CBI can be paired with corporate opacity to obscure beneficial ownership and move funds across jurisdictions
WASHINGTON, DC
The Financial Action Task Force’s warning on citizenship-by-investment echoes a recurring investigative pattern. Illicit finance rarely relies on a single technique. It relies on a stack, meaning multiple legal and documentary layers that, together, can weaken traceability. A second citizenship can become one layer in a wider structure that includes shell companies, trusts, nominee directors, proxy shareholders, and cross-border accounts.
In that stack, citizenship is not just a travel credential. It can function as a credibility enhancer at the point of contact, whether that contact is a bank onboarding team, a corporate service provider, a notary, a property developer, or a brokerage compliance desk. When paired with corporate opacity, it can help separate an individual from assets in ways that frustrate both criminal enforcement and civil recovery, even when each step appears lawful in isolation.
The core risk is not that corporate entities exist.
Companies and trusts are legitimate tools for commerce, succession planning, and investment. The risk arises when structures are assembled to make control hard to see, fragment record trails across jurisdictions, and create just enough documentary distance that reviewers cannot quickly identify the true controller. In modern compliance environments, speed and uncertainty can be exploited. A structure that slows verification can create windows in which funds move, and assets settle before questions are answered.
How the layering stack functions
Layering often begins with incorporating entities in multiple jurisdictions. The entities may use nominee directors, nominee shareholders, or corporate directors that sign filings while the underlying controller remains off record. Ownership may be spread across holding companies, trusts, and partnerships, sometimes with different parts of the chain located in places with limited disclosure or weak verification.
Funds then move through transactions that look ordinary on paper. Intercompany loans, consulting invoices, management fees, licensing arrangements, and investment subscriptions can shift value across borders while leaving an internal trail that appears businesslike. The purpose is not always to hide that money moved.
The purpose is to make it difficult to determine why it moved, who truly benefited, and who ultimately controlled the decision.
Real assets can be acquired in the name of an entity rather than a personal name. Property, securities portfolios, private equity stakes, yachts, aircraft, and luxury goods can be titled to companies, trusts, or special purpose vehicles. That can be legitimate. In risk cases, it can be used to create a shield between the individual and the asset, complicating freezes, seizures, and civil claims.
When a person then presents a second nationality and a clean identity narrative, the overall structure can appear less suspicious at first glance, particularly where local institutions rely on document presence rather than deep verification. In weaker environments, the paperwork becomes the product. The file looks complete. The risk remains unresolved.
Why beneficial ownership transparency is central
Beneficial ownership is the hinge point in modern financial controls. Many jurisdictions have moved toward beneficial ownership registries, stronger disclosure rules, and increased scrutiny of complex structures. Implementation, however, varies, and verification varies even more. Some systems collect beneficial ownership declarations without robust validation. Some rely on self-reporting. Some impose penalties that are rarely enforced.
Criminal networks exploit those gaps by selecting jurisdictions where verification is limited, then using the resulting filings as proof elsewhere. A stamped registry extract, a corporate certificate, or a trust deed can be presented to banks and counterparties as evidence of legitimacy, even when the document does not reveal true control. The documents may be authentic, while the story remains incomplete.
The FATF warning places pressure on both programs and jurisdictions to demonstrate that they can identify the true controller, not just the formal owner. In practice, that means testing control rights, not only share percentages. It means understanding who can appoint or remove directors, who can direct trustees, who has signing authority, who benefits economically, and who can alter the structure. It also means verifying the origin of funds used for investment, because an ownership chart without a credible source-of-wealth record still leaves a major integrity gap.
How CBI can amplify corporate opacity
Citizenship-by-investment can interact with corporate layering in ways that matter operationally. A new nationality can shift the initial risk lens through which institutions view. It can affect how a customer is categorized, how the story is framed, and how quickly a file moves through intake. It can also add another set of civil records, addresses, and document formats that must be reconciled, increasing the likelihood that identity resolution will slow down.
Bad actors often do not need a system to fail permanently. They need it to fail long enough for transactions to clear or assets to settle. If identity resolution is delayed, beneficial ownership confirmation is incomplete, and the business purpose remains unclear, then the structure has achieved its practical goal. It has created friction that benefits the mover of funds, not the gatekeeper.
This dynamic helps explain why banks increasingly treat stacked profiles as higher risk. A recent second nationality, combined with layered entities, nominee features, and offshore movements, can appear to be an identity and asset separation strategy even if the customer insists the structure is ordinary. In 2026 screening environments, institutions are shifting from document checks to story verification. The story must reconcile across jurisdictions, and the structure must have a business purpose that can be explained and supported.
What institutions typically do when risk rises
Banks and professional service providers respond with enhanced due diligence when they encounter layered structures paired with a second nationality or other complexity signals. They typically request control charts that show ownership and control pathways, including upstream entities, trustees, protectors, and any persons with appointment powers. They request corporate documents, registers, trust instruments where relevant, and evidence that nominee arrangements do not conceal the controller.
They also request source-of-wealth and source-of-funds records that can be independently supported. That can include audited financials, tax filings, or evidence of tax residency where appropriate, sale agreements, dividend records, loan documentation, and bank statements showing flows over time. They often request third-party verification and may cross-check counterparties, litigation history, adverse information, and sanctions proximity.
Institutions also focus on purpose. They ask why the structure exists, what commercial function it serves, and why the jurisdictions were selected. A business purpose that is vague, inconsistent, or overly privacy-focused can increase suspicion. A concrete, documented, and aligned purpose tends to reduce friction.
When consistency fails, relationships can end quickly. In the current de-risking environment, uncertainty itself can be a trigger for exit, especially when compliance teams cannot resolve identity and control with confidence and within a reasonable time. The practical reality is that many institutions prefer to avoid relationships that require ongoing detective work.
Program credibility and the downstream cost of opacity
The FATF warning also underscores a broader consequence. When citizenship-by-investment and corporate opacity are repeatedly paired in risk cases, the reputational cost spreads beyond individual applicants. Jurisdictions can face increased scrutiny from correspondent banks, heightened onboarding friction for their citizens, and pressure from partner states concerned about mobility and enforcement.
Programs that want to sustain credibility tend to converge on the same safeguards. They reduce reliance on intermediaries to control the narrative, retain state ownership of screening decisions, conduct direct interviews for higher-risk profiles, and maintain a lawful ability to revisit approvals when misrepresentation or serious integrity concerns arise. Programs that cannot demonstrate those controls risk becoming associated with the very stacking strategies regulators warn about.
What legitimate applicants should expect
Legitimate applicants using lawful structures should expect deeper questions and more requests for clarity, particularly when structures involve multiple jurisdictions and nominee features. The most effective way to reduce friction is coherence, meaning identity details align across documents, ownership and control are clearly explained, and the source of wealth can be supported with records that withstand independent review. Structures that can be explained in plain language and have a verifiable business purpose tend to be easier to onboard and maintain.
About Amicus International Consulting
Amicus International Consulting provides professional services supporting lawful relocation planning, documentation integrity, and compliance-oriented cross-border structuring.
Amicus International Consulting
Media Relations
Email: info@amicusint.ca
Phone: 1+ (604) 200-5402
Website: www.amicusint.ca
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada