Someone sent me these PDFs from the US, relating to the woman who used to run AGC. It looks like there was some pretty dodgy stuff going on there, with no bearing on the general issue of N-reg trusts
Onalaskindictment_pdf
2021_02_26_Mercer_OCDETF_pdf
WFAA_Article_pdf
Well, wouldn’t it be a terrible loss to mankind if we had " currently an outdated and erroneous statements" appearing on EuroGA.
Even though
US case law has not gotten that far yet
which makes this “outdated and erroneous statement” irrelevant.
I suspect this part of human endeavour has survived bigger challenges, over the decades…
Although off-subject, with regards to KYC most countries using trusts subject them to the same AML rules as banks. For the UK, updated guidance from her gracious Majesty’s HMRC issued in 2017 is very clear on that. See keyword 5MLD as amended for Brexit for the current requirements. Trust law not including the same elements as banking KYC is currently an outdated and erroneous statement.
US case law has not gotten that far yet however it is the obligation of the trustee to ensure that the trust is not being set up to carry an activity in the contravention to the law.
I’m far away from knowing something about US trust law
I suspect that is true for everybody here 
and yes, I agree, but trust law is not the same as the KYC (know your customer) stuff in banking.
Peter wrote:
The trustee has to be aware of the activity though.
I’m far away from knowing something about US trust law – but what I learned from this particular case was, that it is exactly the question if the trustee can not be held responsible if it is not aware or if there are some requirements of “having to know” and how strict are they.
In Banking these days you can not excuse yourself any longer by saying "I don’t know that these 50 Mio. that arrived each month from an unknown Colombian bank account had something to do with illegal activities – the purpose of transfer field said “consulting fees” and not “profits from drug trafficking” so how could we know?
One can argue that using the asset for an illegal activity stands to detract from its value or make it liable to forfeiture, thereby prejudicial to the trust beneficiary; as such the trustee would be found to be in violation of its fiduciary duty if his line of defense were to be “I did not know what was going on with the asset”.
The trustee has to be aware of the activity though.
Otherwise, I could hold a property in trust, with you as the beneficial owner, and get done if you run a brothel in it.
Both the Queen (the British queen, I mean) and the Church of England have owned such properties.
as many of their planes can not be easily transferred to EASA….
I am sure @mh would disagree; everything seems to be a mere formality under Part-ML.
This is a different dimension to “just” liability cases and a lot will be depending on how the judge (or finally the Supreme Court) will look at a “should have known” requirement.
Correct – and the jurisprudence exists under “trust created for an unlawful purpose”.
Peter wrote:
The debate gets passed around until somebody writes a cheque and then everybody buggers off to sue the next case.
This case is not one of the US’ famous liability money suits, it goes much further than that.
Those accused will face possible life in prison because some of their trustees misused the planes under their responsibility.
If you see what is happening now with the insurance business in the US, where huge numbers of owners can’t get new insurance and are forced to quit flying because the insurers deem aviation a bad risk, guess what happens if we get a verdict here. My guess would be, the US trusts will rush for cover and abandon the business with N-reg airplanes in foreign hands very very fast. Which leaves all those who used this to fly flag of convenience airplanes in a huge dilemma, as many of their planes can not be easily transferred to EASA….
