Thread: Lodmell & Lodmell -- U.S. Asset Protection Attorneys

This firm has a very informative website for U.S. citizens seeking asset protection, including through offshore entities, and could present a good option for folks in or heading to Panama. Although I have not personally engaged the firm and have no present need for their services, I have had discussions in the past with them and found them responsive. Persons having experience with the firm might want to share their opinions for the benefit of others. Their website has useful information: Asset Protection Attorneys : Lodmell & Lodmell

and some humorous information: Lawsuit Lottery Hell - YouTube

Originally Posted by BalaBeacher

This firm has a very informative website for U.S. citizens seeking asset protection, including through offshore entities, and could present a good option for folks in or heading to Panama. Although I have not personally engaged the firm and have no present need for their services, I have had discussions in the past with them and found them responsive. Persons having experience with the firm might want to share their opinions for the benefit of others. Their website has useful information: Asset Protection Attorneys : Lodmell & Lodmell

and some humorous information: Lawsuit Lottery Hell - YouTube

I have used Lodmell and found them to be honest and easy to work with. I won't discuss which product or strategy I have employed with them I would advise people needing asset protection to give them a hard look.

Originally Posted by BalaBeacher

This firm has a very informative website for U.S. citizens seeking asset protection, including through offshore entities, and could present a good option for folks in or heading to Panama. Although I have not personally engaged the firm and have no present need for their services, I have had discussions in the past with them and found them responsive. Persons having experience with the firm might want to share their opinions for the benefit of others. Their website has useful information: Asset Protection Attorneys : Lodmell & Lodmell

and some humorous information: Lawsuit Lottery Hell - YouTube

The Humerous information rings true!!!!

Originally Posted by BalaBeacher

.... for U.S. citizens seeking asset protection, including through offshore entities .....

Wow... interesting BalaBeacher. The concept of any onshore legal practice, even worse where it involves US lawyers dealing with US citizens, engaging in 'offshore entities' to enable purported 'asset protection' is similar to asking for sound investment advice from dear Benard Madoff. It is a possible disaster waiting to happen - a 5am raid on the offices and homes of a legal practice should get the ball rolling and should produce a truckload of interesting data, associates and other useful contacts *lol*

The whole concept of onshore/offshore is that never the twain shall meet - they are like oil and water. Even legal offices in other onshore nations need 'protection' if they deal directly with onshore individuals and guide/advise them on 'offshore'. I can think of several lawyers who moved offices out of 'onshore' locations - the primary reason being to avoid that knock on the door and the removal of all records - along with the possibility of a jail term. The secondary reason was, of course, to secure client documents in a more amenable location.

There are no limits to the extent government agencies, particularly in the US, will go to intrude on the affairs of their citizens who may be resident within their home country, or responsible for tax reporting to their home country. It was a few decades ago, but you may recall the "kidnapping" of the manager of Royal Bank of Canada in Grand Caymen when he took a flight from Caymen to Canada with a stopover in the US? US authorities wanted the accounts of US citizens opened in Grand Caymen and decided to detain the bank manager in the US - tho not for long. RBC in New York were then served with papers and a penalty of ... think it was $400K/day until there was compliance. They did hang out for over three months and eventually agreed a resolution which caused minimum damage.

There is also an "issue" of offshore lawyers giving speeches in the US about 'offshore structures'. I recall agreeing with two such lawyers to give a speech at an international conference in the US. On second thoughts, this was canceled because it was "contentious" and could place the lawyers at risk. We did repeat the operation later, but when that conference was not in US jurisdiction.

When you consider, for example, that there are approximately 7 million US people living outside US territory and only circa 400,000 of them, or roughly 6%, actually comply with annual tax filings, there is an effort to 'capture' them and increase the coffers of the IRS. This does not sound like a good time to be mixing that oil and water :-)


PS Got to love the hypocrisy in the "Lawsuit from Hell" *lol*

Originally Posted by MarkG

The whole concept of onshore/offshore is that never the twain shall meet - they are like oil and water. Even legal offices in other onshore nations need 'protection' if they deal directly with onshore individuals and guide/advise them on 'offshore'. I can think of several lawyers who moved offices out of 'onshore' locations - the primary reason being to avoid that knock on the door and the removal of all records - along with the possibility of a jail term. The secondary reason was, of course, to secure client documents in a more amenable location.

There are no limits to the extent government agencies, particularly in the US, will go to intrude on the affairs of their citizens who may be resident within their home country, or responsible for tax reporting to their home country. It was a few decades ago, but you may recall the "kidnapping" of the manager of Royal Bank of Canada in Grand Caymen when he took a flight from Caymen to Canada with a stopover in the US? US authorities wanted the accounts of US citizens opened in Grand Caymen and decided to detain the bank manager in the US - tho not for long. RBC in New York were then served with papers and a penalty of ... think it was $400K/day until there was compliance. They did hang out for over three months and eventually agreed a resolution which caused minimum damage.

There is also an "issue" of offshore lawyers giving speeches in the US about 'offshore structures'. I recall agreeing with two such lawyers to give a speech at an international conference in the US. On second thoughts, this was canceled because it was "contentious" and could place the lawyers at risk. We did repeat the operation later, but when that conference was not in US jurisdiction.

You are right -- not many attorneys openly promote this practice and perhaps for good reasons. I have also been told that IRS agents secretly attend seminars promoting off-shore investing and the "get-out-of-Dodge" message, such as those sponsored by The Sovereign Society.

A principal difference in the approach between the U.S. firm and the, say, Panama firm setting up an asset protection plan is that the U.S. attorney will most likely propose a foreign trust (having a foreign trustee that recognizes strict protections on the trust) with the investment assets in yet another country. They also like to lace in a foreign LLC too to own businesses and/or other investments. The plan will fulfill the legitimate goals of asset protection and an ability to diversify to more global investing. It is not designed to be a mechanism to evade taxes and the attorneys will not participate in such action. But, done properly, the U.S. grantor has very little justification (at this time) to not disclose the trust to the IRS and in fact is very much incentivized to do so by all the failure-to-report penalties. The strategy of a Panama foundation is "no one will ever find out about it and if you want to report it and pay taxes that's up to you." I suspect most folks prefer the latter approach!

Mark G's comments are right on the money.

2 stories to back that up.

1. I personally know the man (he was a client of mine) who was the "#1 offshore expert in the world" for over 25 years. He wrote 7 books (sold well over 100,000 copies of his main one).

He did MASSIVE seminars. He advertised in Sky Mall magazine.

This guy is one of the smartest men I've ever met. He created the banking laws for countries. He created THOUSANDS OF BANKS for people. He was "offshore" before the word "offshore" was created.

I could go on and on...

He was an American -- however he lived in Canada. The agents were after him for many, many years (and yes -- they posed as clients several times. The funny part is he would record them).

In the end -- guess how he got BUSTED? His lawyer rolled on him.

He ended up in jail and was coerced into HELPING the agents for many, many years (yup... he was working for THE MAN). They had him reveal everything he knew and rolled on most of his clients.

2. This is in Australia.

My close friend had ONE MEETING with 1 offshore expert in Sydney. He never used his services.

Later on the agents ended up raiding the expert and took his computer.

Just because my friend's name was in his computer... they made his life HELL for over 3 years.

If you're American -- the last thing I would do is meet with an American lawyer or tax attorney if you plan on doing ANYTHING offshore. As soon as they put pressure on the lawyer -- it's game over for you.

Balabeacher's point is well made, The entity is structured not to be an offshore tax haven but to protect assets from lawsuits. The Plaintiff can get judgements all day long but will play hell collecting a dime. How many attorneys will persist with a case when they determines they may win but never get paid?

It's like the UBS goof-balls in the U.S. setting up foreign bank accounts for their clients. If you're going to provide this service in the U.S. for U.S. citizens (which is not illegal), then do it openly and notify the hell out of everyone on what you're doing. Otherwise, do it in the dark alleys of some Central American country because it's a dumb way to implement a "catch-me-if-you-can" strategy. If, as fleeted and I are saying, you're not evading or refusing to report or attempting to defraud creditors, then use a qualified U.S. firm.

No-Nonsense Matt -- So in #1 are you saying the trusts lawyer operating out of Canada ratted to the IRS on who his U.S. clients were? This means he was NOT taking the approach with his clients of setting up a legal asset protection trust with full disclosures and reporting, but was catering to the "hide-the-ball" crowd, right? I think those days are over after IRS success going after the people facilitating the tax evasion. Certainly, it's now back-room stuff if it still occurs in the U.S. I believe, but don't know for sure, that Lodmell & Lodmell and other legitimate firms are requiring that they be permitted to file an SS-4 Application for EIN for all foreign trusts they set up. (Having a U.S. EIN does not make the foreign trust a U.S. citizen or otherwise subject to the personal jurisdiction of any U.S. court.)

Originally Posted by BalaBeacher

You are right -- not many attorneys openly promote this practice and perhaps for good reasons. I have also been told that IRS agents secretly attend seminars promoting off-shore investing and the "get-out-of-Dodge" message, such as those sponsored by The Sovereign Society.

A principal difference in the approach between the U.S. firm and the, say, Panama firm setting up an asset protection plan is that the U.S. attorney will most likely propose a foreign trust (having a foreign trustee that recognizes strict protections on the trust) with the investment assets in yet another country. They also like to lace in a foreign LLC too to own businesses and/or other investments. The plan will fulfill the legitimate goals of asset protection and an ability to diversify to more global investing. It is not designed to be a mechanism to evade taxes and the attorneys will not participate in such action. But, done properly, the U.S. grantor has very little justification (at this time) to not disclose the trust to the IRS and in fact is very much incentivized to do so by all the failure-to-report penalties. The strategy of a Panama foundation is "no one will ever find out about it and if you want to report it and pay taxes that's up to you." I suspect most folks prefer the latter approach!

Yes... it has been known for IRS agents and other three letter agencies to have an interest in being educated at 'offshore seminars' :-) Some of these agencies even operate offshore corps for the purposes of handling slush funds - I think that's called money laundering *lol*

Sure, depending on the need, it is probably possible to cover structures for most scenarios and not have some possible tax avoidance loose end hanging out waving a red flag. If the core and obvious intent is asset protection and the aims/intentions are above board, life can be easier. It certainly has more credibility than the trust/corp and offshore credit/debit card mentality.

Another obstacle course due to have effect in 2013 is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), where banks globally will be required to report account balances, debits and credits, of any bank account owned by a US citizen. The concept of this creation from the US legislature is seriously absurd and the effects will ripple into other areas with unintended consequences. For example, consideration may be given by foreign financial institutions to withdraw investment in the US and the assumption that banks outside US jurisdiction will comply with what is, in effect, US domestic law, remains to be seen. FATCA also encompasses banks within the US where they can be held liable for any perceived 'irregular' transfer of funds out of the US.

In reality, at least in regard to US expats, this is yet another increasing inconvenience in that foreign financial institutions have already started to reject the accounts of folks with US passports and the FATCA is basically another tool to push that concept forward. It is clearly ludicrous to inhibit expats from opening bank accounts wherever they may reside. The other related obstacles, e.g. 10% foreign corp ownership reporting, excessively harsh penalties and a situation which cuts off US entrepreneurs/businessmen from being involved in business opportunities with foreign nationals - this is certainly getting to the point of being ridiculous. (I experienced this in practice when a US lawyer, resident offshore, was curtailed in the involvement of a corp simply because it presented an obstacle course and was not acceptable to a foreign financial institution et al - crazy scenario!)

Back to the core ... tho I'm sure you know this already, - "offshore" is about who you are to start with. It's about "personal status" and what ties or obligations exist to report to 'home countries'. The best situation is where there are no legal obligations/tax reporting to the 'home country' when an individual elects to reside in another country. That situation applies to citizens of all western nations (and most of the world), apart from the US. When that 'personal status' has been established as "clean" - a freedom exists to engage in whatever offshore activities while being non-resident in the 'home country'. When a structure involves 'clean bodies', there is no reason for that structure to be 'attacked' - it is a legal entity involving individual/s with a clean, or unencumbered status. This is just my personal offshore fetish - it is nice to be legal, above board and be able to tell inquisitive 'agencies' where to go and remind them that it is a criminal offense to divulge information of that nature :-)

Originally Posted by No-Non-Sense-Matt

1. I personally know the man (he was a client of mine) who was the "#1 offshore expert in the world" for over 25 years. He wrote 7 books (sold well over 100,000 copies of his main one).

He did MASSIVE seminars. He advertised in Sky Mall magazine.

This guy is one of the smartest men I've ever met. He created the banking laws for countries. He created THOUSANDS OF BANKS for people. He was "offshore" before the word "offshore" was created.

I could go on and on...

He was an American -- however he lived in Canada. The agents were after him for many, many years (and yes -- they posed as clients several times. The funny part is he would record them).

In the end -- guess how he got BUSTED? His lawyer rolled on him.

He ended up in jail and was coerced into HELPING the agents for many, many years (yup... he was working for THE MAN). They had him reveal everything he knew and rolled on most of his clients.

Oh, the value of coercion! :-) Think I might know who that is - if it is the same person who had one of his books brandished in the US legislature as an example of how US tax laws can be avoided and where US citizens can benefit.

Another example... a couple departed from the US many decades ago and lived in South Africa. One day they decided to visit their family in the US before they died and flew back to the US where he was placed in handcuffs, charged with tax evasion and thrown in jail. Their biggest mistake was having 'good friends' in the US embassy in Johannesburg.

Another fairly common example... a US girl married a foreigner and they lived in his country. The mail arrives with US tax paperwork where her husband was expected to file with the IRS tho he had no connection to the US or ever lived there *lol* Of course, he told them where to go.

Currently the IRS is making a concentrated effort to milk money from US people living abroad and from any individual who holds dual citizenship - whether they know it or not. It does not matter whether these 'dual' individuals want US status, have never set foot on US soil or never conducted business with the US. It does not matter if those targeted owe a single cent to the IRS. The US requires citizens living abroad to file tax forms on the money they do not owe as well as to report foreign bank accounts or holdings such as stocks or registered education savings plans - with a possible penalty for not reporting of $10K per "disclosed asset" per year. It is hard to defend this conduct and sure warrants an increase in relinquishing of citizenships - it's the first thing I would have done decades ago if I was expected to tolerate this crass nonsense.

Originally Posted by MarkG

Another obstacle course due to have effect in 2013 is the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), where banks globally will be required to report account balances, debits and credits, of any bank account owned by a US citizen. The concept of this creation from the US legislature is seriously absurd and the effects will ripple into other areas with unintended consequences. For example, consideration may be given by foreign financial institutions to withdraw investment in the US and the assumption that banks outside US jurisdiction will comply with what is, in effect, US domestic law, remains to be seen. FATCA also encompasses banks within the US where they can be held liable for any perceived 'irregular' transfer of funds out of the US.

I'm really curious whether foreign banks will sign up to FACTA and thus obligate themselves to provide information and reporting on U.S. account holders or tell them to stick it.

Thanks for the replies to this thread all. But if the above mentioned company is not one you would recommend since they are on-shore. Could you recommend any company's that would be better suited?

PM me if you would rather not post

Originally Posted by MarkG

Oh, the value of coercion! :-) Think I might know who that is - if it is the same person who had one of his books brandished in the US legislature as an example of how US tax laws can be avoided and where US citizens can benefit.

Another example... a couple departed from the US many decades ago and lived in South Africa. One day they decided to visit their family in the US before they died and flew back to the US where he was placed in handcuffs, charged with tax evasion and thrown in jail. Their biggest mistake was having 'good friends' in the US embassy in Johannesburg.

Another fairly common example... a US girl married a foreigner and they lived in his country. The mail arrives with US tax paperwork where her husband was expected to file with the IRS tho he had no connection to the US or ever lived there *lol* Of course, he told them where to go.

Currently the IRS is making a concentrated effort to milk money from US people living abroad and from any individual who holds dual citizenship - whether they know it or not. It does not matter whether these 'dual' individuals want US status, have never set foot on US soil or never conducted business with the US. It does not matter if those targeted owe a single cent to the IRS. The US requires citizens living abroad to file tax forms on the money they do not owe as well as to report foreign bank accounts or holdings such as stocks or registered education savings plans - with a possible penalty for not reporting of $10K per "disclosed asset" per year. It is hard to defend this conduct and sure warrants an increase in relinquishing of citizenships - it's the first thing I would have done decades ago if I was expected to tolerate this crass nonsense.

So much effort to collect so little money. If the govt wanted to boost the economy they could deport the 28 million illegals working in the United States and sending untold billions back home to their native countries every month. Now there's a multiplier effect for the economy.

Originally Posted by fleeted

So much effort to collect so little money. If the govt wanted to boost the economy they could deport the 28 million illegals working in the United States and sending untold billions back home to their native countries every month. Now there's a multiplier effect for the economy.

but then who would be a obummers family Christmas dinner ?

Originally Posted by BalaBeacher

I'm really curious whether foreign banks will sign up to FACTA and thus obligate themselves to provide information and reporting on U.S. account holders or tell them to stick it.

Predicting that involves a crystal ball BalaBeacher, but it is fairly obvious that there is little chance that the FATCA will be operational in any true sense during 2013.

FATCA is not only covers banks, but is expected to significantly impact the systems and operations of both US and non-US. companies who will need to modify their methods to comply. All foreign financial institutions (FFI's) will be required to provide disclosure agreements to the US Treasury and all non-financial foreign entities (NFFI's) must report and/or certify ownership.

Will the banks and corps comply? US banks and corps - i.e based/domiciled within US jurisdiction, don't have an option - it's the law. FFI's and NFFE's who have a presence within US territory have two options - either comply or move their operations out of the US. It may be obvious that this can cause economic damage if entities elect to move out of the US to more 'friendly' environments.

A brief summary of reports from global banking regions suggest that there is a reasonable prospect that they will remove their investments out of the US. For example, comments for Japan - "In the event that the implementation of the FATCA is not practically feasible for the Japanese financial services industry, it would result in substantial confusion in the industry and could ultimately lead the Japanese financial institutions to withdraw their investment from U.S. financial assets." Similar comments are coming from the Euro banking region where it is estimated that it will cost each bank from $30-$80 million to become compliant and with additional annual costs of playing the FATCA game. A US financial executive working in Hong Kong gave his opinion - "FATCA is the greatest imperialist act done by America since it invaded the Philippine Islands in 1899". Overall, there is plenty flack flying and it is possible there can be a backlash - the best result for everyone, other than the US Treasury, is that the implementation of the FATCA never happens in reality.

Another aspect is that the FATCA may actually have the reverse effect of pulling the estimated circa $8 billion of purportedly lost tax revenue into the IRS. For example, it is unlikely that all FFI's and NFFI's will comply and they can be the conduit for US tax evasion, hence achieving nothing by the introduction of the FATCA.

Who knows what the Panamanian scenario will be... there is a trade agreement and a TIEA on the table, tho there has been little good result on this from the Panama side. It is hard to predict what the Panamanian government will say when the US visits with lump of US domestic law and expects their "almost trading partner" to comply with this law. *lol*

Overall, yes, there are efforts being made to comply with the FATCA, but this is not a pretty picture. It does appear that the US Treasury is desperate and tending to go overboard by attempting to impose US domestic law on FFI's and NFFI's. Where accessibility or a presence exists, there is no doubt that the US government will crash into entities and force them to comply, however when other entities witness this, it will probably put them off dealing with the US. The economic scenario is bad enough, but can see this can cause further reluctance to engage in business and financial activity within the US. Obviously it is not the responsibility of FFI's and NFFI's to identify US citizens and become involved as tax collectors for the IRS and provide extra funding to play this game. Next we will be witnessing Iceland, Brazil, China and the rest of the world claiming reciprocal courtesies from the US - that is not going to happen :-)

Originally Posted by MarkG

FATCA is not only covers banks, but is expected to significantly impact the systems and operations of both US and non-US. companies who will need to modify their methods to comply. All foreign financial institutions (FFI's) will be required to provide disclosure agreements to the US Treasury and all non-financial foreign entities (NFFI's) must report and/or certify ownership.

Panama real estate will be impacted too. Owners will need to be identified of recipient real estate firms / developers / sellers along with proper documentation and substantiation of the purpose of the transfer too. Will the Panamanian corporation selling its condo want to disclose the ownership because the buyer is from the U.S., or more precisely, the funds are coming from the U.S.? Will your local Chase Bank / Bank of America branch (which already is incapable of sending a foreign wire transfer more or less without someone from tech support and their New York wire departmant on the phone) have a clue on what kind of documentation they will now need to verify compliance with FACTA lest it is liable for failing to properly withhold 30%? Whoa. Commerce will grind to a halt. No longer will we be permitted (as I am) to go online and process my own international wire transfer from my home office. FACTA also will serve to limit foreign investment, that is, Dollars leaving the country.

Just to clarify: the offshore legend's lawyer rolled on the legend after they put pressure on him.

Then -- after they nabbed the legend... The legend was thrown in jail. And then, he got tired of prison and made a deal to roll on his clients. He saved himself years of prison.

Hope that's clearer.

Chart shows debt expansion by President. http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm
Maybe it is not so much where you store your wealth but in what form you are storing it?

This sounds like Matt's guy:

Boyce Richard Griffin

Offshore Promoter Sentenced To Prison « Due Diligence

Looks like the new IRS strategy is if we can't tax the rich we will fine them and confiscate their assets. According to this article a wealth tax is on the way. There are lots of implications for people living in panama.
The Assault on Financial Privacy Goes Parabolic | Kevin Brekke | FINANCIAL SENSE

Originally Posted by Contrail

This sounds like Matt's guy:

Boyce Richard Griffin

Offshore Promoter Sentenced To Prison « Due Diligence

Different guy -- same story. My friend went down almost a decade ago.

For freon smuggling?

Originally Posted by No-Non-Sense-Matt

Different guy -- same story. My friend went down almost a decade ago.

I came across this and thought I would pass along for persons interested in listening to a free webinar on Asset Protection Strategies (with whom I have no affiliation):

AP-2012-Update | Lodmell & Lodmell#