Enfin c'est la terreur administrative avec expropriation
sic: "Un trust, c'est un contrat privé : on fait ce que
l'on veut. C'est ce que l'on appelle, en droit, l'autonomie de la
Cette "définition" lapidaire incohérente proférée par une
avocate incompétente dans la matière est la source de cette erreur.
Si un trust peut être défini juridiquement en Français sans fraude
sur la loi étrangère, on n'aurait pas besion de la Convention de la
Haye pour permettre la résokuion de cette incohérence de
compréhension. Le chaos vient de telles erreurs délibérément
publiés pour promouvoir une cause.
C'est alors la terreur par erreur! Un trust n'est pas un contrat
privé messieurs les députés et sénateurs bien que Maître Claude Dumont Beghi a affirmé le contraire
sans confession d'incompétence et sous serment, pardevant vous
à risque d'une procédure pénale pour affirmation fausse devant le
parlement. Enfin: revenant à la langue des trusts pour éviter des
lacunes de traduction et, apparament, de compréhension. Le chaos ne
vient que de votre incapacité d'apprécier une réalité juridique et
économique que vous ne maitrisez point.
Ceux qui trouvent ceci bizarre -, oui le mot est prononcé
- devraient lire plus attentivement les travaux préparatoires de la
Convention de la Haye de 1985, qui affiment que le trust est une
créature de la loi de propriété et n'est alors pas un contrat privé
provenant de l'imagination surmenée d'une avocate française.
Following a decision of the juge des référés of the Conseil
d'Etat, The Register of Trusts open to online consultation since
5th July is no longer available to the French tax paying public:
any French taxpayer with online filing references could consult it
prior to this embargo. Given the French penchant for
underdeclaration, one can hardly call this a threshold of
N.b. The initial French proposal was to anticipate the EU
Directive in allowing access only to certain categories of person
from the public to access the Register such as investigative
journalists etc, with a modicum of a public interest element to
avoid kidnapping issues etc. The point of the Council of
Ministers' subsequent rejection of the admission to public scrutiny
was that the information provided on such registers was designed to
be made available to government departments and agencies in order
to enable those organs to fulfill their respective rôles. My
comment is even the Frech Registers' current position goes far
beyond even the EU 4th Money Laundering Directive's attempts to
secure snooper's access to trust information.
The juge des référés du Conseil d'Etat referred the
constitutionality of the implementing provisions of article
1649AB to the Conseil constitutionnel.
The Public Register of Trusts is not even in compliance
with the proposal for a Public Register of Trusts which the
European Parliament slipped in at the last minute in the 4th Money
Laundering Directive. There is no longer a "legitimate interest"
watershed. That proposal was rejected by the Council of Minsters as
disproportionate. The EU Commission is now preparing a proposition
to reinsert such a proposal. Doubtless encouraged by Pierre
Moscovici; in turn egged on by the French Green contingent in
the European Parliament. The dirty trick of using last minute
amendments in Parliamentary proposals to secure a minority change
in a law is an offence to that Institution's status.
The judge noted that the provision gave any person entirely free
access to the information contained on on the Register who
was in possession of a fiscal identity reference who followed the
elementary fixed identification procedure for access to DGFIP
services on line.
These included the identity of beneficiaries of the trusts.
The judge found that there was a serious argument that the
free access to the personal data was a disproportionate breach of
the right to respect of the private life of the individual
guaranteed by article 2 of the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et
The judge also suspended the execution of the décret of 10th May
2016 which sets down the consultation procedure on an interim basis
awaiting decision of the Conseil constitutionnel within
three months and also the decision of the Conseil d'Etat on the
Whilst any individual looking at this trans-border and tarns
institiutionalised organised farce might wonder why the Conseil
Constitutionel or the Conseil d'Etat have not been seized
with the more fundamental issue of the breach of confidentiality
implicit in the abusive publication of information given on a tax
return prior to 2013 and thereafter to a tax administration in good
faith and in reliance upon that duty of confidentiality; that is
merely an absence of any procedural right to do so . Tom Stoppard's
"Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are dead" is appropriate light relief
reading for this type of trans institutional and trans-border
backstage "noise off", provided that you use the French language
translation in which the effective script of this assault on
English law is rewritten.
The Emperor's New Clothes now being total transparency
through the distorting lens of French administrative and legal
incompétence - I use the term in its French sense- perhaps a dose
of reality and self-assessment is needed at the French
Unfortunately, the attempt made to insert the Trust into the
contental perceptions of monetising assets is spreading to
Brussels, where the EU Commission's is proposing an amendment to
the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive to predicate a public
register of trusts as a matter of principle, on the basis of course
that it is a form of contract as opposed to a property issue. The
trust is a fundamental part of the law of English real property,
and it is singularly disproportionate and innappropriate to
associate it with a money laundering vehicle unless where there is
a corporate holding.
How the British economy and its approach to money is to address
this ridiculous idea is becoming a test of our notions of property
and of the monetisation of assets within our currency
"jurisdiction". We are in danger of allowing a
fundamental part of our property law to be effectively outlawed by
jurisdictions who simply do not understand it and who have made it
their intent to denigrate and to destroy. There is no point in
having a Ministry of Justice or for that matter a Lord
Chancellor who is incapable of defending our legal heritage and
system of property rights, other than for political advantage.
The United Kingdom Government will need to be very aware of this
issue in any Brexit negotiations and take steps to ensure that the
English law trust, and those depending upon it, is considered as a
property law concept, and insist upon that rather than simply
treating this frolick by the French and now by Europe to make
it into something else as misguided continental innocence lost in
Whence la Terreur ...France is no longer a State within which
what is internationally recognised as the rule of law applies.
This is no longer tax law as such. Perhaps ENA should issue a
tricoleur sash, a cocked hat and a tricoleur rosette with every
diploma, coupled with a portable guillotine?