Why resilient families do not rely on one country alone

My professional insights · Lyudmil Karaulanov · 7 min read

Published: 1 August 2026 · Version 1.0

When your family lives, studies or works in different countries, the question of where assets should be held is no longer abstract. You need access to funds, the ability to settle elsewhere and confidence that important arrangements can be implemented.

For me, the conversation begins with precisely these needs. A second passport, a foreign account or a company in another country are means to an end. Choosing them makes sense when it is clear what freedom is sought and what additional obligations you are prepared to accept.

Diversifying risk is not only about investments

We readily understand why we do not want all our investments to depend on one company. We are slower to notice a shared dependence on a single legal, banking or political environment. It deserves calm consideration, without assuming that every foreign country necessarily offers greater security.

The risk does not necessarily arise because a country is bad. It arises from excessive dependence on it. The more ownership, business, family ties and personal opportunities are concentrated in one country, the greater the consequences of decisions over which the family has no influence: a new tax, a new regulation, a political reversal, a banking crisis.

That is why some families diversify not only their investments, but also their legal, economic and personal environments.

Citizenship is more than a passport for travel

Citizenship is usually understood as an expression of belonging. But it is also a legal status conferring specific rights and protection. A second citizenship or residence right provides a genuine alternative: a place where a person is entitled to live, work, establish their family and conduct business.

The value of this option often lies not in using it immediately. It lies in its existence as an alternative route should it one day be needed.

In calm times, an alternative route seems unnecessary. In a crisis, it becomes part of freedom.

Tax planning is only one layer of the picture

International structures are often explained solely in terms of tax optimisation. That explanation is incomplete. Citizenship alone does not determine where a tax liability arises. Tax residence, the centre of vital interests and the place from which the business is actually managed matter more.

Accumulating statuses can also create additional complexity:

• competing claims to tax residence and new reporting obligations;
• restrictions on transferring assets and exit taxes;
• different and overlapping inheritance and gift regimes.

Good international architecture is therefore built not by collecting documents, but by aligning personal status, tax position, ownership and family goals.

The more important question is not where the least tax will be paid, but how to build a lawful and workable structure that will not collapse at the first change in local rules.

Freedom for people and freedom for assets are different things

You may have the right to move while your money and companies remain bound by rules that do not permit the same movement. It is therefore worth tracing the person's route and the assets' route separately. Only then can the promised freedom be tested in a specific situation.

Citizenship governs a person's status. Asset transfers follow other rules: banking, foreign exchange, corporate and source-of-funds requirements. Personal mobility and the mobility of assets are planned together, but should not be confused.

Banking access and succession

Wealth also includes the ability to reach your money in practice. Banks apply their own risk-assessment rules, and when the regulatory environment changes, even longstanding relationships can be restricted within weeks. Lawful banking relationships in more than one stable country reduce the risk of sudden loss of access.

For families with assets in several countries, succession changes the whole picture. Questions arise about applicable law, reserved shares, inheritance taxes and management of family companies. Here, international mobility becomes part of continuity. If it has not been considered in advance, multiple connections to different countries bring fragmentation rather than security.

What gives one generation freedom may create complexity for the next.

More options do not automatically mean resilience

Each additional country also brings work: filings, costs, rules and a need for local expertise. In my view, a new component belongs in the structure only if its benefit is clear and the family can maintain it. Otherwise, accumulating options may leave heirs with more complexity than security.

Before acquiring a new status, a comprehensive review is useful of:

• the family members' citizenships, residence rights and tax residence;
• the locations of assets and the places from which the business is managed;
• applicable succession regimes and existing banking relationships.

Only then can we assess whether the new status truly reduces risk or merely adds administrative burden.

Where is the point of instability?

What this concept means →

I see it in the gap between expected freedom and actual dependencies. A passport does not resolve tax questions on its own, and a foreign account does not settle succession.

A well-prepared international structure can also be explained to the people who will live with it after you. When the reason for each component is clear, it is easier to judge when it is no longer needed.

This material is of a general analytical nature and does not constitute individual legal, tax, financial or investment advice.