, 902; Law on Trust Enterprises,

Member State TCSP

be beneficiary, but not

LGBI 6/1928, PGR Art. 932a

if sole beneficiary(continued next page)256

TABLE E.6

Trusts (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

Country
Liechtenstein (2)Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?
✓– Trust Enterprise

One of the trustees

Flee clauses
prohibited?
No

Settlor can beother parties
in the trust?

References

Settlor may reserve

Law on Persons and Companies

must be a Liechten-

rights in the trust(PGR), Art.932a, §§1, 7, 49

stein TCSP

instrument

Luxembourg
MauritiusNo

Must have local TCSP

Settlor may also be a

Trusts Act 2001, §§4, 8, 19, 23, 27;serving as a trustee;No

trustee, a beneficiary, aRegistration Duty Act, 1982 and thenonresident Settlors

protector or an

Transcription and Registration Act

and beneficiaries may

enforcer, but shall not

1982

apply for GBC1 orbe the sole beneficiary

GBC2 licenseof a trust of which heis a settlor

Netherlands Antilles
Nevada, United

Business trusts must be

Statesfiled with Secretary ofNoNo

Settlor may maintain

Nevada Revised Statutes, Ch. 88

power to amend trust(Business Trusts); Nevada Revised

State
Nevis

All International Trusts

Statutes, §63.160
Settlor may be a

International Exempt Trust Ordinanceand qualified foreign

protector, trustee, or

1994, §§9, 37, 47

Trusts must be

beneficiary

registered with theRegistrar of International Trusts

No

NoOntario, Canada

No

No

No

No restrictions on

Trustee Act

settlor’s role
PanamaNo, only trusts holding

Agent must be

property in Panama

Panamanian lawyer

No

Settlor can be a

Law No. 1 of 1984

beneficiary of the trust

must be registered

but cannot administerany of its assets;
settlor cannot be thetrustee

Seychelles

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Must file a brief

Settlor may not be a

Settlor may be theInternational Trust Act 1994, §§4, 13,

declaration by the

Seychelles resident

enforcer; can also be a14, 17, 75, 76

licensed resident(under international

beneficiary under thetrustee with thetrust)

international trust (butNo

Government Registry
Singapore (foreign
trust)

No

not a sole beneficiary)
Every settlor andNo

Trustee may delegate

The Trustees (Amendment) Act 2004

beneficiary must be

power to settlor (not to

and The Trust Companies Act 2005

either (a) individuals

beneficiaries).

who are neither
citizens nor residentsof Singapore or (b)foreign companies,
including unit trusts
beneficially owned
wholly by suchindividuals or foreigncompanies

I 257(continued next page)258

TABLE E.6

Trusts (continued)

I The Puppet Masters

CountrySouth Africa

Is there aresidency
requirement?

Entityregistered?
✓

No

Flee clauses
prohibited?

Settlor can beother parties
in the trust?

No

References
Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988,§4

St. Kitts✓

One trustee must beNo

resident

Settlor may retain

Trusts Act 1996, §§4, 19, 25, 95

control; settlor or
beneficiary may beprotector

St. Lucia (Interna-No, but if registeredtional Trust)must be by a local

St. Vincent and theNo (optional)

No

No

Settlor may retain

International Trusts Act 1999, §§3,

controla and be a7, 9, 19, 22

beneficiary

TCSP
Neither the settlor orNo

Settlor is permitted to

The Companies Act, No. 8 of 1994,

Grenadines

any beneficiary may beretain substantive§186; The International Trust Act(International Trust)

resident

control or have

1996, §§9, 12, 36, 52“reserve powers” over
the trust; settlor may
be beneficiary or thesole beneficiary; settlor
may not be trustee;settlor may be aprotector

Switzerland

Ratified The Hague Convention on
the international recognition oftrusts; as financial intermediaries,
trustees have the obligation to
obtain an authorization from theFederal Money Laundering Control
Authority or to be affiliated to an
SRO (self-regulatory organization)

Turks and Caicos

No

No

No

No

The Trusts Ordinance 1998, Ch. 124,
Paras. 3, 7, 9, 12

United Kingdom

Not registered unless

An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

No

No

No

No

No

Settlor can also be thecharity
Uruguay

If holding land, must be
registered

Wyoming, United

No (only statutory trust

Trustee may not beStatesmust be registered)

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: TCSP = trust and company service providers.
a. International Trusts Act, 1999, s.19.

Uruguayan Trust Law, §17.703

beneficiary of the trustNo

Settlor retains power to

Wyoming Uniform Trust Code,settlor and must be

add or remove trustees§§4-10-401, -403, -103, -510, -602

resident of Wyoming

and to amend trust

I 259

260

TABLE E.7

Foundations

I The Puppet Masters

Entityregistered?

Country
Anguilla

Is there a residency
requirement?

Declaration of

Local licensed secretary andEstablishment

registered agent

Corporate
council members
permitted?

References✓

Anguilla Private Foundation Act, 13 June 2008–

Foundations Act 2004

with Registrar
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas, The✓

No

BelizeBermudaFoundations are typically formed as companies limited
by guarantee under the Companies Act

British Virgin Islands

Foundations are typically formed as companies limited(BVI)

by guarantee (with shares–Hybrid) under theCompanies Act

Cayman Islands

Foundations are typically formed as companies limited
by guarantee or nonprofit companies under theCompanies Law

Cook Islands

Foundations may be formed as companies limited
by guarantee (with shares–Hybrid) under theCompanies Act

CyprusFoundations are typically formed as companies limited
by guarantee under the Companies Act

Czech Republic

✓

No

No

Act on Foundations and Endowment Funds and on

For publicchanges and supplements of certain related acts,

purposes only

Act No. 227/1997, Coll. Of September 3, 1997, §§1, 5,
11, 27

Delaware, United

Public foundation and nonprofit company tax status

Statesapplied for through the Internal Revenue Service

Dubai, United ArabEmiratesFlorida, United States

Public foundation and nonprofit (must be registereda)
tax status applied for through the Internal Revenue
ServiceAn Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

Gibraltar

Foundations may be formed as companies limited byguarantee under the Companies Act (Gibraltar Private
Foundation Ordinance 1999)

GuernseyFoundations are typically formed as companies limited
by guarantee under the Companies Law; Guernsey iscurrently working on new Private Interest Foundation
Law

Hong Kong SAR,

Foundations are typically formed as companies limited

China

by guarantee under the Companies Ordinance

Isle of Man

Foundations are typically formed as companies limited
by guarantee (with shares–Hybrid) under theCompanies Act(continued next page)

I 261

262
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.7

Foundations (continued)

Country

Entityregistered?

JerseyIs there a residency
requirement?

Corporate
council members
permitted?
✓

References✓

Council may consist of one orMust be regis-

more members, and must

guarantee under the Companies Law Companies

tered by a Jersey

include one Jersey TCSP

(Jersey) Law 1991, Art. 3G; Foundations (Jersey) Law

Foundations may be formed as companies limited by

2009, Art. 18, 21; Foundations (Continuance) (Jersey)

TCSP

Regulations 2009 (the Continuance Regulations)
Liechtenstein (1)✓At least 1 member of the Board,

Anstalt

Must be regis-

authorized to represent andtered using a

conduct business on its behalf

Liechtensteinmust have a registered office in

TCSP

Liechtenstein. This member✓

Law on Persons and Companies (PGR), Articles 534,
537, 541

must also be authorized topractice as a lawyer, trustee, orauditor, or have other qualifications recognized by thegovernment.
Liechtenstein (2)Stifungen✓––

Foundation (Art. 552–570 PGR); PGR §§552, 1926;
2009 Amendment to Foundation Act

Luxembourg
MauritiusFoundations may also be formed as companies limited
by guarantee under the Companies Act

Netherlands Antilles

Must be registered; must have at least one resident(Stichting)director; may not be formed for commercial business,but may be used for asset management

Nevada, United

Public foundation and nonprofit tax status applied forStatesthrough the Internal Revenue Service

Nevis

✓

No

✓

Nevis Multiform Foundation Ordinance 2004, ss. 3, 10,
11, 17, 62

Ontario, Canada
PanamaCharter must be

No✓

Law No. 25 of 1995–✓

Foundation Act 2009, ss. 3, 2, 7, 21, 27, 32, 83;

filed with the
Public Registry
An Overview of Corporate Vehicles in Selected Jurisdictions

OfficeSeychelles✓

International Business Companies (Amendment) Act
2009
Singapore

Foundations may be formed as companies limited byguarantee under the Companies Act (Companies Act,
Ch. 50, s.17).

South Africa
St. Kitts

✓

No

✓

Foundations Act 2003, ss. 3, 12, 20, 64

St. Lucia(continued next page)

I 263

264
I The Puppet Masters

TABLE E.7

Foundations (continued)

Country

Entityregistered?

Is there a residency
requirement?

Corporate
council members
permitted?

References

St. Vincent and theFoundations may also be formed as companies limited

Grenadines

by guarantee (with shares – Hybrid) under theInternational Business Companies (Amendment
and Consolidation) Act 2007 (International BusinessCompanies [Amendment and Consolidation]
Act 2007)

Switzerland✓

Turks and Caicos–––
Foundations may be formed as companies limited byguarantee (with shares – Hybrid) under the Companies Ordinance (Turks and Caicos, Companies
Ordinance 1998, Ch.122, para. 7)

United Kingdom

Foundations may be formed as companies limited byguarantee under the Companies Act (Companies Act
2006, Part 1)

Uruguay
Wyoming, United

Public foundation and nonprofit company tax status

Statesapplied for through the Internal Revenue Service

Source: Authors’ compilation.
Note: TCSP = trust and company service providers.
a. Florida Not For Proﬁt Corporation Act, s. 617.0203.

Glossary

Beneficial owner. The natural person who ultimately owns or controls the corporate
vehicle or benefits from its assets, the person on whose behalf a transaction is being
conducted, or both. Beneficial owners also include those persons who exercise ultimate
effective control over a legal person or arrangement.
Chain of corporate vehicles. This term generally refers to groups of two or more
corporate vehicles connected through legal ownership.
Corporate vehicles. A broad concept that refers to all forms of legal entities and legal
arrangements through which a wide variety of commercial activities are conducted andassets are held (for example, corporations, trusts, partnerships, foundations, andothers).1
Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions (DNFBPs). This term
encompasses casinos (including Internet-based casinos), real estate agents, dealers inprecious metals, dealers in precious stones, lawyers, notaries, other independent legal
professionals and accountants, and trust and company service providers.
Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). “A central, national agency responsible for receiving (and as permitted, requesting), analyzing and disseminating to the competentauthorities, disclosures of financial information: (i) concerning suspected proceeds ofcrime and potential financing of terrorism, or (ii) required by national legislation or
regulation, in order to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.”2Foundation. A foundation is a legal entity that consists of a property that has beentransferred into it to serve a particular purpose and has no owners or shareholders.
Foundations are ordinarily managed by a board of directors, according to the terms ofa foundation document or constitution. Some jurisdictions restrict foundations topublic purposes (public foundations); other jurisdictions allow foundations to beestablished to fulfill private purposes (private foundations).
Gatekeeper. Includes accountants, lawyers, financial consultants, or other professionals holding accounts at a financial institution and acting on behalf of their clients, either
knowingly or unwittingly, to move or conceal the proceeds of illegal activity. A criminal
1. For detailed discussion of the term “corporate vehicles” and selected forms of corporate vehicles, pleasesee appendix C of this report.
2. Definition adopted at the plenary meeting of the Egmont Group, Rome, Italy, November 1996; asamended at the Egmont plenary meeting, Guernsey, June 2004.

may seek to use the gatekeeper to access the financial system, while remaining anonymous themselves.3
Grand corruption. A broad range of offenses, including bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence, misappropriation of state funds, illicit enrichment, and abuse of officecommitted by high-level public officials or senior officers of state-owned entities.
Hybrid company. Limited by a guarantee (similar to a foundation) but issues shares
like a company.
International Business Corporation (IBC). This corporate vehicle, sometimes called
an exempt company, is the primary corporate form employed by nonresidents inoffshore financial centers. An IBC has the features of a corporation, but it is not
permitted to conduct business within the incorporating jurisdiction and is generally
exempt from local income taxes. In most jurisdictions, an IBC is not permitted toengage in banking, insurance, and other financial services.
Know your customer. The due diligence and bank regulation that financial institutions
and other regulated entities must perform to identify their clients and ascertain relevant
information (including source and destination of the funds) pertinent to doing financial business with them.4
Legal arrangements. Express trusts or other similar legal arrangements.5
Legal persons. Bodies corporate, foundations, anstalts, partnerships, or associations,or any similar bodies that can establish a permanent customer relationship with a financial institution or otherwise own property.6
Letters rogatory. A formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of
judicial assistance. It permits formal communication between the judiciary, a prosecutor, or law enforcement official of one jurisdiction, and his or her counterpart in anotherjurisdiction. A particular form of mutual legal assistance.7
Limited liability company (LLC). This is a business entity that provides limited liability to its owners (known as members). An LLC may be managed either by members or
by one or more separate managers engaged by the LLC under the terms contained
within its articles of organization.
3. Financial Action Task Force (FATF), “Guidance on the Risk-Based approach to Combating Money
Laundering and Terrorist Financing: High Level Principles and Procedures” (June 2007), available at
http:www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/43/46/3896-576.pdf; and FATF, “Report on Money Laundering Typologies, 2000–2001” (February 2001), available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/29/36/34038090.pdf.
4. Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative, Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2011), p. 195.
5. FATF, “Glossary to the 40 Recommendations,” available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/glossary/0,3414,en_32250379_32236930_35433764_1_1_1_1,00.html.
6. FATF, “Glossary to the 40 Recommendations,” available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/glossary/0,3414,en_32250379_32236930_35433764_1_1_1_1,00.html.
7. StAR Initiative, Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (Washington, DC: International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2011), p. 251.

266

I

GlossaryMutual legal assistance (MLA). The process by which jurisdictions seek and provide assistance in gathering information, intelligence, and evidence for investigations; in implementing provisional measures; and in enforcing foreign orders andjudgments.8
Partnership. A partnership is an association or two or more individuals or entities
formed for the purpose of carrying out business activity. In contrast to corporations,traditional partnerships are entities in which at least one (in the case of limited
partnerships) or all (in the case of general partnerships) of the partners haveunlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership. In a limited partnership, thelimited partners enjoy limited liability, provided that they do not participate actively
in management decisions or bind the partnership.
Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs). “Individuals who are, or have been, entrustedwith prominent public functions, their family members, and close associates.”9
Trust. Also referred to as an “express trust,”10 this corporate vehicle provides for the
separation of legal ownership from beneficial ownership. It is an arrangement whereby
property (including real, tangible, and intangible) is managed by one person for the
benefit of others. A trust is created by one or more settlors who entrust property to thetrustee or trustees. The trustees hold legal title to the trust property but are obliged tohold the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries (usually specified by the settlers
who hold what is termed equitable title). The trustees owe a fiduciary duty to thebeneficiaries, who are the beneficial owners of the trust property.
Trust and Company Service Providers (TCSPs). Any person or business that provides
any of the following services to third parties: acting as a formation agent of legal persons; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a director or secretary of acompany, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other legal persons; providing a registered office, business address or accommodation, or correspondence or administrative address for a company, a partnership, or any other legal person
or arrangements; acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a trustee of an
express trust; or acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person.

8. StAR Initiative, Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (Washington, DC: International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2011), p. 251.
9. Theodore S. Greenberg, Larissa Gray, Delphine Schantz, Carolin Gardner, and Michael Lathem, Politically
Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010), p. 3, available at http://www.worldbank.org/star; and StAR Initiative, Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, 2011), p. 251.
10. For more detailed discussion of trusts, please see appendix C of this report. See also the definition of“Express Trust,” in “FATF Recommendations, Glossary: FATF Methodology,” available at http://www.fatf-gafi.org/glossary/0,3414,en_32250379_32236920_34295666_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed August 13,2011).

GlossaryI

267

ECO-AUDIT

Environmental Benefits Statement
The World Bank is committed to preserving
endangered forests and natural resources.
The Office of the Publisher has chosen to
print The Puppet Masters on recycled paperwith 50 percent postconsumer fiber in accordance with the recommended standards forpaper usage set by the Green Press Initiative, a nonprofit program supporting publishers in using fiber that is not sourced fromendangered forests. For more information,
visit www.greenpressinitiative.org.

Saved:• 7 trees• 5 million Btu of
total energy• 651 lb. of net
greenhouse gases• 2,701 gal. of waste
water• 347 lb. of solidwasteBillions in corrupt assets, complex money trails, strings of shell companies and other spurious
legal structures. These form the complex web of subterfuge in corruption cases, behind whichhides the beneficial owner—the puppet master and beneficiary of it all. Linking the beneficial
owner to the proceeds of corruption is notoriously hard. With sizable wealth and resourceson their side, they exploit transnational constructions that are hard to penetrate and stayaggressively ahead of the game.
Nearly all cases of grand corruption have one thing in common. They rely on corporate vehicles—
legal structures such as companies, foundations, and trusts—to conceal ownership and controlof tainted assets.
The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What to
Do About It takes these corporate vehicles as its angle of investigation. It builds upon cases,
interviews with investigators, corporate registries and financial institutions, as well as a “mystery
shopping” exercise that provide factual evidence of a criminal practice. This approach is used
to understand the nature of the problem and design policy recommendations to facilitate theinvestigative process by unraveling the complex world of corporate vehicles.
This report is solidly built on step-by-step arguments and designed to deliver practical, applicable,
and well substantiated recommendations. It is intended for use by policy makers in developing
national legislation and regulation as well as international standard setters. It also provides
helpful information for practitioners engaged in investigating corrupt officials and academics
involved in the study of financial crime.

StAR—the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative—is a partnership between the World Bank Group and the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that supports international efforts to end safe havens for corrupt funds. StAR
works with developing countries and financial centers to prevent the laundering of the proceeds of corruption
and to facilitate more systematic and timely return of stolen assets.

ISBN: 978-0-8213-8894-5

SKU: 18894