2000Journal of Financial CrimeRequires access

Trusts — ‘True or Bare’?

Martin S. Kenney, Elizabeth O’Brien

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

The answer to this rhetorical question is not something that is immediately apparent in the majority of cases, the intent of the settlor being the determining, if not only, factor. The determination of whether a trust is being used as a cloak for fraud or abuse, or is a sham, will be aided by reference to the doctrine of substance over form. Where a trust has but the appearance of legal effectiveness (and where the settlor either reserves the power to direct the trustee, or where such power is conferred upon the beneficiaries, such that the settlement is not intended to have any legal effect), the trust may be described as a bare trust. The essential characteristics of a bare trust are that either the settlor or the beneficiary has real, dispositive control over capital and interest (such that the whole of the equitable ownership of the trust property remains in the settlor), notwithstanding the existence of a trust instrument designating a trustee and beneficiary.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The answer to this rhetorical question is not something that is immediately apparent in the majority of cases, the intent of the settlor being the determining, if not only, factor. The determination of whether a trust is being used as a cloak for fraud or abuse, or is a sham, will be aided by reference to the doctrine of substance over form. Where a trust has but the appearance of legal effectiveness (and where the settlor either reserves the power to direct the trustee, or where such power is conferred upon the beneficiaries, such that the settlement is not intended to have any legal effect), the trust may be described as a bare trust. The essential characteristics of a bare trust are that either the settlor or the beneficiary has real, dispositive control over capital and interest (such that the whole of the equitable ownership of the trust property remains in the settlor), notwithstanding the existence of a trust instrument designating a trustee and beneficiary.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The answer to this rhetorical question is not something that is immediately apparent in the majority of cases, the intent of the settlor being the determining, if not only, factor. The determination of whether a trust is being used as a cloak for fraud or abuse, or is a sham, will be aided by reference to the doctrine of substance over form. Where a trust has but the appearance of legal effectiveness (and where the settlor either reserves the power to direct the trustee, or where such power is conferred upon the beneficiaries, such that the settlement is not intended to have any legal effect), the trust may be described as a bare trust. The essential characteristics of a bare trust are that either the settlor or the beneficiary has real, dispositive control over capital and interest (such that the whole of the equitable ownership of the trust property remains in the settlor), notwithstanding the existence of a trust instrument designating a trustee and beneficiary.

Key concepts: Settlor, Blind trust, Express trust, Beneficiary, Trust law, Testamentary trust, Property (philosophy), Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Trusts — ‘True or Bare’? — Research Paper | ScholarLens