A foreign arbitral award means little if the judgment debtor has placed every asset behind a Liechtenstein foundation and a chain of nominee-held companies. That is the position our client found themselves in – and the question was not whether the award was valid, but whether anything could be reached to satisfy it.
Assets held through Liechtenstein offshore structures can, in many cases, be reached. The key instruments are recognition and enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, combined with beneficial ownership investigation to identify the real controller, and – where the structure is a sham – sham-trust analysis or an application to pierce the corporate veil. None of this is quick, but none of it is impossible.
This case study walks through how we approached one such matter: the structure we faced, the strategy we built, and the lessons that transfer to comparable enforcement problems.
The Situation: An Award, a Foundation, and a Wall of Nominees
The client held a valid arbitral award against an individual respondent. The award had been issued by a well-regarded arbitral tribunal, and there was no credible challenge to its merits. The problem was execution.
By the time enforcement proceedings began, the respondent held no visible assets in his own name. All identifiable wealth appeared to sit inside a Liechtenstein Anstalt – a hybrid entity combining features of a foundation and a company – and two holding companies with nominee directors. The Anstalt's stated beneficiary was a discretionary trust established in a second offshore jurisdiction.
The nominee directors were professional fiduciaries. They denied any personal knowledge of the underlying business. The structure had been in place for several years before the award was issued, which meant straightforward fraudulent-transfer arguments would face a higher burden. As of early 2026, Liechtenstein's updated beneficial ownership regime had brought some additional disclosure obligations – but the public register showed only nominee and fiduciary details.
What Makes Liechtenstein Enforcement Difficult – and Why It Is Not Hopeless
Liechtenstein sits outside the European Union but within the European Economic Area, which creates a specific enforcement environment. The New York Convention applies, meaning a foreign arbitral award can in principle be recognised and enforced by Liechtenstein courts through established procedure. We coordinate closely with admitted local counsel in Liechtenstein; local procedure governs the filing.
The harder problem is identifying what to enforce against. Liechtenstein is a COORDINATE jurisdiction for our purposes: the legal instruments exist, but navigating them requires local admitted counsel who understand both the civil-law procedure and the specific rules governing Anstalts, foundations, and trust-like structures under Liechtenstein law.
The myth – and we encounter it often – is that an offshore structure makes assets legally untouchable. Structures can be tested. Discretion can be investigated. Beneficial ownership can frequently be established through means that do not depend on voluntary disclosure by the fiduciary.
Strategy: Tracing Beneficial Ownership Before Filing
We did not file for recognition immediately. Filing too early, before we understood the asset picture, would have given the respondent notice and time to shift assets further. Instead, we ran a beneficial ownership investigation in parallel with preparing the enforcement application.
The investigation drew on several sources: corporate registrations across multiple jurisdictions, UBO registers where disclosure obligations applied, publicly available filings, and document requests addressed to correspondent banking relationships. Asset tracing extended to real property interests, because Liechtenstein-resident individuals and their controlled entities do hold identifiable interests in land and regulated investments.
What emerged was a clearer picture of the respondent's actual control over the Anstalt. He had not merely settled assets into the structure – he had retained practical control over investment decisions and distributions. That pattern is central to any argument for piercing the corporate veil or for sham-trust analysis.
Process: Recognition, Disclosure, and the Structural Challenge
Once the asset picture was sufficiently developed, local counsel filed for recognition of the arbitral award. We supported that process by providing the factual record on beneficial ownership.
Simultaneously, we pursued disclosure through a third-party disclosure application addressed to financial intermediaries who held records of the Anstalt's banking relationships. This produced documentary evidence of the respondent's involvement in account instructions and investment decisions – precisely the kind of evidence that supports a veil-piercing argument.
The sham-trust analysis assessed whether the discretionary trust beneficiary structure was genuine or had been established to place assets beyond creditors. Key indicators included the timing of establishment relative to the underlying dispute, the respondent's retained control, and the absence of any genuine transfer of economic benefit.
We have traced assets in similar matters where the structure appeared more opaque at the outset. In our experience, the combination of beneficial ownership evidence and third-party financial disclosure is more powerful than the structure's surface appearance suggests.
Transferable Lessons
This matter illustrates several principles that apply across Liechtenstein enforcement and comparable offshore-structure cases.
- Investigate before you file. Notice to the respondent starts the clock for asset movement. Pre-filing tracing preserves options that a rushed application destroys.
- Beneficial ownership is rarely as hidden as it looks. UBO registers, correspondent banking records, and corporate filings in other jurisdictions frequently reveal the real controller – even where the primary register shows only nominees.
- The New York Convention is your entry point, not your finish line. Recognition is achievable; execution requires knowing what you are executing against.
- Structure age is not a complete defence. An Anstalt established years before the award can still be challenged on retained-control and sham-trust grounds if the facts support it.
- Local counsel in Liechtenstein is essential. The substantive arguments are recognisable across common-law and civil-law systems, but procedure and local entity law require admitted practitioners on the ground.
For further context on offshore structures and beneficial ownership, see our Offshore & Corporate insight hub and our dedicated Liechtenstein jurisdiction guide. A related matter involving urgent interim relief in a different jurisdiction is discussed in our case study on freezing assets in the UAE.
If you hold an award and suspect assets are held through a Liechtenstein or similar offshore structure, the earlier you begin the investigation, the more options remain open. To discuss a confidential case review, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
About Axiom Trace
Axiom Trace is an independent boutique focused on cross-border and crypto asset recovery. We trace assets that have moved across borders or on-chain and coordinate their freezing and recovery – working with defrauded principals, insolvency practitioners, and the lawyers and funders who refer them. We work lawfully and within applicable sanctions regimes, alongside local counsel where proceedings must be filed. We identify beneficial owners and test whether structures can be unwound or pierced, including in jurisdictions – like Liechtenstein – where offshore holding vehicles are designed to resist external scrutiny. To discuss a matter, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is for general information only and is not legal advice, nor a promise or prediction of recovery. No outcome is guaranteed. Asset recovery depends on the specific facts and on the law and procedure of each relevant jurisdiction, where local admitted counsel must act. Axiom Trace coordinates closely with admitted local counsel in Liechtenstein; local procedure governs the filing. Axiom Trace assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Recovering cross-border or crypto assets?
Confidential first review. We map tracing and recovery options and tell you honestly whether a matter is worth pursuing.
Request a case review