'Hiding' shareholders in a ltd company
'Hiding' shareholders in a ltd company
Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Is it possible to lawfully hide a non-director non-PSC shareholder of a ltd company?

The company doesn't want other companies in the same sector to know of the shareholder's involvement.


FWIW

3,946 posts

127 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Yes, I’ve done this before. It was a while ago though so I can’t remember the details, sorry.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Yes, but it is with risk

Nominee shareholder

Or ask a mate to do it


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Risk in terms of the nominee / mate screwing the actual shareholder or something else?

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Yes, nominee could easily screw ‘real’ owner

Also consider dividends / tax for all parties

Can the shareholder participate in a different way? As a lender to the co for instance? Changing the terms of a loan might be easier than going down the nominee road and the identity of the lender need not be disclosed outside the company.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

274 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
Yes, nominee could easily screw ‘real’ owner

Also consider dividends / tax for all parties

Can the shareholder participate in a different way? As a lender to the co for instance? Changing the terms of a loan might be easier than going down the nominee road and the identity of the lender need not be disclosed outside the company.
Use a company which is a nominee, incorporated in a low disclosure territory.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Use a company which is a nominee, incorporated in a low disclosure territory.
Certainly an option, but which comes with its own risks too....

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

274 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
Alpinestars said:
Use a company which is a nominee, incorporated in a low disclosure territory.
Certainly an option, but which comes with its own risks too....
Like?

overunder12g

432 posts

116 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
FWIW: Never understand these these type of answers. Such as " I have no idea" ??!

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Ensuring that the nominee responds and acts as the beneficiary wishes

That the beneficiary complies with her local requirements for disclosure etc of her beneficial ownership

That the fees might be high and/or escalate rapidly

That the nominee co / contacts at it vanish

That the drift towards transparency catches the jurisdiction / structure and reveals the beneficiary in an uncontrolled / untimely manner

None of which mean it isn’t a solution, but all are things that need considering

FWIW

3,946 posts

127 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
overunder12g said:
FWIW: Never understand these these type of answers. Such as " I have no idea" ??!
Is that a question?

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

274 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
JPJPJP said:
Ensuring that the nominee responds and acts as the beneficiary wishes

That the beneficiary complies with her local requirements for disclosure etc of her beneficial ownership

That the fees might be high and/or escalate rapidly

That the nominee co / contacts at it vanish

That the drift towards transparency catches the jurisdiction / structure and reveals the beneficiary in an uncontrolled / untimely manner

None of which mean it isn’t a solution, but all are things that need considering
The nominee is a company. The shareholder who wants to remain anonymous is the shareholder, and economic owner of the underlying shares held by the nominee company - so no economic risk. Choose a location which has light touch reporting requirements of its shareholder register.

UBO rules might need to be considered.

overunder12g

432 posts

116 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
Yes it is a question. Why reply when you cannot reply with a useful comment?

FWIW

3,946 posts

127 months

Sunday 9th June 2019
quotequote all
overunder12g said:
Yes it is a question. Why reply when you cannot reply with a useful comment?
He asked if it was possible. I answered the question.

But I’m sure the OP appreciates your useful contribution. You da man.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Monday 10th June 2019
quotequote all
I was worried this wasn't a true PH sub-forum having never used it before.

Thankfully my mind has been put at rest biggrin


There are some routes and ideas for me to explore so thanks for the replies.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

274 months

Monday 10th June 2019
quotequote all
La Liga said:
I was worried this wasn't a true PH sub-forum having never used it before.

Thankfully my mind has been put at rest biggrin


There are some routes and ideas for me to explore so thanks for the replies.
You’ll need to look at UBO rules very carefully whatever route you explore.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Monday 10th June 2019
quotequote all
Thanks, will do.

I'll be taking legal advice if we're to proceed. This was to get an idea of areas I should be looking at to have some knowledge before taking any advice.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Monday 10th June 2019
quotequote all
Unless you're talking something of substantial value/importance, going offshore is brings potential issues on all sorts of things (getting regular bank accounts, credit and so on).

You could put someone else up front, hold the shares in blind trust and act as shadow director, however its not exactly the above board way to do it.

Out of interest, why is the true shareholder/director wanting to keep in the background? Restrictive covenants from a prior contract?

These things tend to get out and it's better forming an action plan that allows you to be out in the open.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

274 months

Monday 10th June 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
Unless you're talking something of substantial value/importance, going offshore is brings potential issues on all sorts of things (getting regular bank accounts, credit and so on).

You could put someone else up front, hold the shares in blind trust and act as shadow director, however its not exactly the above board way to do it.

Out of interest, why is the true shareholder/director wanting to keep in the background? Restrictive covenants from a prior contract?

These things tend to get out and it's better forming an action plan that allows you to be out in the open.
Pretty easy setting up a Guernsey company which only holds (legal title to) shares. No credit issues etc.

The biggest problem is UBO rules.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

84 months

Tuesday 11th June 2019
quotequote all
janesmith1950 said:
Out of interest, why is the true shareholder/director wanting to keep in the background? Restrictive covenants from a prior contract?
He is a director of another company in the sector and will be tracked by competitors whilst he attempts something innovative in the new company. Everyone else in the new company is unknown in the sector.

If he’s unknown the new company it will be ‘under the radar’, and if it’s successful have a head start on competitors.