Search results

Banks require all directors to give guarantees as the director is considered far more essential/important than a shareholder. Best to have the only resident as the director as guarantees from non-residents are NOT acceptable in many cases in accordance with bank policy. This is the case even if...

It may be but the test is whether they transferred the assets knowing that the insolvency was forthcoming. Depends on the evidence adduced in the court but the standard is on balance of probabilities so not that hard to make out I would've thought particularly after the Cummins case.

If it was done before any business debts or risk of bankruptcy then it is fine (and is recommended). For example, when lawyers become partners in their law firms they always do this just before joining the partnership to remove the avoidance of doubt that it is a proper bona fide transaction...

Use property searches like SAI Global to find out what properties someone owns.

Yes what Terry is alluding to is something called, inter alia, 'voidable preferences' in the Bankruptcy Act. However, the test for that is whether the person giving the money knows that they are going bankrupt/insolvent so it doesn't apply to people without that knowledge.

Btw you cant have a trust if you are the sole beneficiary. Then there is no trust.