.avif)
In cases where a founder has built substantial wealth through a Greek operating business and the family’s interests now extend to investment holdings and property across several jurisdictions, the attraction of a formal asset protection structure is readily understood. The next generation may live in different countries, participate unevenly in the family enterprise and hold differing expectations as to how the wealth should be managed. The founder wants the assets protected and the family provided for, while ensuring that important decisions continue to be made with discipline.
A foreign trust, foundation or comparable structure may form part of the answer, but the arrangement cannot be designed solely by reference to the law under which it is established. It must also work alongside the founder’s Greek connections, the wider estate and the legal position of the people and assets it is intended to serve.
The structure and the estate must be designed together
A structure established abroad does not remove the need to consider the founder’s estate as a whole. Assets may remain personally held in Greece, while shares, investments or foreign property sit within the structure. Family members may benefit under both the structure and a will, creating two systems of succession that must operate coherently.
The law governing the estate may itself depend on several connecting factors. The EU Succession Regulation generally links an international succession to the deceased’s habitual residence, while permitting a person to choose the law of their nationality. Where Greek succession law applies, descendants, parents and a surviving spouse or registered partner may be entitled to a reserved portion of the estate.
The structure should therefore be tested against the estate plan rather than treated as a substitute for it.
Founder influence requires careful limits
A founder may understandably wish to retain appointment rights, approval powers or influence over investment and distribution decisions. Those protections require restraint.
Where every significant decision remains subject to the founder’s direction, the structure may be independent in form while remaining personally dependent in practice. Complete withdrawal may create the opposite difficulty by placing authority with officeholders who understand the documents but not the commercial character of the family or the purpose for which the structure was created.
The stronger approach lies in a measured allocation of powers, oversight and fiduciary responsibility. Reserved powers, appointment rights and advisory or protector-type functions may each have a role, provided that they form part of a coherent governance model.
Where structures tend to weaken
In practice, weakness is seldom found in the legal vehicle alone. It more often appears in the assumptions surrounding it. The founder may believe that long-established intentions are obvious, while the documents provide only a partial account of how authority should be exercised once personal influence is removed.
Cross-border families may also change more quickly than their structures. Residence shifts, assets are reorganised and later generations develop connections with different jurisdictions. An arrangement that remains valid under its governing law may nevertheless become less effective if its Greek succession, tax and administrative consequences have not been reconsidered.
The strength of the structure will ultimately depend on whether its foreign legal form, Greek connections and wider estate continue to operate as parts of the same design.