Update: a private trust for a family with assets in the CIS

Families holding assets across the CIS (the Commonwealth of Independent States, the group of post-Soviet republics including Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and neighbouring countries) face a specific structural pressure in 2027. Succession rules, forced-heirship exposure and capital-movement constraints in that corridor have shifted. A private trust structured before those shifts may no longer do what it was designed to do.

A private trust governed by Hong Kong law – under the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) as substantially reformed with effect from 1 December 2013 – provides one of the clearest statutory defences against foreign forced-heirship claims available in any common-law jurisdiction. For families whose assets sit partly or wholly in the CIS, that protection is now operationally relevant in a way it was not a decade ago.

This briefing covers three things: what has changed, who it affects, and the immediate action it calls for.

What Has Changed Across the CIS Corridor?

The structural trigger here is not a single legislative event. It is an accumulation of conditions. Across several CIS jurisdictions, inheritance and succession rules have been applied more assertively to offshore assets. Probate procedures in some CIS states increasingly require a showing of the full asset map – including offshore holding structures – before a grant can issue. Where a family has restructured residence or relocated capital in recent years, the mismatch between the trust's original design and the family's current profile widens.

At the same time, the forced-heirship rules that operate in civil-law CIS jurisdictions do not disappear because assets are held through an offshore or Hong Kong structure. They follow the settlor's domicile and, in some CIS states, the location of assets. The question a well-structured trust must answer is whether Hong Kong's statutory firewall – the anti-forced-heirship protection introduced under the 2013 reform to the Trustee Ordinance – has been correctly invoked. If the trust predates the reform, or if its governing law was not properly established as Hong Kong law, the protection may be partial at best.

Families who changed residence between 2020 and 2025 – moving from a CIS state to a Gulf hub, Cyprus, or Hong Kong itself – face a further issue. A change of residence can shift the domicile analysis. If the trust was not updated at the time of that move, the settlor's domicile at death may now point to a jurisdiction whose succession rules the trust was never designed to resist.

Who Is Affected?

The briefing is relevant to three groups. First, principals whose primary wealth sits in CIS-registered or CIS-sited assets and who hold that wealth through a private trust established more than three years ago. Second, families who have changed residence since the trust was established – particularly those who have relocated to Hong Kong, Cyprus, the UAE, or another jurisdiction with its own succession regime. Third, trustees of CIS-linked structures who have not reviewed the governing-law and domicile position in the last two years.

The cross-border interface is sharp. On one side: the civil-law succession regimes of the CIS states, with their mandatory forced-heirship shares and their tendency to reach offshore assets through the settlor's domicile or the asset's location. On the other: the common-law trust system operating under Hong Kong law, with its statutory firewall, its absence of forced-heirship rules, and the 2013 reform's explicit protection for trusts against foreign forced-heirship claims. Getting the two sides to interact correctly requires that the trust's governing law, the settlor's domicile, and the asset-holding structure all point in the same direction.

Where they do not, the gap is not theoretical. In our cross-border private wealth practice, we regularly see structures in which the trust was established under one governing law, the assets migrated to a different holding vehicle, and the settlor's domicile shifted – with none of those changes triggering a review of the trust instrument itself.

The Immediate Action

The first step is a trust audit against the current family map. That means reviewing the trust deed's governing-law clause, the trustees' discretion provisions, the settlor's current and likely domicile at death, and the asset-holding chain below the trust. For CIS-linked assets specifically, it means checking whether the trust's anti-forced-heirship position is defensible under Hong Kong law as it now stands.

The second step, where the structure predates the 2013 reform or where residence has changed, is to consider a deed of amendment or a restatement that brings the trust expressly within the reformed Trustee Ordinance framework. This is not a mechanical exercise. It requires advice on the interaction between Hong Kong trust law and the succession law of the relevant CIS jurisdiction.

The third step is to map the enforcement position. A Hong Kong-law trust provides a strong structural defence. But if assets sit in a CIS jurisdiction and a local court makes a succession order, the question is how that order is recognised or resisted. Hong Kong's common-law enforcement framework – and its well-tested court system in the Court of First Instance of the High Court – provides a platform for that analysis.

For detailed background on how residence change intersects with pre-migration wealth planning, see our analysis at pre-immigration and pre-residence wealth planning. For the comparable cross-border position in the Cyprus corridor, see our earlier briefing at succession planning across Hong Kong and Cyprus. For a full view of the firm's private wealth practice, visit our private wealth practice page.

To discuss your current structure and the CIS-linked succession position, contact us at info@lockhartyip.com.

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

For a scoped view of your matter, contact info@lockhartyip.com. Discuss your matter →

Related

• Private Wealth
• Pre Immigration Pre Residence Wealth Planning Analysis
• Succession Planning Across Hong Kong Cyprus Cyprus Briefing

This publication is general information and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your situation, contact info@lockhartyip.com.