Panama has become the new Switzerland.  It is fast becoming the jurisdiction of choice for offshore asset protection structures.

Panama has the Strongest Bank Secrecy Laws that are Actually Enforced

Other jurisdictions like the the Cayman Islands have similar laws, but it is our experience that Panama enforces these laws strictly while we have seen some fishy behavior from other Jurisdictions.  In fact we know of a first hand case where a major breach in privacy was done in the Cayman Islands and the perpetrator was not punished at all.  Panama has stood its ground on bank secrecy issues in the face of pressure from foreign governments including large revenue agencies seeking to find information on tax evasion suspects.

Panama has no tax treaties with any other countries.

In some circumstances tax treaties are helpful because they prevent double taxation.  Since Panama has a 0% tax rate for foreign derived income, entering into tax treaties makes no sense.

Tax treaties inevitably include an information sharing agreement.  Avoid all jurisdictions with tax treaties, even if the treaty is not with your country of residence.  Why?  Many countries share or trade information!

Panama has no MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) with anyone period.

An MLAT treaty is bad news because no two countries have the same laws.  These treaties tend to bring the law to its lowest common denominator, and is never to your benefit. 

Panama is home to two of the best asset protection structures in the world:

The Anonymous Bearer Share Corporation

This option is powerful because the ownership of the offshore corporation is based on who ever physically holds the share certificates.  There is no need to explain how convenient, flexible and powerful this feature is in an asset protection structure.

An Offshore Corporation owned by an Offshore Foundation

While an offshore foundation is limited because it cannot engage in for profit business activities, it can own assets such as boats, cars, houses, etc.  It can also own a corporation.  The corporation can then engage in business activities.  The combination of the offshore company and offshore foundation is very powerful.  It is also very important to note that an offshore foundation legally is not owned by anyone.  Yet a foundation is a respected institution everywhere in the world.  This makes it very attractive in any plan to protect your assets.  One of the reasons this option is often used instead of a bearer share corporation, is the fact that a foundation is respectable.  While a bearer share corporation is private, it lacks a certain respectability.  Often this is not an issue since there is no way to determine that the corporation has issued it's shares in bearer form.  On the other hand, there are times when it becomes critical.

Take, for example, the situation where a person is sued.  When the judge learns that the assets in question are no longer owned by the defendant, but rather are owned by an offshore foundation, the judge cannot proceed any further.  To do so would be pointless because the judge will realize that a foundation is not owned by anyone.  It is simply a dead end.  He cannot order the defendant to repatriate the assets because that would be an illegal order.&