The CARF provides for the automatic exchange of tax relevant-information on crypto-assets. In the same vein as the CRS, the CARF is intended to achieve transparency for transactions in crypto-assets by the annual, automatic exchange of crypto-asset transaction information among the participating jurisdictions whose tax residents hold or engage in crypto-asset transactions.

The definition of “Crypto-Assets” in the CARF focuses on the use of cryptographically secured distributed ledger technology or “similar technology”. This is intended to cover crypto-assets which can be held and transferred in a decentralized manner, without the intervention of traditional financial intermediaries, including stablecoins, derivatives issued in the form of a crypto-asset and certain NFTs. However, the CARF does not apply to crypto-assets which do not have the capacity of being used for payment or investment purposes, central bank digital currencies and specified electronic money products.

Individuals or entities that “as a business” provide services effectuating exchange transactions in Relevant Crypto-Assets, for and on behalf of customers are in scope of the CARF (“Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers”). This would cover, for example, Cayman Islands licensed crypto-asset exchanges and broker-dealers trading crypto-assets on behalf of customers, but would not include an investment fund which invests in crypto-assets or a token issuer.

The following transactions are relevant transactions which are reportable under the CARF:

1. 1. 1. exchanges between Relevant Crypto-Assets and fiat currencies;
      2. exchanges between one or more Relevant Crypto-Assets; and
      3. transfers of Relevant Crypto-Assets (including air drops, income derived from staking or a loan).

A transfer of Relevant Crypto-Assets includes a transfer of Relevant Crypto-Assets by a retail merchant in consideration of goods or services for a value exceeding US$50,000.

A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider needs to (i) report on each customer who is a “Reportable User” i.e. if he/ she is resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction (being a jurisdiction which is subject to the CARF reporting) and (ii) determine whether a customer which is an entity has one or more controlling persons who are Reportable Persons.

For each type of transaction, a Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider must report:

1. 1. 1. identifying details of customers (name, address, date of birth, TIN and tax residence);
      2. details of transactions of Crypto-Assets, including the type of Crypto-Asset, the aggregate gross amount paid and the aggregate fair market value; and
      3. transfers to wallets not linked to a financial institution or service provider, enhancing visibility into self-custody holdings.

A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider must maintain all documentation and data for a period of not less than 5 years.

A Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider must obtain a self-certification for each of its customers in order to determine their tax residence, in addition to any AML/ KYC collected in accordance with the Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider’s procedures.

The Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) Regulations, 2025 (“CARF Regulations”) and Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025 were published in the Cayman Islands Gazette on 27 November 2025 (together, the “Amendment Regulations”). The CARF Regulations implement the global Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework in the Cayman Islands to enhance tax transparency and fight evasion and money laundering.

Both Amendment Regulations take effect from 1 January 2026 (“Effective Date”).

The CARF Regulations apply the standard for automatic exchange of information relating to Crypto-Assets developed by the OECD.

Under the CARF Regulations, a Cayman Islands Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider will need to:

1. 1. 1. establish and maintain written policies and procedures to comply with the CARF;
      2. obtain a self-certification for each of its customers in order to determine their tax residence;
      3. register with the Cayman Islands Department for International Tax Co-operation as a Crypto-Asset Service Provider. For existing entities which are Cayman Islands Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers prior to the Effective Date, the deadline for registration is 30 April 2026. For all entities which become Cayman Islands Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers after the Effective Date, the deadline for registration is 31 January the following year;
      4. submit an annual return for each of its Crypto-Asset users who are Reportable Users or have Controlling Persons that are Reportable Persons by 30 June of the year following the calendar year to which the return relates; and
      5. retain all documents and records for 6 years.

Cayman Islands Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Provider can appoint an agent to carry out the duties imposed under the CARF Regulations and act as principal point of contact (“PPoC”) – the PPoC must be any entity or individual resident in the Cayman Islands.

View Full PDF

This publication is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice or a legal opinion. If you require further advice relating to the matters discussed in this Briefing, please contact us.  We would be delighted to assist.

E: gary.smith@loebsmith.com
E: robert.farrell@loebsmith.com
E: elizabeth.kenny@loebsmith.com
E: vanisha.harjani@loebsmith.com
E: vivian.huang@loebsmith.com
E: faye.huang@loebsmith.com
E: yun.sheng@loebsmith.com

On 27 November 2025, the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) (Amendment) Regulations, 2025, (the “Amendment Regulations”) were published in the Cayman Islands Gazette which, upon coming into force on 1 January 2026 (other than the new regulations for CRS returns and compliance forms which come into force on 1 January 2027), will introduce a number of important amendments to the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (2021 Revision).

The amendments introduce practical changes to registration, reporting deadlines, penalty mechanics and information-gathering requirements, and also update the CRS framework to address electronic money and virtual assets.

From 1 January 2026:

• • A Cayman Financial Institution that becomes a Financial Institution in a given calendar year must register with the Tax Information Authority of the Cayman Islands (TIA) by 31 January of the following year via the TIA’s AEOI portal.
  • There are transitional provisions for those entities that became a Cayman Financial Institution during 2025 whereby the deadline for their registration with the TIA is 30 April 2026.

In addition, if any information in a Financial Institution’s registration changes (for example, CRS classification, name, or contact details), a change form must be submitted within 30 days of the change taking effect.

The Amendment Regulations require the principal point of contact for each Cayman Financial Institution (“PPOC”) to be located within the Cayman Islands. Previously, the PPOC could be based anywhere. For those entities that are currently registered and whose PPOC is not based within the Cayman Islands, they must appoint a Cayman-based PPOC and notify the TIA by 31 January 2027.

The dates by which CRS Returns and CRS Compliance Forms must be filed are changing and will now fall on the same date. From 1 January 2027 (i.e. for the reporting for 2026):

• • CRS returns (including nil returns) must be filed by 30 June of the year following the relevant calendar year (moved forward from 31 July which is the current deadline); and
  • The CRS Compliance Form filing deadline will also be 30 June (brought forward from the current deadline of 15 September).

For both CRS returns and Compliance Forms, they must be filed through the TIA’s electronic portal in the required form and must be accompanied by a declaration that the information is “adequate, accurate and current”.  These terms are defined in the Amendment Regulations as follows:

• • “adequate” means that information provided contains all details required by the relevant regulation;

• • “accurate” means the information provided is correct and reliable; and
  • “current” means the relevant information is as up to date as is reasonably practicable and reflects any change of circumstances that occurred within the period to which the information relates.

The Amendment Regulations will also require Cayman Financial Institutions to collect and report additional information, particularly in relation to “Controlling Persons” (who are, effectively, the ultimate beneficial owners of a relevant entity) and also additional information in respect of the reported accounts (e.g. whether the account is held in a single name or in joint names).

This information will be collected via a self-certification form, which must be completed by the relevant reportable person. Financial Institutions must now also report whether valid self-certifications have been obtained for all account holders required to provide them.

For accounts maintained as at 31 December 2025, and for reporting periods ending by the second calendar year after that date, the additional information on roles is required only where that information already exists in electronically searchable form.

The Amendment Regulations also make changes to the approach that the TIA will take in relation to issuing penalties for non-compliance. In particular, where a Cayman Financial Institution fails to submit the required CRS return and Compliance Form by their due date, the TIA may now issue a penalty notice immediately without first issuing a notice of breach, which previously allowed representations to be made to the TIA in mitigation. Otherwise, the TIA’s procedures for the issuance of penalties remain unchanged.

The previous provisions under which interest accrued on unpaid penalties have been repealed. In the case of an appeal against a penalty, enforcement of the penalty will continue to be stayed pending the outcome of that appeal.

The Amendment Regulations introduce a comprehensive update to align the regime with the growing use of electronic money and crypto-assets. The scope of a “Depository Institution” is widened so that entities holding “Specified Electronic Money Products” or “Central Bank Digital Currencies” (“CBDCs”) for customers are treated in the same way as traditional deposit-takers, and the definition of a “Depository Account” is expanded accordingly.

The concept of a “Financial Asset” is also broadened to include Relevant Crypto-Assets (i.e. crypto-assets capable of being used for payment or investment), so that dealing, managing or trading in such assets may now cause an entity to be classified as an “Investment Entity” for CRS purposes. As a result, businesses involved in e-money issuance, digital wallets, exchange activities or custody of digital assets may fall within CRS reporting or due diligence obligations where they previously sat outside the framework.

The amendments also coordinate CRS reporting with the forthcoming “Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework” (“CARF”) by relieving Financial Institutions from having to report gross proceeds on Financial Assets where those proceeds will already be reported under CARF.

Altogether, the new provisions ensure that e-money, CBDCs and certain crypto-assets are treated in a consistent way under CRS, closing previous gaps and bringing digital-asset service providers more firmly within the global transparency and reporting framework.

In light of the Amendment Regulations, Cayman Financial Institutions (e.g. investment funds, investment managers, and discretionary investment advisers) should:

• • consider their CRS registration status and ensure processes are in place to meet the new registration deadlines. In particular, those who became Financial Institutions in 2025 will need to ensure they are registered with the TIA by 30 April 2026;
  • identify whether the business has a Cayman-based PPOC and if not, plan for an appointment of a Cayman-based and TIA notification by 31 January 2027;
  • update account opening and onboarding procedures so that valid self-certifications (with all required data fields) are obtained before account opening;
  • review whether systems can capture the new reportable data elements (joint account status, account type, Controlling Person roles, self-certification status) and whether such data is stored in electronically searchable form;
  • for e-money, CBDC or crypto-asset businesses, assess whether the updated definitions bring additional entities, products or accounts within CRS scope and take action accordingly;
  • adjust internal reporting calendars and compliance workflows to align with the new 30 June deadline for both CRS returns and compliance forms; and
  • ensure that internal sign-off is consistent with the requirement to declare that filings are adequate, accurate and current.

We provide the services for PPOC and advise a broad range of clients on CRS classification, registration, due diligence frameworks and reporting under the Cayman Islands’ international tax compliance regime, including the impact of the Amendment Regulations.

View Full PDF

If you would like to appoint a Cayman-based PPOC and/or discuss how these changes may affect your business, your CRS classification or your onboarding and reporting processes, please contact any member of our team.

E: gary.smith@loebsmith.com
E: robert.farrell@loebsmith.com
E: elizabeth.kenny@loebsmith.com
E: vanisha.harjani@loebsmith.com
E: vivian.huang@loebsmith.com
E: yun.sheng@loebsmith.com

The Companies Act (as Revised) of the Cayman Islands (the “Act”) does not contain any provisions with respect to the creation of security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company. Therefore, the security should adhere to the following principles derived from common law:

1. 1. it must be in writing;
   2. the security document must be signed by, or with the authority of, the security provider; and
   3. the security document must clearly indicate the intention to create security over the Secured Shares and the amount secured or how that amount is to be calculated.

Cayman Islands law recognizes various forms of security over assets, including equitable mortgages and charges which are most commonly taken over Secured Shares in a Secured Company.

Cayman Islands law does not prescribe a particular mode of execution with respect to security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company and it is not necessary for such security to be certified, notarized or apostilled to make the security valid or enforceable from a Cayman Islands law perspective. That being said, in practice, a security document with respect to Secured Shares in a Secured Company is customarily executed as a deed.

From an execution standpoint, it is important to review the memorandum of association and articles of association (the “M&A”) of the relevant security provider and the relevant Secured Company, to the extent it is a party to the security document, to ensure compliance with any applicable signing formalities.

Unless security is being taken in a Secured Company which is a “regulated person”, such as a bank or a mutual fund, no regulatory approvals are necessary to create valid and enforceable security as a matter of Cayman Islands law.

No stamp duty or taxes are payable with respect to the creation of security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company or upon any transfer thereof in an enforcement as a matter of Cayman Islands law so long as:

1. 1. the security document and any ancillary documents thereunder are not executed or delivered in, brought into, or produced before a court of, the Cayman Islands; and/or
   2. the Secured Company does not have an interest in land in the Cayman Islands, or shares in a subsidiary that has an interest in land in the Cayman Islands.

Cayman Islands law permits security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company to be governed by Cayman Islands law or foreign law.

In cross-border finance transactions, it is relatively common for the governing law of a security document over Secured Shares in a Secured Company to be aligned with the governing law of the principal finance documents. One advantage of adopting a foreign governing law clause in a security document is that it may make available certain additional remedies (such as appropriation) which are not available under Cayman Islands law. Care should however be taken to ensure that there are no conflicts of law issues where a security document is governed by foreign law. English, Hong Kong and Singapore law are frequently adopted to govern security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company and no major conflicts of law issues are likely to arise.

Cayman Islands law governed security document

Where the security document is governed by Cayman Islands law, so long as it is in customary form, the secured party is entitled to the following remedies in the event of a default:

1. 1. the right to take possession of the Secured Shares in the Secured Company (subject to redemption by the security provider upon the settlement of the debt);
   2. the right to sell the Secured Shares in the Secured Company; and
   3. the right to appoint a receiver who may:
      1. 1. vote the Secured Shares in the Secured Company;
         2.  receive distributions in respect of the Secured Shares in the Secured Company; and
         3. exercise other rights and powers of the security provider in respect of the Secured Shares in the Secured Company.

If the secured party acquires legal title to the Secured Shares in the Secured Company, it also has a right of foreclosure. This remedy extinguishes the security provider’s legal and beneficial title to the Secured Shares in the Secured Company but not its obligation to pay any secured and unpaid sums. Foreclosure involves a time-consuming and costly court process and is not usually exercised in practice given its draconian nature.

For further details regarding the enforcement of security over Secured Shares in a Secured Company, please refer to our guide entitled “Enforcing security over shares in a Cayman Islands exempted company”.

Foreign law governed security document

Where the security document is governed by foreign law, the:

1. 1. security document should comply with the requirements of its governing law to be valid and binding; and
   2. remedies available to a secured party are governed by the governing law and the terms of the security document.

Subject to any provisions to the contrary in the security document, all amounts that accrue from the enforcement of the security document are applied in the following order of priority:

1. 1.  firstly, in paying the costs incurred in enforcing the security document;
   2. secondly, in discharging the sums secured by the security document; and
   3. thirdly, in paying any balance due to the security provider.

The terms of a well-drafted Cayman Islands law governed security document with respect to Secured Shares in a Secured Company and the principal finance document will usually require the security provider to deliver the following documents to the secured party to assist with an enforcement:

1. 1. any original share certificate(s) with respect to the Secured Shares in the Secured Company;
   2. an undated share transfer form with respect to the Secured Shares in the Secured Company;
   3. an undated resignation letter from each director of the Secured Company;
   4. a letter of authorization from each director of the Secured Company authorizing the secured party to date each undated letter of resignation upon the occurrence of a default under the security document;
   5. an irrevocable proxy with respect to the Secured Shares in the Secured Company in favor of the secured party;
   6. a letter of instruction to the Secured Company’s registered office service provider containing, among other things, directions to register a transfer of Secured Shares in the Secured Company upon the occurrence of a default under the security document;
   7. a letter of acknowledgement from the registered office service provider with respect to the instructions referenced in the letter of instruction;
   8. if the security provider is a Cayman Islands exempted company, a certified copy of its register of mortgages and charges showing the security created over the Secured Shares in the Secured Company (see further below);
   9. a certified copy of the Secured Company’s register of members annotated to show the security created over the Secured Shares in the Secured Company (if commercially agreed – see further below);
   10. if the security provider is a Cayman Islands exempted company, a copy of the board resolutions of its board of directors authorizing:
       1. 1. its entry into and execution of the security document; and
          2. the updates to its register of mortgages and charges;
   11. a copy of the board resolutions of the Secured Company authorizing:
       1. 1. its entry into and execution of the security document (if it is a party);
          2. its register of members to be annotated (if commercially agreed); and
          3. its register of members to be annotated (if commercially agreed); and
   12. special resolution passed by the Secured Company with respect to certain changes to its M&A, if required (see further below).

Register of mortgages and charges of a Cayman Islands security provider

Pursuant to section 54 of the Act, if the security provider is a Cayman Islands company, it must record particulars of the security created over any Secured Shares in the Secured Company in its register of mortgages and charges. The register of mortgages and charges must include:

1. 1. a short description of the property mortgaged or charged;
   2. the amount of charge created; and
   3. the names of the mortgagees or persons entitled to such charge.

There is no statutory timeframe within which the register needs to be updated. However, a well-advised secured party will request that the register is updated promptly so that third parties that inspect it are on notice of the security.

Any variations and releases of charge should also be reflected in the register of mortgages and charges.

As there is no statutory regime for registering security interests under Cayman Islands law, the common law rules of priority continue to apply. In general terms, these rules specify that priority between competing security interests is determined by the dates on which the relevant security interests were created. It is important to note that inserting details of mortgages and charges in the register of mortgages and charges of a Cayman Islands company does not confer priority on a charge in respect of the relevant secured asset.

Register of members of the Secured Company

A Secured Company may annotate its register of members to include:

1. 1. a statement that security has been created over the Secured Shares;
   2. the name of the secured party; and
   3. the date on which the statement and the secured party’s name are entered in its register of members.

Although it is optional to annotate a Secured Company’s register of members with details of any security that has been created, this puts third parties that inspect the register on notice of the security. Therefore, a secured party usually insists on this.

M&A of the Secured Company

A secured party will usually request the Secured Company to make certain changes to its M&A to ensure, among other things, that there are no restrictions on the transfer of Secured Shares in the Secured Company which may impede enforcement action. Any changes to the Secured Company’s M&A must be made by passing special resolutions. Although such resolutions need to be filed with the Registrar of Companies of the Cayman Islands within 15 days of being passed, they take effect upon signing.

This publication is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice or a legal opinion. For specific advice on the matters covered in this Legal Insight, please contact your usual Loeb Smith attorney or any of the following: 

E: vanisha.harjani@loebsmith.com
E: max.lee@loebsmith.com

This article was first published in the Hong Kong Lawyer: https://law.asia/cayman-digital-asset-law/Granting and Protecting Security Over Shares in a Cayman Islands Exempted Company | Hong Kong Lawyer.

Firstly, the Letter of Wishes is a document separate from the Trust Instrument. Unlike the Trust Instrument, the Letter of Wishes does not have binding legal force. It is more akin to a guiding document, providing advisory guidance to the Trustee in administering the Trust. This means the Trustee has the discretion to decide whether or not to adopt the contents of the Letter of Wishes. Settlors might ask the question: if the Letter of Wishes lacks enforceability, isn’t creating one meaningless?

In practical application, if a Trustee’s failure to follow the Letter of Wishes results in harm to a beneficiary’s interests, the beneficiary may sue the Trustee in court. If the Trustees cannot provide sufficient evidence to prove that their decision-making process and purpose complied with the law and the provisions of the Trust Instrument, the court may assume the Trustees’ decision is invalid. For further details, see the section below on the validity of Trustee decisions contrary to the Letter of Wishes.

Typically, settlors do not include excessive detail within the Trust Instrument itself. Instead, specific wishes for trust administration will be placed in the Letter of Wishes. The main contents of a Letter of Wishes usually cover the following points:

1. 1. Trust/Beneficiary Arrangements. These often include prioritizing children’s education and medical needs. Additionally, conditions for beneficiaries to receive benefits can be set, such as age thresholds or educational requirements. Specific scenarios for excluding beneficiaries can also be stipulated. For example, distribution may be suspended or a beneficiary may be excluded if they are involved in drug-related crimes.
   2. Principles for Trust Asset Distribution. The Letter of Wishes can specify methods for distributing Trust assets, such as regular distributions, emergency distributions, and distributions upon the occurrence of significant events.
   3. Explanation of Trust Purpose. Elaborating on the Trust’s purpose within the Letter of Wishes is also a key measure to prevent Trust disputes. For instance, stating that the Trust aims to safeguard the livelihood of family members and their descendants. The Trustee must then weigh these purposes when making decisions.
   4. Stipulation of Special Clauses. For example, sometimes, while the law grants Trustees discretionary power to invest the Trust assets, the Letter of Wishes could state a recommendation to limit the proportion of assets invested in high-risk financial products to a specific range.
   5. Confidentiality Requirements. The settlor may state in the Letter of Wishes that its contents will not be disclosed to minor beneficiaries.

A settlor can usually sign multiple Letters of Wishes, reflecting the flexibility of Trusts. The settlor can update and adjust such non-binding guidance to the Trustee over time, based on changes in their circumstances (e.g., family situation, financial status, tax environment). It is generally understood that the most recently signed Letter of Wishes takes precedence, as it better reflects the settlor’s current situation and intentions. To avoid conflicts between multiple Letters of Wishes, a new Letter of Wishes should clearly and explicitly state that it revokes and replaces all prior Letters of Wishes or specified prior Letters of Wishes.

However, if the settlor fails to explicitly revoke prior versions in the new Letter of Wishes and conflicts arise between the old and new documents, the Trustee can face difficulties in decision-making. In such cases, the Trustee needs to consider all the Trust documents and make decisions based on the settlor’s overall intent. If the conflict is irreconcilable, the Trustee should seek legal advice to determine the course of action that best serves the interests of the Trust and aligns with the settlor’s true intentions, while avoiding liability for breaching fiduciary duties.

As mentioned, the Letter of Wishes itself lacks binding force. This means that, under specific circumstances, the Trustee has the right to make decisions that deviate from or even contradict the instructions in the Letter of Wishes. However, this does not mean the Trustee can arbitrarily disregard the settlor’s wishes. The Trustee’s power to deviate is strictly limited by the core requirement that the Trustee must fulfill his/her/its fiduciary duties, particularly the duties of loyalty, prudence, and adherence to the Trust’s purpose and terms.

Referencing a classic case, the Wong Case (Grand View Private Trust Company v Wong & Others [2022] UKPC 17), the UK Privy Council (whose judgment is persuasive authority in the Cayman Islands and the BVI) issued a number of guiding principles.

Based on the facts stated in the UK Privy Council’s judgment, the Wong brothers co-founded the large Taiwanese conglomerate Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) in the 1950s. In 2001, the brothers established two Bermuda trusts. The first was a discretionary family trust named the Global Resource Trust No. 1 (GRT), holding approximately US$560 million worth of FPG shares, with the beneficiaries being the settlors’ children and descendants. This discretionary family trust also granted the Trustee the discretionary power to add or remove “any person or class or description of persons” to the beneficial class of the Trust. The second Trust was a purpose trust named the Wang Family Trust (WFT), serving both charitable and non-charitable purposes. In 2005, The Trustee of the GRT exercised its powers of addition and exclusion to exclude all family members of the founders from the beneficial class of the Trust, and to add the Trustee of the WFT as the sole beneficiary. The dispute accordingly focused on the GRT trust deed, which granted the Trustee the power to add or exclude beneficiaries. Further, as early as 2001, the founding brothers had signed a memorandum of wishes before establishing the Trusts. This memorandum stated their intention in establishing the family trust was for the benefit of their children. The UK Privy Council admitted this memorandum as evidence, concluding that the purpose of the GRT discretionary trust was for the benefit of the founder’s family members. According to the Letter of Wishes, if the family Trust was established to benefit the family, how could excluding the family members to benefit another Trust serve a proper purpose? Consequently, the UK Privy Council found that the Trustee’s exercise of its power to exclude the existing beneficiaries and add the purpose Trust as a beneficiary was invalid.

Although the above case is an extreme and unusual example, it illustrates that a Trustee cannot ignore the settlor’s wishes and purposes when exercising their administrative powers. However, when dealing with such cases, courts will not automatically find a Trustee in breach simply for not following the Letter of Wishes. The reasonableness of the Trustees’ decision-making process and basis, and whether they have complied with their fiduciary duties, are also crucial factors. The court will consider the Letter of Wishes as significant evidence for understanding the settlor’s intent.

The Letter of Wishes, as a key non-binding document within a Trust, plays an indispensable role in family wealth succession planning. Its core value lies in providing guiding principles for the Trustee regarding the management of Trust assets, distribution of gains or profits, and addition or removal of beneficiaries, thereby significantly compensating for the potential lack of detailed execution provisions in the Trust Instrument, which prioritizes flexibility.

Although the Letter of Wishes itself lacks binding legal force, its practical influence and risk management value in practice of Trust administration cannot be overlooked. When making discretionary trust administration decisions, Trustees should fully understand the settlor’s Trust intentions to avoid dispute.

View Full PDF

This publication is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice or a legal opinion. For specific advice on the matters covered in this Legal Insight, please contact your usual Loeb Smith attorney or any of the following: 

E: gary.smith@loebsmith.com
E: robert.farrell@loebsmith.com
E: elizabeth.kenny@loebsmith.com
E: vanisha.harjani@loebsmith.com