A Liechtenstein zombie trust is a legally valid offshore trust that has become non-functional because its trustee has resigned and no replacement is willing to act, leaving assets effectively frozen.
This issue has escalated into a broader zombie trust crisis, primarily affecting Liechtenstein-based trusts linked to sanctioned or high-risk jurisdictions.
As trustees withdraw to avoid regulatory and sanctions exposure, thousands of trusts remain legally alive but operationally paralyzed.
For expats and offshore investors, zombie trusts represent a governance failure risk: assets may remain legally owned but practically inaccessible, with limited legal remedies across borders.
This article covers:
- Zombie trust meaning
- What is the Liechtenstein trust law?
- Zombie trust crisis
- What happens to zombie trust in Liechtenstein?
Key Takeaways:
- Zombie trusts are legally valid but operationally dead.
- Sanctions and perceived association risk are the primary trigger.
- Liechtenstein offshore trusts must be treated as active risk structures, requiring ongoing review.
My contact details are hello@adamfayed.com and WhatsApp +44-7393-450-837 if you have any questions.
The information in this article is for general guidance only. It does not constitute financial, legal, or tax advice, and is not a recommendation or solicitation to invest. Some facts may have changed since the time of writing.
What are zombie trusts?
A zombie trust exists when a trust remains legally constituted but cannot operate due to the absence of an acting trustee or fiduciary authority.
In Liechtenstein, this situation arises when professional trustees resign and no successor trustee is appointed or willing to assume responsibility.
The trust remains legally alive but loses operational capacity. Without a trustee, it cannot instruct asset managers, approve transactions, make distributions, or meet compliance and fee obligations.
This modern usage differs from historical dormant trusts. The paralysis is caused by regulatory and sanctions risk, not poor drafting or unclear beneficiaries.
Liechtenstein Trust Law
Liechtenstein trust law prioritizes flexibility, confidentiality, and fiduciary independence.
Trustees are permitted to resign from mandates, a feature intended to protect fiduciaries rather than beneficiaries. Under normal conditions, this poses limited risk.
However, under sanctions pressure, this flexibility enabled widespread trustee withdrawal without immediate replacement, directly contributing to trust paralysis.
Trust Zombie Apocalypse
The zombie trust crisis refers to the large scale immobilization of trust structures caused by mass trustee resignations in Liechtenstein.
Expanded Western sanctions prompted fiduciaries to withdraw from thousands of mandates to avoid secondary sanctions and liability exposure.
As a result, substantial assets remain trapped in trusts that cannot be administered, restructured, or unwound.
Because many Liechtenstein trusts sit atop multi-jurisdictional holding structures, the impact extends into other offshore centers.
This has immobilized downstream entities and created a cross-border domino effect.
Liechtenstein Russian Trusts
Trusts linked to Russian nationals or assets have been disproportionately affected, even where individuals are not formally sanctioned.
Service providers have adopted a conservative risk-avoidance approach, exiting mandates preemptively to avoid exposure to secondary sanctions.
As a result, trusts holding real estate, investment portfolios, and operating companies have been left without governance.
Association risk alone has often been sufficient to trigger resignation.
Liechtenstein Trust Problem
The underlying issue is systemic: offshore trust structures depend on continuous fiduciary participation, which can fail abruptly under regulatory pressure.
When trustees withdraw:
- compliance obligations go unmet
- subsidiary entities risk de-registration or liquidation
- asset protection mechanisms weaken
- beneficiaries face prolonged uncertainty and limited remedies
What is so special about Liechtenstein?
Liechtenstein combines advanced trust law, political stability, and deep integration into global financial networks.
Its trust and foundation regimes have long been used for offshore asset holding and succession planning. However, this same interconnectedness magnifies risk.
Liechtenstein trusts often control entities across multiple offshore jurisdictions, meaning governance failure at the trust level cascades throughout the structure.
Strict enforcement of international sanctions—often beyond minimum regional requirements—has exposed how sensitive these structures are to geopolitical and regulatory shifts.
What happens now to Liechtenstein?
Liechtenstein is unlikely to collapse as a trust jurisdiction, but it will become smaller, more selective, and structurally different.
The zombie trust episode marks a turning point, not an end state.
For expats and offshore investors, the lesson is clear:
- jurisdictional reputation does not eliminate governance risk
- sanctions and compliance dynamics can override legal certainty
- trust structures must be designed with failure scenarios in mind
Investors should immediately confirm whether their trust is still fully operational and whether the trustee remains willing to act.
Limited communication or uncertainty around trustee commitment can signal elevated risk.
Investors should also evaluate sanctions and association exposure, even if they are not sanctioned. Trustees may withdraw based on perceived compliance risk alone.
Where risks are identified, seek independent legal advice early, ideally from counsel familiar with Liechtenstein trust law and multijurisdictional sanctions.
The key takeaway is that governance continuity can no longer be assumed. Investors should treat Liechtenstein trusts as active risk positions requiring review, not passive legacy structures.
FAQs
Is Liechtenstein a high risk jurisdiction?
Liechtenstein remains legally stable and well regulated, but current developments highlight elevated operational and regulatory risk for trusts exposed to sanctions or geopolitical scrutiny.
Risk is highly structure- and beneficiary-specific.
Which country is best for trusts?
There is no universally best jurisdiction. The appropriate choice depends on tax residence, asset location, regulatory exposure, and geopolitical risk.
Jurisdictions such as Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands, and certain US states offer alternatives, but none are immune to compliance-driven disruption.
Is Liechtenstein still a tax haven?
Liechtenstein retains features associated with low tax and asset protection jurisdictions, but its role has evolved.
Enhanced transparency, sanctions enforcement, and fiduciary withdrawal risk mean it no longer functions as a low-friction offshore center in all cases.
Pained by financial indecision?
Adam is an internationally recognised author on financial matters with over 830million answer views on Quora, a widely sold book on Amazon, and a contributor on Forbes.
