The Fiduciary Institute of Southern Africa (Fisa) and outstanding trust regulation consultants have expressed critical reservations about amendments to the Trust Property Control Act.
The amendments will impose unclear, arduous, and unrealistic burdens on the trustees of trusts and may make criminals of abnormal residents who’re merely making an attempt to do their responsibility.
The amendments kind a part of the General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating of Terrorism Finance) Amendment Bill aimed toward retaining South Africa off the Financial Action Task Force’s gray checklist. The amendments have now been signed into regulation by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Read: Hasty regulation amendments to keep away from SA greylisting face critical pushback
The institute and professors Francois du Toit from the University of Cape Town and Bradley Smith from the University of the Free State expressed their disappointment in regards to the modifications – which “fly in the face” of present trust regulation and the South African regulation of property in sure essential respects.
‘Manifestly undesirable’
“They are manifestly undesirable,” warn the events in a submission made to parliament in November final 12 months.
Despite these warnings the modifications had been “ramrodded” via parliament and signed into regulation.
Fisa and the trust regulation professors say they don’t seem to be denying the truth that trusts can be abused, together with used for cash laundering and the financing of terrorism.
However, trusts have a significant position in SA, notably the place belongings are held and managed for the advantage of susceptible folks reminiscent of mentally or legally incapacitated individuals, minor kids, victims of street accidents and medical negligence, and kids from earlier marriages who ought to be protected in opposition to the whims of a present or future partner.
Fisa says the modifications verify its impression that the drafters of the amendments critically lack understanding of the authorized nature of trusts in South African regulation.
A significant concern relates to the inclusion of trustees into the definition of “beneficial owner”.
In our regulation a trustee, just by advantage of being a trustee, can’t be a helpful proprietor of the trust property.
“The core idea of a trust in South African law is the separation of control and the enjoyment of the trust property. While it is possible in some legal systems that one person can be founder, sole trustee, and sole beneficiary of a trust, this is not possible in South African law,” in accordance to Fisa.
Conflicting laws
Furthermore, the definition of helpful proprietor within the General Laws Amendment Act conflicts with Section 9 of the Trust Act. The part within the latter supplies {that a} trustee “shall act with the care, diligence and skill expected of a person managing the affairs of another”.
Fisa CEO Lois Van Vuren says the responsibility of a trustee just isn’t to act in their very own curiosity, however within the curiosity of the beneficiaries.
“This amendment now introduces a totally strange concept – of beneficial owner – into the South African law and includes a trustee in the definition of beneficial ownership.”
It is incompatible with the fiduciary responsibility required of a trustee, he says.
Another concern raised by Fisa and trust consultants is the identification of beneficiaries by title in a trust instrument.
If a beneficiary learns from the disclosure that they’re a beneficiary, they’ll then notify trustees in writing that they settle for the profit.
The consequence is that they’ll by no means be eliminated as beneficiary with out their consent.
“This is an undesirable outcome that not only potentially encroaches on the independent discretion required from trustees … but also infringes on the rights of citizens to manage their own affairs in the manner that they choose,” says Van Vuren.
Read: Third-party reporting on trust distributions on its method
He explains that beneficiaries don’t essentially know that they’re beneficiaries of a trust. Furthermore, beneficiaries of a discretionary trust don’t have vested rights within the trust property and may be eliminated as beneficiaries if such powers have been prolonged to the trustees by the trust instrument.
However, by way of the brand new disclosure necessities folks can entry public data and be taught that they’re beneficiaries and notify the trustees that they settle for the advantages of the trust. This means they can not be eliminated as beneficiary with out their settlement.
It seems that the amendments settle for {that a} trust has a authorized persona. In the definition of helpful proprietor there’s reference to “someone who controls the votes of the trustees”. “A trustee in South African law cannot legally be controlled by another person. Any attempt at such control is null and void.”
Better oversight choices
Van Vuren says there are other ways to obtain the specified oversight with out jeopardising the authorized place and fiduciary duties of trustees.
The first just isn’t to embrace a trustee within the definition of helpful proprietor. In reality, there is no such thing as a place for the idea ‘beneficial owner’ in SA trust regulation.
“The inclusion of the definition seems a convenient and thoughtless solution with no due observance of the nature of the trust form in SA law.”
Fisa says a much better method for regulation enforcement businesses to perceive who the events which are controlling or benefitting from a trust are is to place acceptable duties of disclosure on the trustee. However, these duties mustn’t place unfair and impractical burdens on trustees.
The institute concludes that with the enactment of the modifications there’s a danger that they may be overturned by the courts on the idea of irrationality.
Van Vuren says the passing of the laws saddles “good, honest people with unfair, irrational, and impossible compliance burdens”.
