There's Been a Murder! (Or has there?)

[Gladys]

15 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Oh yeah the settlement money has likely been long misappropriated and used to fund other stuff which is probably now owned by various parties who can now be linked to the wider fiduciary relationships. 

Not quite, it depends on who really owned the assets in the first place. 

[Bandits]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Not quite, it depends on who really owned the assets in the first place. 

Equally it depends on whether your choose a trustee that is honest and ethical or not when you, or someone else, settles your money in. 

[Gladys]

9 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Equally it depends on whether your choose a trustee that is honest and ethical or not when you, or someone else, settles your money in. 

Well, it will come out in the wash, but if the trust was set up with beneficiaries other than the family and the substantial assets settled were not yours, not sure where you go. 

[Bandits]

15 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, it will come out in the wash, but if the trust was set up with beneficiaries other than the family and the substantial assets settled were not yours, not sure where you go. 

Fiduciary is the appropriate word. Even before regulation. You chose a trustee to carry out your wishes and enact the plan agreed. Regardless of how it’s papered.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Bandits said:

Fiduciary is the appropriate word. Even before regulation. You chose a trustee to carry out your wishes and enact the plan agreed. Regardless of how it’s papered.

If those were the wishes in fact.  You are missing the possibility that our man was just acting as a dummy settlor.  Not saying that is the case, but it is a possibility and would explain quite a lot. 

[AOR]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

The 'seemingly modest living person' was a lawyer himself.  

Yes indeed.

10 hours ago, Bandits said:

Equally it depends on whether your choose a trustee that is honest and ethical or not when you, or someone else, settles your money in. 

And then the trusteeship gets passed on to a successor trustee and so on, and they just see a pot of luvverly money with no emotional contact to them.

[Roger Mexico]

12 hours ago, Gladys said:

Well, it will come out in the wash, but if the trust was set up with beneficiaries other than the family and the substantial assets settled were not yours, not sure where you go. 

That's why I thought it was interesting that Durante claimed that they had been able to retrieve inheritance through other jurisdictions, which implies there was at least some family money involved.

(This is a very Manx conversation, isn't it?  Other people would be speculating over details of the murder and we're talking about trust structures).

[Kipper99]

There’s a much more likely scenario. That’s that the money was “dirty”. In other words Durrant senior hadn’t declared profits from property speculation to HMRC, had set up structures, trusts and companies, which were nullities or shams, and pretended to have left UK for tax when in fact he hadn’t.

That would explain why the Durrant family appeared to live in modest circumstances.

Any executor of his widow’s will would have had to take extensive legal advice to protect themselves and to resolve the UK tax position, complicated by the fact that that one of the potential beneficiaries was suspected of murder.

Any professional trustee would have sought court guidance and direction at every stage of collecting assets, whether or not to settle with HMRC, how much, and how to divide the allocation between the beneficiaries. Also how to finally distribute would have been approved by the court.

That’s even more complicated by the allegation that one of the children was a murderer and wouldn’t be allowed to inherit as a result of his crime.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's why I thought it was interesting that Durante claimed that they had been able to retrieve inheritance through other jurisdictions, which implies there was at least some family money involved.

(This is a very Manx conversation, isn't it?  Other people would be speculating over details of the murder and we're talking about trust structures).

Yes, I would like to know on what basis funds had been received from one of the trusts.  But the fact of settling the assets into a trust removes them from the estate of the settlor, that is why trusts are used for tax planning.  So the assets settled cannot be considered as the family's rightful inheritance as they are no longer part of his estate (unless there were some odd terms in the trust).  On the face of it,  the family could only benefit from the assets if they were named as beneficiaries or qualified as members of a named class of beneficiaries.

I might be missing something, the actual details in those interviews are quite scant to draw any real conclusions, but it may very well be that all is not as it seems. 

As for discussion on the murder, again we don't have much detail to come to any conclusion.  However, it may be that what was in the leather wallet was related to the offshore structure of which he was the nominal or actual principal. 

[BriT]

39 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, I would like to know on what basis funds had been received from one of the trusts.  But the fact of settling the assets into a trust removes them from the estate of the settlor, that is why trusts are used for tax planning.  So the assets settled cannot be considered as the family's rightful inheritance as they are no longer part of his estate (unless there were some odd terms in the trust).  On the face of it,  the family could only benefit from the assets if they were named as beneficiaries or qualified as members of a named class of beneficiaries.

I might be missing something, the actual details in those interviews are quite scant to draw any real conclusions, but it may very well be that all is not as it seems. 

As for discussion on the murder, again we don't have much detail to come to any conclusion.  However, it may be that what was in the leather wallet was related to the offshore structure of which he was the nominal or actual principal. 

Yes because the Manx CSP sector never does anything wrong 😥

[Gladys]

16 minutes ago, BriT said:

Yes because the Manx CSP sector never does anything wrong 😥

Absolutely not defending the Manx or any other CSP sector, just pointing out a few realities which Kipper has added further to. 

[BriT]

Just now, Gladys said:

Absolutely not defending the Manx or any other CSP sector, just pointing out a few realities which Kipper has added further to. 

Alleged realities.

[AOR]

All gone quiet. Is there any follow-up to this? Is it a case of "we have ways of making things go away"

[The Phantom]

I actually had a chat with this guy about a couple of years ago.  He called my firm to see if we could take on the structure as a CSP.  

It was an 'interesting' chat.  Him throwing accusations around about murders, thefts, secret societies etc.   

I really can't remember the exact details, but it was set up with a now defunct CSP and the first thing that would have to be done would be effectively taking them to court.  Whilst I did feel some of his frustration, taking on a new piece of business like this would be a complete mess and quite a gamble for the 'new' CSP he was looking for.  It's why we turned him down, that and I'm fairly certain he was wearing a tinfoil hat. 

[AOR]

It's all gone vert quiet.

Considering the public were drawn into this, such as with leaflets being handed out in Peel and Douglas headed "Offshore Alert", and interviews with Isle of Man TV and that. The chap was given the publicity he wanted, I just think it would be polite if there was some sort of feedback.

At the moment it has been left that the Isle of Man is a somewhat dodgy place with secret societies and murders and that. And there is the possibility that there are one or two unscrupulous lawyers going about the place.

Something has shut the previously vociferous chap up. I do hope he is ok.