- Articles
The Ultimate Guide to Family Trusts in Europe (2026 Edition)
Who this guide is written for
This guide is most relevant for:
- Families with €5-50M in investable or transferable assets, at or approaching the moment when informal arrangements are no longer adequate.
- Post-exit entrepreneurs who have received significant liquidity and need a governed framework before that capital is deployed.
- Emerging family offices: advisers or family members who are building structured governance for the first time.
- Professional advisers: wealth managers, tax lawyers, private bankers, family office directors who are reviewing existing trust, foundation, or holding structures on behalf of clients.
- Internationally mobile families with members or assets in multiple jurisdictions, where a single-jurisdiction domestic structure creates friction.
This guide is less relevant or requires additional specialist input for:
- Families with less than €1-2M in investable assets, where the ongoing cost of a regulated structure is disproportionate.
- Situations where a specific common law trust is legally required: for example, certain US estate planning structures.
- Cases where the primary objective is tax avoidance rather than wealth governance. This guide does not address that.
- US-connected planning without specialist US tax counsel engaged from the outset.
A note on how to use this guide
This guide is written for two readers simultaneously.
The primary reader is the professional adviser, the family office executive, wealth manager, tax lawyer, private banker, or trusted family adviser who is researching structuring options on behalf of a client. The secondary reader is the principal: the entrepreneur, the founder, the wealth creator who has arrived at a moment where structure matters.
The guide is intentionally technical where precision matters, and intentionally plain where clarity matters
Introduction: Why this question is being asked in 2026
For most of the past four decades, a European family with €10-100M in assets and a genuine need for wealth governance had a well-worn path: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Jersey, or Switzerland. The structures were established, and the advisers were familiar with them. The costs were high, but the alternatives were few.
That path is still open. However, the landscape around it has shifted in ways that make it worth examining again – carefully, without assumption, and without the gravitational pull of institutional habit.
We have noted that three distinguishable forces have converged in 2025 and 2026 that are prompting advisers and families to revisit assumptions they had not needed to question:
- The Liechtenstein trust law reform entered into force on 1 July 2026. Every private-benefit trust in Liechtenstein must now designate at least one information rights holder and at least one successor. Existing structures have until 31 December 2027 to adapt. For many families, this is the first material review of their Liechtenstein arrangements in over a decade. [1]
- The United Kingdom abolished the non-domicile remittance basis with effect from 6 April 2025, replacing it with a four-year Foreign Income and Gains (FIG) regime. Families who structured their affairs around offshore trust protection under the non-dom regime are now operating under different rules. The transitional provisions are material, and the planning implications extend well beyond 2026. [2]
- Banking and compliance pressure on non-EU offshore structures has intensified materially. CRS and FATCA reporting frameworks, combined with AML de-risking policies at major European correspondent banks, have made certain traditional arrangements operationally difficult in ways they were not a decade ago.
At the same time, EU-regulated investment fund frameworks have matured to the point where they can perform functions previously reserved for common law trusts or civil law foundations with greater regulatory clarity, lower operational friction, and meaningful cost efficiency.
The core thesis of this guide
For many European families with €5-50M in investable assets, a traditional trust, foundation, or Luxembourg structure may be more complex, expensive, or jurisdictionally mismatched than their situation actually requires. An EU-regulated fund structure operating within the AIFMD framework can often perform the same governance, succession, confidentiality, and investment functions in a more proportionate way.
This guide examines both approaches honestly. Not every family should use an EU fund structure. Not every Liechtenstein or Jersey arrangement should be changed. The goal is to give advisers and families the information to make the right decision for their specific situation — not to sell a single solution.
Section 1: What is a Family Trust, and what problem does it actually solve?
The word ‘trust’ is used loosely in wealth conversations. It describes a legal mechanism in common law jurisdictions, a general concept of wealth preservation, and sometimes any structure that holds family assets. This ambiguity confuses and it is worth being precise.
The legal definition.
In its strict legal sense, a trust is a relationship in which one party (the trustee) holds assets for the benefit of another (the beneficiaries), under terms set by the person who created the trust (the settlor or grantor). The key feature is the separation of legal ownership vested in the trustee from beneficial ownership retained by the beneficiaries.
This separation is the mechanism that makes trusts useful for asset protection, succession planning, and governance. It also creates legal complexity: a trust is not a legal person, cannot own property in its own name as a company can, and its recognition varies significantly across jurisdictions.
The practical problem trusts are designed to solve.
Families reach for trust structures because of one or more of the following situations:
- Succession without disruption. When wealth passes directly to the next generation, it arrives with exposure to that individual’s personal circumstances – creditors, divorce proceedings, incapacity. A trust interposes a governance layer between the asset and the individual.
- Generational continuity. Direct inheritance terminates a relationship with assets at each succession event. A trust can hold assets across generations, with rules for management and distribution, without requiring liquidation.
- Asset protection. Assets held within a properly structured trust are not personal property of the settlor or beneficiaries. This provides meaningful protection against personal creditor claims and divorce settlements — subject to jurisdiction-specific rules and timing.
- Investment governance. A trust can hold a diversified portfolio under a defined investment mandate, with professional management and clear reporting obligations.
- Confidentiality. Unlike a will, which becomes public upon death in many jurisdictions, a trust’s terms can remain private. The beneficiary register is not public.
What trusts do not solve.
It is equally important to be precise about what trust structures do not reliably accomplish in the current regulatory environment:
- Tax elimination. CRS and FATCA reporting frameworks ensure that trust structures are visible to tax authorities in relevant jurisdictions. Trusts provide tax planning frameworks, not tax evasion vehicles.
- Regulatory invisibility. Beneficial ownership registers, automatic information exchange, and AML obligations mean that any structure holding meaningful assets is known to relevant authorities.
- Certainty across all jurisdictions. A trust created under Jersey law may not be recognised in Germany, France, or Italy in the way the settlor expects. Civil law jurisdictions often apply forced heirship rules that override trust arrangements.
The practical implication for advisers
When a client says ‘I want a trust’, the productive first question is not ‘which jurisdiction?’ but ‘what are you actually trying to accomplish?’ The answer frequently reveals that the structure needed is not a traditional trust at all or that multiple structures working together are more appropriate
Section 2: The European landscape: structures, jurisdictions, and their trade-offs
Europe does not have a unified framework for family wealth structures. What exists is a patchwork of national legal systems, EU-level regulations, bilateral tax treaties, and practical banking relationships that determine what actually works for a given family.
The following compares the most commonly used approaches. Costs and timelines are indicative, individual arrangements will vary based on complexity, adviser, asset type, and banking relationships.
2.1 Common Law Trust Jurisdictions: Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man
These jurisdictions have sophisticated trust law and remain the primary choice for very large, complex, multi-generational structures with UK or common law connections.
- Strengths: Established legal framework with extensive jurisprudence. STEP-qualified trustee community. High degree of structural flexibility. Recognised by major banks historically.
- Current challenges: Post-Brexit, these jurisdictions sit outside the EU. EU families face structural friction — recognition under EU succession regulation is not automatic. EU correspondent banking has become more cautious. Annual trustee fees typically €20,000-€80,000+.
- Best suited for: Families with existing UK or common law connections; mandates above €50M; situations where the weight of established jurisprudence is specifically required.
2.2 Liechtenstein: Stiftung and Trust
Liechtenstein is the only civil law European jurisdiction with a statutory trust law embedded in its Persons and Companies Act (PGR), alongside the well-developed foundation (Stiftung) structure. For decades the preferred destination for DACH family wealth.
- Strengths: High degree of confidentiality historically. Flexible instruments. Strong asset protection provisions. Long-established professional community.
- 2026 reform context: The reform entering into force 1 July 2026 strengthens governance requirements and increases information rights for beneficiaries. Existing structures require documentation review by 31 December 2027. [1]
- Current challenges: Not an EU member state. EU families face recognition questions in home jurisdictions. Banking relationships with major EU institutions have become more complex as de-risking policies have intensified.
- Best suited for: DACH families with existing Liechtenstein relationships; structures where the Stiftung framework is specifically required; very large dynastic arrangements.
2.3 Luxembourg: RAIF, SIF, and Fund Structures
Luxembourg is Europe’s largest fund domicile, offering the RAIF, SIF, and SCSp for family wealth structuring. Increasingly used by large family offices as alternatives to traditional trust arrangements.
- Strengths: Fully EU-based. Recognised by all European banks and regulators. AIFMD-compliant. Particularly effective above €30-50M.
- Challenges: Annual operating costs for a properly structured Luxembourg vehicle typically €80,000-€200,000. The framework is designed for institutional scale and becomes disproportionate below €20-30M. Timeline to establish: 3-6 months.
- Best suited for: Large family offices (€30M+); institutional investors alongside family capital; structures requiring deep EU passport access for professional investor distribution.
2.4 Cayman Islands and BVI
Widely used globally for investment holding and fund structuring. For European families specifically, their relevance for new arrangements has diminished.
- Current challenges: CRS and FATCA reporting make opacity a structural illusion. EU families face increasing friction with European banks. The practical advantages that once made offshore structures compelling for EU-resident families have narrowed significantly.
- Continuing relevance: Private equity fund structures with global LP bases; US-connected investment vehicles; legacy structures where transition cost outweighs the benefit of moving.
2.5 EU-Regulated Alternative Investment Fund structures. The Modern Trust approach
The AIFMD framework, implemented across EU member states, has created regulated investment fund structures that can perform many of the functions previously associated with trust or foundation arrangements. The most developed application within the EU at accessible scale is in Estonia, through the usaldusfond (limited partnership fund) structure.
- Strengths: Fully EU-based. Operating within the AIFMD regulatory framework. Recognised by EU banks and tax authorities. Digital incorporation and administration. Flexible asset mandate. Proportionate cost relative to Luxembourg or Liechtenstein.
- Regulatory note: Operating under the sub-threshold small fund manager registration regime (Article 3(2) AIFMD), which permits managers below defined AUM thresholds to operate without a full AIFM licence. [3] Distribution and marketing rules are assessed separately depending on investor jurisdiction.
- Best suited for: Families with €2-100M in liquid or investable assets; internationally mobile families needing EU-based governance; post-exit entrepreneurs; family offices seeking regulated frameworks at proportionate cost.
The following table summarises the key trade-offs across the principal structures:
| Criterion | Jersey / CI | Liechtenstein | Luxembourg | Cayman / BVI | EU Fund (EE) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU-based | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Post-Brexit relevance |
| Setup timeline | 4-12 wks | 4-12 wks | 8-24 wks | 2-6 wks | 3-5 days | Indicative |
| Min. practical AUM | €10M+ | €5M+ | €20M+ | €5M+ | €2M+ | Indicative |
| Annual cost | €20-80k+ | €15-60k+ | €80-200k+ | €15-50k+ | €13k+ | Indicative |
| EU bank access | Declining | Declining | High | Declining | High | Current environment |
| Digital operations | No | No | Partial | No | Yes | |
| Common law trust | Yes | Statutory | No | Yes | No | |
| Reform pressure 2026 | Medium | High | Low | Medium | Low | See note [1] |
Indicative only. Figures and ratings above are based on typical market observations as of 2026. Actual timelines, costs, banking outcomes, and suitability depend on the specific structure, adviser, bank, asset base, investor profile, and jurisdictions involved. Obtain jurisdiction-specific advice before relying on any comparison for decision-making.
Section 3: What does a modern European wealth structure need to do?
The question of which structure to use is secondary to the question of what the structure needs to accomplish. Advisers who start with jurisdiction tend to work backwards from a familiar answer. The more productive approach is to define the functional requirements first.
European families with €5-100M in assets typically need their wealth structure to perform some combination of the following seven functions:
Function 1: Asset governance
The structure must hold assets clearly defining who owns what, under what rules, and with what reporting obligations. Many families have assets scattered across personal accounts, company holdings, and legacy structures that were never designed to work together. The first function of any serious wealth structure is to create a clear governance perimeter.
Function 2: Succession planning
Assets must pass to the next generation or remain intact for their benefit without triggering the disruptions that direct inheritance creates: forced liquidation, probate delay, family conflict, or the arrival of large sums in the hands of individuals who were not prepared for them.
- Forced heirship rules in France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere may override contractual arrangements for assets remaining in those jurisdictions.
- A regulated fund structure allows a founder to define investment governance, distribution rules, and conditions under which the next generation participates within a framework recognised by EU courts and tax authorities.
- The Investment Adviser role allows strategic control to be preserved as legal ownership is separated into the fund structure.
Function 3: Asset protection
The structure must provide meaningful separation between family wealth and personal liability. Two caveats advisers must communicate clearly:
- Asset protection requires prospective planning. Transferring assets after a legal claim has arisen or is foreseeable is typically challengeable. Structures established in good faith, well in advance of any adverse event, provide the most durable protection.
- No structure provides absolute protection in all jurisdictions simultaneously.
Function 4: Cross-Border operability
For internationally mobile families and most European families with €5M+ are internationally mobile the structure must work across borders without creating a new problem in each jurisdiction it touches.
This is where the distinction between EU-based and non-EU-based structures has become practically significant. A structure based within the EU operates under a harmonised regulatory framework recognised by EU banks, tax authorities, and notaries across member states.
Function 5: Investment flexibility
The structure must accommodate the family’s actual investment activity. Families in the €5-100M range invest across listed equities, private equity co-investments, real estate, and alternative assets. A structure designed only for liquid assets will not serve the family as their investment activity matures.
Function 6: Privacy within a Compliance Framework
A distinction worth drawing explicitly:
- Confidentiality from the public: beneficiary register, fund agreement terms, and investment portfolio are not publicly accessible. Achievable and legitimate.
- Opacity from regulators and tax authorities: no longer achievable through any mainstream structure. Any adviser suggesting otherwise should be questioned carefully.
Function 7: Proportionate cost
A family with €8M in assets paying €120,000 per year in structural administration costs is paying 1.5% of their asset base for governance annually. That figure compounds significantly over time. Proportionality matters and is frequently under-discussed when advisers are compensated through structures that benefit from complexity
How the structures compare, a visual overview
The following diagram illustrates the key structural difference between a traditional trust arrangement and the Modern Trust model. Both achieve asset separation, defined beneficiary participation, and governance. The mechanism and the regulatory framework differ.
Traditional Trust |
Modern Trust |
| Settlor / Founder creates and funds the trust |
Family / Founder retains strategic control |
| ▼ | ▼ |
| Trustee holds legal ownership; exercises discretion |
Investment Adviser leads investment decisions & LP relationships |
| ▼ | ▼ |
| Beneficiaries receive distributions per trust deed |
EU-Regulated Fund usaldusfond – AIFMD framework |
| ▼ | |
| Assets equities · RE · PE · digital · vessels · more |
|
| ▼ | |
| Family Members (LPs) defined rights · limited liability · privacy |
|
| + Regulated Management Co. (AIFM)KYC/AML · NAV · compliance · reporting |
The critical distinction: in a traditional trust, the trustee exercises legal ownership and distributes at their discretion. In the Modern Trust model, the Investment Adviser (the family or their representative) retains active decision-making authority, while the regulated management company provides the compliance and operational infrastructure — and the fund itself holds the assets within an EU-regulated framework.
Section 4: The Modern Trust model. How an EU fund structure performs Trust functions
The Modern Trust structure uses an EU-regulated alternative investment fund – an “usaldusfond” (limited partnership fund) under Estonian law to achieve outcomes that are functionally analogous to what families seek in a trust or foundation: asset governance, succession planning, investment management, and defined beneficiary participation.
It is not a common law trust. It is not a civil law foundation. It is a regulated investment fund vehicle, operating within the AIFMD framework, used for a purpose the framework fully accommodates.
4.1 The legal foundation
Estonia’s usaldusfond is a limited partnership fund established under the Estonian Investment Funds Act, operating within the AIFMD framework. The structure is operated by Estcap Asset Management OÜ, a registered small alternative investment fund manager registered with the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (Finantsinspektsioon/EFSA) on 04.10.2021, and licensed as a financial institution by the Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) on 28.02.2022. [3]
The sub-threshold small fund manager registration regime (Article 3(2) AIFMD) permits managers below defined AUM thresholds: €100M for leveraged funds, €500M for unleveraged closed-end funds to operate under registration rather than full AIFM licensing. EFSA’s supervision of registered small fund managers covers the registration process, periodic statistical reporting, and AML compliance. [3]
Terminology note: Investment Adviser vs Fund Manager
In European regulatory usage, ‘fund manager’ typically refers to the AIFM, which is the regulated entity. In the Modern Trust structure, the client family or their designated representative acts as the Fund Initiator or Investment Adviser, leading investment strategy and family relationships. Estcap Asset Management OÜ provides the regulated management and operational infrastructure. These are distinct roles with distinct responsibilities.
4.2 How the structure performs trust functions
| Trust Function | Traditional Trust Approach | Modern Trust (EU Fund) Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Asset governance | Assets vested in trustee under trust deed | Assets held in fund vehicle; GP governs; mandate defined in fund agreement |
| Succession planning | Beneficiary designations in trust deed; trustee distributes per deed | Distribution rules in fund agreement; LP participation rights defined per family member |
| Asset protection | Separation through trustee legal ownership | Assets in fund vehicle; not personal property of Investment Adviser or investors |
| Cross-border operability | Depends on jurisdiction recognition | EU AIFMD framework; recognised across EU member states; bank-friendly |
| Investment flexibility | Depends on trustee’s defined investment powers | Full alternative asset class mandate; no UCITS restrictions |
| Privacy | High- trust deed not public | Regulated confidentiality; investor register private; transparent to regulators |
| Governance clarity | Trustee discretion; protector oversight | Defined roles: GP, Investment Adviser, AIFM; investment committee optional |
| Regulatory compliance | Varies significantly by jurisdiction | AIFMD-compliant; AML/KYC integrated; CRS-compatible from inception |
4.3 The Structural Roles. Who does what.
- The General Partner (GP): A dedicated OÜ (Estonian private limited company) that represents the fund legally and holds governance authority. Controlled by the family or their designated representative.
- The Fund Initiator / Investment Adviser: The client family or their designated representative. Leads investment decisions within the fund’s mandate. Owns the investor relationship entirely, LP communications, quarterly reporting, strategy explanation, and all ongoing dialogue with family members. The Investment Adviser interprets results and communicates; the AIFM produces the underlying data.
- The Regulated Management Company (AIFM): Estcap Asset Management OÜ. Provides regulatory infrastructure: KYC/AML, regulatory reporting to EFSA and Eesti Pank, NAV calculations, accounting, compliance. Does not make investment decisions. Does not own the investor relationship.
- The Limited Partners (LPs): Family members who participate as investors. Liability limited to committed capital. Rights, economic participation, information rights, and governance participation are defined in the fund agreement.
The investor does not speak to the compliance team, the NAV calculator, or the AML specialist. The investor speaks to the Investment Adviser: the family member or trusted representative who understands the mandate and maintains the relationship.
Section 5: Family Office vs Family Trust. Does every Family Office need a Trust structure?
This question surfaces frequently in advisory conversations, and the answer is more nuanced than it first appears.
What a family office does
A family office is an operational management structure. It manages the day-to-day financial, administrative, and sometimes lifestyle affairs of one or more high-net-worth families. The family office manages. In most cases, it does not own the assets. The assets are held in whatever legal structures the family has established: personal accounts, company holdings, trusts, funds, real estate entities. The family office operates those structures.
What a trust or fund structure does
A trust or regulated fund structure is a legal holding vehicle. It owns assets. It defines governance. It creates the framework within which succession, distribution, and investment decisions operate. Family office = operations. Trust/fund = structure.
Does every family office need a trust structure?
- The family office with assets held personally: If the wealth creator holds assets in their own name without a separate governance structure, the family office is managing personal assets. This creates succession risk, asset protection risk, and governance risk. A regulated fund structure adds significant value here.
- The family office with an existing legacy structure: Many family offices operate on top of a Liechtenstein foundation or Jersey trust established 10-20 years ago. The 2026 Liechtenstein reform, banking compliance changes, and the evolution of the family’s cross-border footprint may all warrant a review: not necessarily a replacement, but a review.
- The emerging family office (post-exit): The entrepreneur who has just sold a business and received €10–80M in liquidity has a specific problem: they need governed structure before they have built the advisory relationships and internal governance that a mature family office requires. A regulated fund structure that provides immediate governance, KYC/AML compliance, and investment flexibility, while the family decides its longer-term approach, has clear practical value.
The relationship between the family office and the fund structure is not competitive, but it is layered. The fund structure provides the legal and governance framework. The Investment Adviser function within the fund provides operational management and maintains the investor relationship.
Note for DACH families: For German-speaking families, the relevant comparison is often not ‘trust vs fund’ but ‘Familienstiftung vs EU-regulated family fund’. The Familienstiftung provides well-understood governance within the German legal tradition, but faces the same cross-border friction and banking challenges as other non-EU structures. An EU fund structure may be more appropriate where the family’s investments, banking relationships, or members span multiple EU jurisdictions.
A dedicated comparison – Familienstiftung vs EU-Regulated Family Fund – examining this question specifically for German-speaking families, with reference to relevant cross-border tax considerations and DACH banking practice, is available separately at moderntrust.fund.
Coming: Familienstiftung vs Modern Trust: Ein Vergleich für europäische Familien
How this structure exists now and did not twenty years ago?
A question that sophisticated advisers ask and that deserves a direct answer is this: if an EU-regulated fund structure can perform the functions of a trust or foundation, why did families not use this approach before? Why Liechtenstein, Jersey, and Luxembourg for four decades, and only now something different?
The answer is not that the old jurisdictions were making a mistake. The answer is that four things have changed simultaneously, and their convergence is what makes this approach viable and defensible now.
1. AIFMD created the regulatory infrastructure
The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), adopted in 2011 and implemented across EU member states by 2013, created a harmonised regulatory framework for alternative investment fund managers across the EU. Before AIFMD, a fund manager operating in Estonia was subject to Estonian national rules only. After AIFMD, they operate within a framework recognised by every EU tax authority, every EU bank, and every EU court.
This harmonisation is what makes an Estonian usaldusfond ‘bankable’ in Frankfurt, ‘recognisable’ to a Dutch tax authority, and ‘compliant’ for an Italian notary. Without AIFMD, none of that would be automatic.
2. Estonia built digital-first public infrastructure
Estonia has spent the past two decades building government services that are natively digital. Company incorporation, fund registration, regulatory filings, and identity verification all operate through digital systems with no requirement for physical presence or notarised paper documents.
This is not a marketing claim, but it is a consequence of specific infrastructure investment. The Estonian Business Register accepts fully digital submissions. The Financial Supervision Authority processes registrations digitally. An entire fund structure: GP entity, fund registration, regulatory notification can be established remotely by a family in Tokyo, a manager in Munich, or an adviser in London.
Twenty years ago, every jurisdiction required physical presence, notarised documents, and locally resident directors for most structural steps. That friction is now largely absent in Estonia.
3. CRS and FATCA changed the competitive position of offshore structures
The Common Reporting Standard (CRS), adopted by OECD member countries from 2014 onwards, and the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), in force since 2010, created automatic information exchange between tax authorities globally. Banks, fund administrators, and trust companies are required to report beneficial ownership and account information to relevant tax authorities.
This did not make offshore structures illegal. It made their primary historical advantage, opacity, structurally unavailable. A Cayman Islands structure, a BVI holding company, or a Liechtenstein foundation is now visible to the relevant tax authorities regardless of where it is domiciled. The secrecy that once justified the complexity and cost of offshore arrangements is no longer deliverable.
An EU-regulated structure, designed for CRS compliance from inception, is not at a disadvantage here but rather is at an advantage. It was built for the current regulatory environment rather than adapted to it.
4. European banks de-risked non-EU structures
The past decade has seen major European banks systematically reduce their exposure to correspondent banking relationships with jurisdictions and structures that create AML compliance complexity. This is a consequence of regulatory enforcement actions against banks that maintained inadequate correspondent banking controls, enforcement that has cost European financial institutions billions of euros in fines.
The practical consequence for wealthy families: a Cayman Islands holding company or a Liechtenstein foundation that was straightforwardly bankable in Frankfurt or Amsterdam in 2010 may face materially more difficulty opening accounts, maintaining relationships, or executing transactions with the same banks in 2026. This is not a rule because it varies by bank, by structure, and by the specific circumstances. Yet, it is a systematic trend that advisers must account for.
An EU-regulated fund structure sidesteps this friction by design. The structure is within the regulatory perimeter that European banks understand and can efficiently onboard.
| Year | Development | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | FATCA enacted (US) | US persons and accounts become visible to IRS regardless of jurisdiction |
| 2011 | AIFMD adopted (EU) | Harmonised alternative fund manager framework across EU member states |
| 2013 | AIFMD implemented | Estonian usaldusfond becomes AIFMD-compliant; recognised across EU |
| 2014-2017 | CRS rollout (OECD) | Automatic information exchange between 100+ tax authorities becomes operational |
| 2015-2020 | Bank de-risking accelerates | Major EU banks reduce non-EU correspondent banking; offshore structures face friction |
| 2016 | Estonia Investment Funds Act updated | LP fund (usaldusfond) framework matured; digital registration fully operational |
| 2021 | Estcap Asset Management registered | Modern Trust infrastructure becomes operational |
| 2025 | UK non-dom regime abolished | UK-connected families with offshore trust structures begin structural review [2] |
| 2026 | Liechtenstein reform in force | Existing Liechtenstein structures require governance documentation review [1] |
The Modern Trust model did not exist twenty years ago because AIFMD did not exist, digital public infrastructure did not exist, and CRS had not yet eliminated the opacity that made offshore structures seem worth their cost. All three have now changed.
Section 6: Practical considerations: assets, costs, banking, and timing
6.1 Asset Classes – what the structure can hold
A frequently asked question is whether the structure is flexible enough to hold the family’s actual assets. For an EU alternative investment fund, the answer is broadly yes.
| Asset Class | Directly In Fund | Via Holding Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Listed equities and bonds | ✓ | ✓ |
| ETFs and listed funds | ✓ | ✓ |
| Private equity and co-investments | ✓ | ✓ |
| Venture capital | ✓ | ✓ |
| Direct real estate | ~ | ✓ |
| Real estate funds | ✓ | ✓ |
| Digital assets and web3 | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vessels and aircraft | ~ | ✓ |
| Fund-of-funds | ✓ | ✓ |
| Private credit and loans | ✓ | ✓ |
For real estate specifically: it is common to hold property in a local holding company (to accommodate land ownership rules, mortgage requirements, and local tax treatment) which is then owned by the fund. This is standard practice and does not represent a limitation of the fund structure.
6.2 Cost Comparison – Honest Numbers
| Cost Element | Jersey Trust | Liechtenstein | Luxembourg | Modern Trust |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment | €15-40k | CHF 5-15k + 0.2% govt fee | €30-80k | From €9.9k (most structures €10-25k) |
| Annual admin | €20-80k+ | CHF 15-40k+ | €80-200k+ | From €13.2k/yr |
| Legal / advisory | Substantial | Substantial | Substantial | Proportionate |
| Timeline | 4-12 weeks | 4-12 weeks | 8-24 weeks | 3-5 business days |
| Min. practical AUM | €10-20M | CHF 0.5-5M+ | €20-30M | €2-5M |
The cost advantage is most pronounced at €2-30M. Above €50M, where Luxembourg or Liechtenstein costs become proportionately smaller relative to AUM, the choice depends more on specific functional requirements and existing relationships.
6.3 Banking. The Practical Bottleneck
- EU-based structures have materially easier access to EU correspondent banking than non-EU alternatives. This is a practical outcome of AML de-risking policies at major European institutions, not a regulatory requirement.
- Structures with full AML/KYC documentation prepared by a registered AIFM are increasingly preferred by institutional banking partners. The compliance work is done before the bank relationship begins.
- Opening a bank account remains the most time-consuming step. For a new fund, plan for 2–8 weeks. Begin banking due diligence preparation at the same time as fund documentation, not after.
- Estonia has regulated banking relationships available to fund structures. Subsequent accounts can be opened in other EU jurisdictions as the fund’s investment mandate requires.
Section 7: Practical scenarios when each structure makes sense
The following scenarios illustrate how different family situations map to different structural choices. These are rather composites, not descriptions of specific clients.
Scenario A – The recent exit
A founder in their mid-fifties has sold a manufacturing business for €35M. The proceeds arrive in a personal account. Three adult children in two countries. No existing wealth structure.
The immediate need is governance somewhere for the assets to live that is not a personal account, with a defined investment mandate, KYC compliance in place, and a framework for how the children eventually participate.
A Modern Trust structure can be established in days. The founder retains the Investment Adviser role. The fund begins operating immediately. The longer-term succession structure can be designed over the following 12-24 months as the family’s priorities become clearer.
A Liechtenstein Stiftung or Jersey trust would take 3-6 months to establish properly, meaning that €35M sits in a personal account while advisers draft documents.
Scenario B – The international family reviewing a legacy structure
A family has a Liechtenstein foundation established in the early 2000s. The foundation holds listed equities and a German commercial property via a holding company. The family is now spread across Germany, the Netherlands, and the UAE.
The 2026 reform requires a governance documentation review. The family’s banker has raised compliance questions. The next generation has different attitudes toward transparency than the founding generation.
This does not necessarily require dismantling the existing structure. It does require a review, potentially moving certain assets into a more bank-friendly EU fund structure alongside the foundation, or restructuring the foundation’s governance to meet the new requirements. The adviser’s role is diagnostic.
Scenario C – DACH family considering a Familienstiftung
A German entrepreneur with €15M in investable assets is being advised to establish a Familienstiftung for succession and governance. Two children, one in Munich, one in Amsterdam.
The Familienstiftung is a well-understood structure within Germany, but the child in Amsterdam creates cross-border complexity; Dutch tax authorities interact with German foundations differently than with EU-regulated fund structures. The EU fund alternative, operating within the AIFMD framework, is recognised across both jurisdictions without requiring bilateral treaty analysis for the governance structure itself.
Scenario D – The Multi-Family adviser
An adviser manages relationships with four families, each with €8-25M in assets. None individually justifies the cost of a full Luxembourg vehicle. A Jersey trust for each would require four separate trustee relationships.
The EU fund framework allows each family to establish their own separate fund – independent governance, independent investor registers, independent investment mandates – under a shared regulatory infrastructure. The adviser can work with all four families within a framework they understand.
Section 8: Tax: What the structure does and does not do
This section provides a framework, not advice. Tax treatment is entirely dependent on specific circumstances. Always obtain jurisdiction-specific tax advice before establishing or materially changing a wealth structure.
8.1 Tax Transparency
EU-regulated alternative investment funds, including Estonian “usaldusfondid”, are generally tax-transparent vehicles:
- The fund itself is not a taxable entity in most EU jurisdictions.
- Investors are taxed according to their own personal tax circumstances: country of residence, nature of the income, and applicable double tax treaties.
- The fund does not withhold tax from proceeds distributed to investors.
Tax transparency is a feature, not a limitation. It means the structure does not introduce a new layer of taxation between investment activity and the investor. It does require that investors understand and fulfil their own reporting obligations.
8.2 CRS and FATCA Compliance
Modern regulated fund structures are designed for CRS and FATCA compliance from inception. The AIFM maintains the investor register, collects tax identification information, and provides the reporting these frameworks require. This is not a limitation it is a feature that makes the structure durable as enforcement intensifies.
8.3 What the Structure Is Not
- A Modern Trust structure is not a tax elimination vehicle. It is a governance and investment vehicle that operates within a defined tax framework.
- It does not remove obligations to report income to tax authorities in the investor’s home jurisdiction.
- It does not provide special tax treatment unavailable to other structures.
Section 9: The establishment process
| Stage | What happens | Timeline | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Define mandate | Investment strategy, asset classes, family member participation, distribution rules, governance preferences. GP entity design. | 1-2 weeks |
| 2 | Documentation | Fund agreement, subscription agreements, investment policy, KYC/AML documentation. | 1-3 weeks |
| 3 | Legal establishment | GP entity via Estonian Business Register. Fund registered as usaldusfond. Fully digital. | 3-5 business days |
| 4 | Banking | nitial bank account in Estonia. Subsequent accounts in other jurisdictions as mandate requires. Begin banking due diligence in parallel with step 2. | 2-8 weeks |
| 5 | Investor onboarding | Family members onboarded as LPs through KYC/AML process. | 1-3 weeks per investor |
| 6 | Asset transfer | Assets transferred per the investment mandate. Obtain tax and legal advice on transfer in each relevant jurisdiction. | Varies |
| 7 | Ongoing operation | NAV calculations, investor reporting, regulatory filings, annual audit, AML monitoring — provided by the regulated management company. | Continuous |
The most common source of delay is banking, not legal establishment. Begin bank due diligence preparation at the same time as the fund documentation not after the fund is registered.
Section 10: Questions Advisers and Families Ask Most Often
On structure and legal form
What is the difference between a trust and a fund?
A trust is a fiduciary relationship in which a trustee holds assets for beneficiaries under the terms of a trust deed. Legal ownership transfers to the trustee. A fund is a regulated collective investment vehicle in which investors participate as shareholders or partners. The fund has its own legal structure that is typically a limited partnership or corporate form and is managed by a regulated entity. The Modern Trust uses a fund structure to achieve outcomes functionally analogous to a trust: asset separation, defined beneficiary participation, investment governance, and succession continuity.
Is a Modern Trust a legal trust?
No. The Modern Trust is not a trust in the common law sense. It is an EU-regulated alternative investment fund (“usaldusfond” in Estonian) operating within the AIFMD framework. It achieves trust-like functional outcomes through a different legal instrument. This distinction matters for situations where a specific common law trust is legally required.
Can an EU fund structure replace a Liechtenstein Stiftung?
For most of the functions families seek in a Stiftung is asset governance, succession planning, investment management, confidentiality, and cross-border flexibility. And a properly structured EU fund performs those functions. For families with specific Liechtenstein jurisprudence requirements or very large, complex philanthropic/private-benefit combined structures with decades of established practice, the Liechtenstein Stiftung may remain more appropriate. The choice depends on functional requirements.
On family participation
Is this structure suitable after a company exit?
Yes, and the post-exit scenario is one of the most common use cases. The entrepreneur sells their business, receives liquidity, and needs an immediate, governed, compliant structure for that capital before it is deployed. The EU fund framework can be established in days, providing immediate governance while the family’s longer-term succession and investment strategy is developed.
Can children participate as Limited Partners?
Yes. Family members, including adult children and in some structures minors, depending on applicable guardianship law, can participate as LPs. Their participation rights, economic entitlement, and information rights are defined in the fund agreement.
Can different family members have different economic rights?
Yes. The fund agreement can define different LP classes with different economic participation levels, distribution priorities, and information rights. This is one of the key governance tools for managing multi-generational family participation within a single structure.
What happens to the structure when the founder dies?
The fund agreement defines what happens. Distribution rules, succession of the Investment Adviser role, and LP participation rights continue according to the governing documents. The fund does not terminate on the death of the founder unless the agreement provides for that outcome. This continuity is one of the practical advantages of a governed fund structure over personally held assets.
On legal and regulatory matters
Is this structure legally recognised across the EU?
The usaldusfond is established under Estonian law and operates within the AIFMD framework: the EU’s harmonised alternative investment fund regulation. It is recognised by EU courts, tax authorities, and financial institutions. It is not a common law trust and does not function identically in all legal contexts, but for investment governance, succession planning, and cross-border asset holding it operates within a recognised EU framework.
Can non-EU families use this structure?
Yes. There are no citizenship or residency restrictions. Families from Japan, Brazil, the United States, the UAE, and many other jurisdictions have established structures through this framework. The investor’s home jurisdiction must be taken into account for tax and reporting purposes, which the structure’s CRS/FATCA compliance infrastructure handles.
Can US investors or beneficiaries participate?
US persons can participate, but this is a specific area where US tax counsel is essential before any US-connected investor is admitted. Relevant considerations include FATCA reporting, potential PFIC treatment, and partnership tax characterisation. Do not proceed without specialist US tax advice.
How does the structure interact with forced heirship rules?
Forced heirship rules in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other civil law jurisdictions may apply to assets regardless of how they are structured, particularly where the settlor or beneficiaries are resident in those jurisdictions. EU Succession Regulation (Brussels IV) provides some framework for choosing applicable law, but does not override mandatory forced heirship provisions. Obtain local legal advice for each jurisdiction where family members are resident.
On confidentiality and reporting
Is the fund agreement public?
No. The fund agreement and its terms are not publicly accessible. The investor register is maintained by the regulated management company and is available to EFSA, tax authorities (through CRS reporting), and auditors, but not to the public.
How does CRS reporting work?
The AIFM (Estcap Asset Management OÜ) fulfils CRS reporting obligations as part of its regulatory function. Investor tax identification information is collected during onboarding, and annual reports are made to the relevant tax authorities.
Is this structure suitable for US persons?
See the answer on US investors above. The short answer is: possible, but requires specialist US tax counsel from the outset. This is not a situation where general advisers should proceed without specific US expertise.
On assets and investments
Can the structure hold a family business?
Yes, in principle. A fund can hold shares in a private company. Practical considerations include the valuation methodology for NAV purposes, investment mandate description, and whether the business has shareholder agreements that restrict ownership transfer. Common structure for founding families who want to hold their business within a governed framework while remaining operationally active.
Can the structure hold real estate in another country?
Yes. For real estate specifically, the common approach is to hold the property in a local holding company (to accommodate local land ownership rules, mortgage requirements, and tax treatment), which is then held by the fund. This is standard practice and does not represent a limitation.
What is the minimum practical asset size?
The structure becomes cost-proportionate at approximately €2-5M in liquid or investable assets. Below that level, annual administration costs represent a significant percentage of AUM. Above €100M, the choice between this and Luxembourg or other frameworks depends more on specific functional requirements than cost efficiency.
On jurisdictions and alternatives
When is Luxembourg still a better choice?
Luxembourg makes more sense when: the family has €30M+ and needs deep EU passport access for professional investor distribution; when the advisory ecosystem around the family is Luxembourg-centric and the cost of transitioning that network exceeds the structural cost savings; or when the specific RAIF or SIF structure is required for regulatory or investor relations reasons.
When is Liechtenstein still a better choice?
Liechtenstein makes more sense when: the family has a long-established Liechtenstein structure that is functioning well and the banking relationships are intact (in which case review and adapt rather than replace); when the Stiftung framework is specifically required for philanthropic combined structures; or when the family’s primary banking relationships are with Swiss or Liechtenstein institutions that prefer that framework.
Can the structure be combined with a foundation or holding company?
Yes. Some families use both structures for different purposes: a Liechtenstein foundation for legacy assets, and an EU fund structure for new investments and more actively managed capital. Holding companies are commonly used to hold specific assets. Particularly, real estate or operating companies within the fund structure.
What happens if a family member changes tax residence?
A change in tax residence by an LP affects that LP’s personal tax position, not the fund structure itself. The LP’s new jurisdiction of residence determines how their fund income is taxed. The fund’s CRS reporting will reflect the updated tax residency. This should be reviewed with a tax adviser in the new jurisdiction before or at the time of the move.
Real-world examples: structures in operation
The hypothetical scenarios in Section 7 illustrate how different situations map to different structural choices. The following examples describe actual structures that have been established and operated. All identifying details are omitted. The facts are accurate.
EXAMPLE 1 International Family Investment Platform
A family with members in Japan, Brazil, and Estonia uses an Estonian fund structure to pool capital and invest across multiple jurisdictions under a single governance framework. Prior to establishing the structure, the family’s assets were held across personal accounts and domestic holding companies in three jurisdictions, with no unified investment mandate, no consolidated reporting, and no clear succession framework.
The Estonian fund provides a single governance perimeter across all assets. Investment decisions are made by the designated Investment Adviser, a family member, within a mandate defined in the fund agreement. Each family member participates as a Limited Partner with defined economic rights. Investor reporting is consolidated and produced by the regulated management company.
What this demonstrates: An EU-regulated fund structure can serve as a unifying governance layer for a genuinely international family regardless of where the family members live or where the assets are located. The structure does not require any family member to be in Estonia.
EXAMPLE 2 Maritime Asset Structure: Complete Fund Lifecycle
A group of Brazilian investors participated through an EU-regulated Estonian fund structure which acquired and operated a commercial maritime vessel. The fund was established with a defined investment mandate covering maritime assets. The vessel was acquired, operated for a defined period, and subsequently sold.
Following a successful sale, the proceeds were distributed to investors in accordance with the fund agreement. The fund then entered its wind-down phase, a process managed within the regulated framework, with final accounts, regulatory notifications, and investor distributions all executed digitally.
What this demonstrates: The structure is not limited to financial assets. It can hold, operate, and exit physical assets including assets in jurisdictions outside the EU. It can complete a full investment lifecycle: acquisition, operation, sale, distribution, and wind-down within a regulated, documented framework. This is a complete proof of concept.
EXAMPLE 3 Emerging Manager: Outsourced Fund Infrastructure
An emerging venture capital manager elected to outsource the entire regulatory, reporting, AML/KYC, and operational infrastructure for their fund while retaining full control over sourcing, investment decisions, and LP relationships.
The manager operates as the Investment Adviser. Portfolio companies are selected, evaluated, and managed by the manager. LP relationships – onboarding, quarterly updates, capital calls, distribution notices – are managed by the manager. The regulated management company handles registration, compliance, NAV, accounts, and regulatory reporting.
What this demonstrates: The structure works equally well for emerging managers as for established families. The separation between investment decision-making (retained by the adviser) and regulated infrastructure (provided by the AIFM) allows a manager without the resources to build their own licensed fund management company to operate within a fully compliant framework from day one.
A note on these examples
These examples are described with the knowledge and implicit consent of the parties involved. No names, specific asset values, or identifying information has been disclosed. They are included because real examples with real outcomes are more informative than hypothetical scenarios. The maritime asset example in particular is significant: it demonstrates that the structure can handle the full lifecycle of a real asset, in a non-financial sector, across multiple jurisdictions, and complete the process with documented distributions to investors.
Conclusion: The Right Question for 2026
The wealth structuring landscape in Europe is not what it was ten years ago. Regulatory harmonisation, digital infrastructure, and shifting banking relationships have changed the practical trade-offs between jurisdictions in ways that have not always been reflected in advisory practice.
For families and advisers who have defaulted to legacy approaches: Liechtenstein because it has always been Liechtenstein, Luxembourg because Luxembourg is what you do at this scale: 2026 is a reasonable moment to ask whether those defaults still serve the family’s actual situation.
That question does not lead to a single universal answer. For some families, the established jurisdictions remain the right choice. For many others, particularly the growing segment with €5-50M in assets, cross-border lives, and a preference for regulatory clarity over jurisdictional prestige, the EU fund framework offers a better fit.
The test is not about which structure has the most impressive history. The test is which structure actually works for this family, in this regulatory environment, at this cost, with these assets.
Start a confidential structuring conversation
If you are reviewing an existing family structure, planning after an exit, or advising a family with cross-border wealth, the first step is a confidential conversation: no commitment needed.
Urmas Peiker | moderntrust.fund
Research, analysis, and drafting for this publication were supported by AI-assisted research and drafting tools. The structure, conclusions, interpretations, and final editorial decisions reflect the professional judgment and views of the author.
About the author:
Urmas Peiker is the founder of Modern Trust and Poolside, both operating through Estcap Asset Management OÜ. Former regulator, banker, entrepreneur and fund manager, he brings nearly three decades of experience spanning public supervision, institutional finance, capital markets and alternative investments.
He began his career as a securities regulator with the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority, subsequently working at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Morgan Stanley, and LHV Bank, where he served as Head of Compliance.
He co-founded Funderbeam, one of the first global platforms combining private company fundraising and secondary trading, and holds a law degree from Duke University.
Legal and Regulatory Notice
This guide is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, tax, or investment advice, nor an offer to establish any specific structure or to provide regulated services. The suitability of any wealth structure depends on individual circumstances, including jurisdiction of residence, tax position, asset type, and family objectives. Independent legal, tax, and investment advice should always be sought before establishing or amending a wealth structure.
Modern Trust structures are established and operated through Estcap Asset Management OÜ, a registered small alternative investment fund manager in Estonia, registered with the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (Finantsinspektsioon) on 04.10.2021, and licensed as a financial institution by the Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit on 28.02.2022. Estcap Asset Management OÜ operates under the sub-threshold small fund manager registration regime pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 2011/61/EU (AIFMD) and the Estonian Investment Funds Act. Supervision by EFSA covers registration, statistical reporting, and AML compliance obligations.
Sources and Further Reading
The following sources informed specific factual claims in this guide. They are provided for advisers and readers who wish to verify or explore the underlying material.
[1] Bergt & Partner AG, ‘Liechtenstein Trust Law Reform 2026/27: Why Trustees, Settlors And Family Offices Must Review Their Trust Structures Now’, Mondaq, 27 May 2026. https://www.mondaq.com/wealth-asset-management/1792792/liechtenstein-trust-law-reform-202627-why-trustees-settlors-and-family-offices-must-review-their-trust-structures-now
[2] HM Revenue & Customs, ‘Technical Note: Reforming the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals’, HM Treasury, October 2024. Confirms abolition of remittance basis from 6 April 2025 and introduction of four-year FIG regime. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/672105124da1c0d41942a8a8/Reforming_the_taxation_of_non-UK_individuals.pdf
[3] Finantsinspektsioon (EFSA), ‘Small Fund Managers Without Activity Licence’. Describes the sub-threshold registration regime under Article 3(2) AIFMD and EFSA’s supervisory scope for registered small fund managers. https://www.fi.ee/en/investment-market/fund-management-companies-0/investment-market/small-fund-managers-without-activity-licence
[4] SparkCore, ‘Regulated Crypto Fund Manager in Estonia’, March 2026. Useful technical overview of the Estonian sub-threshold AIFM registration regime, AUM thresholds, and EFSA supervision scope. https://sparkcore.fund/blog/regulated-crypto-fund-manager-estonia
[5] Grant Thornton Switzerland, ‘Overview of the Liechtenstein Foundation / Stiftung’. Summary of establishment requirements, minimum capital (CHF 30,000), governance structure, and beneficiary rights framework. https://www.grantthornton.ch/en/insights/overview-liechtenstein-foundation-stiftung/
[6] Saffery, ‘Non-dom tax changes: the FIG regime, CGT and income tax’, September 2025. Summary of the FIG regime practical application for UK-resident individuals after 6 April 2025. https://www.saffery.com/insights/articles/non-dom-tax-changes-the-fig-regime-cgt-and-income-tax/
[7] familyofficehub.io, ‘Family Offices in Europe: The Complete Guide [2026]’. Data on European single-family office numbers (2,000+), average AUM (~USD 1.9bn), and PE allocation (27%). https://familyofficehub.io/blog/family-offices-in-europe-complete-guide-2026/
This guide will be reviewed and updated as regulatory frameworks, market conditions, and relevant case law develop.
Last updated: September 2026.
© 2026 Modern Trust by Poolside