Mandates now differ not just in format but in architecture: some jurisdictions audit invoices afterwards, others insert a government platform into the transaction itself. We map which obligations attach across an operating footprint — including registrations nobody was tracking — assess whether a centralised compliance layer or local solutions fit better, and get master data to a state where it will pass validation. The work that decides success is usually counterparty data quality, not the platform choice.
Holding jurisdiction selection driven by the treaty network relevant to where subsidiaries actually are, participation exemption conditions that determine whether relief is genuinely available, and outbound withholding that decides whether profits can be distributed onward. We assess substance requirements honestly — including whether a group will maintain that substance in practice — and plan the exit at the same time as the entry.
Risk-based third-party programmes with tiering criteria that differentiate rather than applying one procedure to everyone. Beneficial ownership traced through intermediate layers to natural persons, with indirect holdings aggregated, because the entity that matters frequently appears on no list. Ongoing monitoring, since a relationship screened only at onboarding will eventually be wrong.
Permanent establishment exposure assessed against what personnel actually do rather than where they are contractually based — the most common gap, and the cheapest to close before it is discovered. Registration obligations that follow activity rather than incorporation. And a straight answer on whether establishing a local entity is simply cheaper than managing exposure indefinitely.
Investment migration for principals and family offices, assessed against what a programme currently delivers rather than what its marketing still claims — travel access positions have changed materially in recent years and a good deal of published material has not caught up. Source-of-funds preparation, which is where most applications actually fail, and disclosure issues surfaced before submission rather than by a screening provider.
Every mandate begins with a position assessment rather than a proposal. We establish what the actual footprint is, which obligations already attach to it, and what has been missed — frequently the answer differs from the client's own map, because registrations, personnel locations, and ownership changes accumulate without anyone consolidating them. Only then do we set out options, including the option of doing nothing where the existing position is already defensible. Once a scope is agreed the work moves through defined stages, and you always know which stage you are in and what is outstanding.
Engagements are fixed-scope and quoted before work begins, so there is no meter running on every phone call. Third-party costs — government fees, filing charges, screening provider fees — are passed through at cost with no markup. Our advisory fee is separate and disclosed up front. We take no commission from software vendors, service providers, or programme agents, which means the recommendation you receive is the one that fits the problem rather than the one that pays us most. Where a mandate runs across several years, fees are staged against milestones.
We are advisers, not a brokerage and not a software vendor. We do not resell compliance platforms, we do not promise outcomes, and we do not practise law or file tax returns in jurisdictions where we are not qualified — we coordinate local counsel who are. That discipline is deliberate: it is what keeps us independent and keeps a client's file defensible from the first document onward.