A practical guide to a will and estate plan covering assets in the CIS

A family with assets spread across the Commonwealth of Independent States (the CIS) – the group of post-Soviet states including Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and their neighbours – faces a succession problem that a single-jurisdiction will cannot solve. Each CIS state applies its own rules on forced heirship, situs (the legal location of an asset for succession purposes), and the recognition of foreign instruments. A coordinated plan, structured from a neutral hub such as Hong Kong, maps those rules against the family's actual asset map and produces a set of instruments that work across the relevant systems simultaneously. This guide sets out the decision the reader faces, the sequence of steps, the gate at each stage, and the mistakes that stall or defeat an otherwise well-intended plan.

The guide proceeds in five sections: the decision and the options; the sequence with its gates; the cross-border interface between Hong Kong and the CIS; the common mistake and how to avoid it; and a short decision checklist.

What decision does the family actually face?

The starting point is not the law. It is the asset map.

A CIS-connected family typically holds real property in one or more CIS states, operating businesses or shareholdings under local company law, bank accounts and financial instruments held onshore and offshore, and, increasingly, assets held through structures outside the CIS – holding entities in the BVI or Cyprus, accounts in Hong Kong or Dubai, and sometimes a trust settled under a non-CIS law. Each category sits in a different legal system for succession purposes, and each system may reach a different conclusion about who inherits, in what share, and under what procedure.

The decision is therefore not simply "should I write a will?" It is: which instruments, governed by which laws, should cover which categories of asset, and in what order do I put them in place?

The principal options on the table are four.

First, a single-jurisdiction will drafted under the law of the testator's current domicile or habitual residence, relying on the CIS states to recognise it through private international law rules or applicable treaty. This is the default position for most families and carries the highest recognition risk.

Second, separate wills for each jurisdiction where the family holds material assets. This approach reduces recognition risk but introduces co-ordination risk: two wills can revoke each other, contradict each other, or produce an unintended aggregate distribution.

Third, a trust or foundation settled under the law of a non-CIS jurisdiction – Hong Kong, the BVI, the Cayman Islands, or a comparable centre – into which offshore and moveable assets are transferred during the settlor's lifetime, combined with local wills covering immovable assets that cannot be practically held through the structure.

Fourth, a combination: a governing trust or foundation for offshore and corporate-layer assets; a coordinated set of local wills, each expressly limited in scope; and, where the family includes members resident in Hong Kong, a Hong Kong will covering any Hong Kong-sited assets.

In our cross-border private wealth practice, the fourth approach is the one that most commonly achieves both coverage and workability across the CIS asset corridor. The choice depends on the family's residence map, the nature of the assets, and the forced-heirship position in each relevant CIS state.

How do CIS forced-heirship rules interact with an international estate plan?

Forced heirship – the statutory entitlement of certain relatives to a fixed share of the estate regardless of the testator's wishes – is the most consequential variable in any CIS succession plan. Every CIS state maintains some form of forced-heirship regime, though the protected class, the quantum, and the mechanism differ.

The common architecture across most CIS civil codes reserves a mandatory share – typically no less than half of the share the heir would have received on intestacy – for a defined class of compulsory heirs. That class ordinarily includes minor children, disabled adult children, a disabled spouse, and disabled parents of the testator. Some CIS states extend it further. Where a will purports to leave less than the mandatory share to a compulsory heir, the heir may challenge the will and claim the difference from the estate.

Why does this matter for an international plan? Because the CIS court applying local succession law to locally-sited assets will apply local forced-heirship rules regardless of what the will says and regardless of the law governing the will. A Hong Kong or BVI trust may hold offshore assets free from that claim – Hong Kong law has no forced-heirship regime, and the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29), as reformed with effect from 1 December 2013, strengthened the protection of Hong Kong-law trusts against foreign forced-heirship claims. But any asset that remains sited in a CIS state and passes through that state's succession procedure will be measured against local rules.

The practical consequence is that the estate plan must identify, asset by asset, which system's forced-heirship rules will apply on death, what the mandatory share is in that system for the family's particular heir class, and whether there is a structure or instrument that lawfully reduces the exposed estate without defeating the underlying entitlement where it genuinely applies.

We regularly advise on the interaction between CIS forced-heirship positions and the protective mechanisms available under Hong Kong trust law and offshore holding structures. The analysis is fact-specific; general planning principles exist, but the family's actual distribution of heirs and assets in each CIS state drives the answer.

What is the step-by-step sequence, and what is the gate at each step?

The sequence below reflects the order in which decisions must be locked before the next step is meaningful. Taking steps out of order is the most common source of delay and rework.

Step 1 – Map the asset situs and the applicable succession law

Before any instrument is drafted, the family must produce a complete picture: every asset, its legal location (for succession purposes), the succession law that will govern it on death, and the forced-heirship position under that law. For real property this is straightforward – the lex situs (the law of the place where the property is situated) almost universally governs. For shareholdings in CIS companies, the answer depends on whether those companies are held directly or through an offshore holding vehicle. For bank accounts and financial instruments, the position varies by CIS state and by the type of account.

The gate: this map must be complete and agreed with local counsel in each relevant CIS state before any drafting begins. An incomplete map produces an instrument with gaps – gaps that surface only at the worst possible moment.

Step 2 – Establish the family's domicile, residence, and nationality map

CIS succession law engages differently depending on whether the deceased was a national, a resident, or a foreign domiciliary at the date of death. The testator's current domicile or habitual residence determines which conflict-of-laws rule the court in each jurisdiction applies when deciding which law governs the estate. Nationality matters in some CIS states as a connecting factor for moveable assets. Hong Kong, as a potential holding or residency hub, contributes its own private international law position to the analysis.

The gate: the family's residence and domicile position must be assessed – not assumed. If the testator holds multiple nationalities or has moved recently between CIS states, the conflict-of-laws analysis in each relevant jurisdiction must be conducted before the instrument design is finalised.

Step 3 – Design the instrument structure

With the asset map and the personal status map in hand, counsel can design the structure. The design question is: which instrument covers which asset in which jurisdiction, under which governing law, and with what effect on the forced-heirship exposure?

For a family with significant offshore assets and a corporate holding layer, a trust settled under Hong Kong law or an equivalent offshore law is typically the primary instrument for the offshore layer. The Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) provides a well-tested statutory base. A trust does not form part of the testator's estate on death and therefore does not pass through succession procedure – the trustee holds the assets for the beneficiaries according to the trust instrument, not the will.

For CIS-sited real property, a local will or local succession instrument is ordinarily required. Where two or more CIS states are involved, separate local instruments – each expressly limited to assets in its jurisdiction – is the safer approach than a single instrument claiming global effect.

Where the family includes members resident or domiciled in Hong Kong, a Hong Kong will under the Wills Ordinance should cover any Hong Kong-sited assets. Hong Kong has no forced-heirship regime; testamentary freedom is broad.

The gate: the instrument structure must be reviewed for internal consistency before any instrument is executed. A trust that captures assets the local will also purports to cover will produce ambiguity at best and litigation at worst.

Step 4 – Execute in the correct sequence and with the correct formalities

Execution formalities differ materially across CIS states. Most CIS civil-law systems require notarial execution – the will must be executed before a notary and entered in a central registry. Some CIS states require the will to be executed in the state language. Recognition of a foreign-executed will typically requires apostille certification under the Apostille Convention (the convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation of foreign public documents) where the relevant CIS state is a party, or full legalisation and, in some cases, official translation where it is not.

The gate: confirm the execution formalities and recognition requirements for each relevant CIS state before any instrument is signed. A will validly executed in Hong Kong may not be recognised in a CIS state without additional steps that must be completed before death, not after.

Step 5 – Register, maintain, and review

Registration of the trust instrument, the holding structure, and, where applicable, the local wills is not a one-time exercise. Asset maps change. Families move. Tax-residence positions shift. A new child becomes a compulsory heir. A CIS state changes its succession rules. The plan must be reviewed at least every two to three years or upon any material change to the family's position.

For private wealth structures involving Hong Kong, the Trustee Ordinance requires trustees to act in the interests of beneficiaries; governance documentation must be kept current. For offshore holding entities – BVI or Cayman – economic-substance regimes apply and must be monitored.

The gate: embed a review cycle into the estate plan from day one. Treat the plan as a living document, not a filing exercise.

How does the Hong Kong – CIS cross-border interface actually work?

Hong Kong's role in a CIS estate plan is typically one of three: a holding hub for the offshore layer of the family's assets; a residential hub for one or more family members; or a neutral forum for the governing law of the trust or family-governance instrument.

As a holding hub, Hong Kong has no capital gains tax, no withholding tax on dividends or interest, and no estate duty. Profits tax is assessed on a territorial basis on Hong Kong-sourced profits only. A trust settled under Hong Kong law holds assets outside the succession procedure of any CIS state, subject to the analysis above on forced heirship.

As a residential hub, Hong Kong does not impose any wealth tax or succession tax. A family member becoming habitually resident in Hong Kong changes their domicile position over time, with consequences for which law governs their moveable estate on death. That change is not automatic and takes time; it must be managed deliberately.

As a forum for governing law, Hong Kong trust law – specifically the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) and the reforms of 2013 – provides a common-law base that is broadly understood by international private banks, corporate trustees, and legal counsel operating across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The protections against foreign forced-heirship claims, the statutory validity of settlor-reserved powers, and the abolition of the rule against perpetuities for Hong Kong trusts make the jurisdiction a practical choice for long-term family structures.

The cross-border interface with the CIS on recognition is managed primarily through the family's choice of governing law for the trust and through the local succession instruments. The CIS states are not parties to any multilateral convention on the mutual recognition of trusts as a legal concept. The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (the Hague Trusts Convention) is not in force in any CIS state. A Hong Kong-law trust is therefore recognised in the CIS, if at all, through the conflict-of-laws rules of the relevant CIS court – a fact-specific question that must be assessed jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

For an analysis of how similar cross-border succession planning works in another major offshore and holding centre, see our analysis of estate planning for assets held through Singapore.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the asset map, the family's actual residence and domicile positions, and the specific forced-heirship rules in the CIS states where material assets are held. That combination is where the route is won or lost.

For a structured assessment of your cross-border succession position across Hong Kong and the CIS, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

What is the most common mistake, and how does the sequence avoid it?

The most common mistake is drafting a single will – typically under the law of the testator's country of nationality or current residence – and assuming that it will be effective across all CIS jurisdictions where the family holds assets. It will not, for three reasons.

First, CIS states apply their own succession laws to immovable property sited in their territory regardless of the law the testator chose or the law governing the rest of the estate. A will executed in Moscow or Almaty under local law does not automatically extend to real property in another CIS state; it must be presented to the courts or notaries of that state and recognised under local procedure.

Second, a single will expressed to cover all assets can revoke prior instruments. If a family member executed a local will in Kazakhstan before moving to Hong Kong and subsequently executed a broader Hong Kong will, the Hong Kong will may have revoked the Kazakhstan will. The result is that the Kazakhstan assets pass by intestacy – the succession rules that apply in the absence of a valid will – which may distribute to a different class of heirs than the testator intended.

Third, a will does not affect assets held in trust or through a nominee structure that takes legal title during the testator's lifetime. If those structures are not in place before death, the assets fall back into the estate and pass through succession procedure – which may include the forced-heirship exposure the family sought to avoid.

The sequence set out above avoids each of these errors by design. The asset map (Step 1) identifies which assets require which instrument. The domicile map (Step 2) determines the applicable law for each. The instrument design (Step 3) produces instruments that are consistent with each other, each expressly limited in scope. Execution (Step 4) ensures each instrument is valid in the relevant jurisdiction. And the review cycle (Step 5) catches changes before they become problems.

A micro-scenario illustrates the point. A Central Asian manufacturing principal with real property in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, a BVI holding company above an operating group, and a personal account in Hong Kong retained our desk in late 2026. The existing position was a single will executed under Kazakhstan law, expressed to cover all assets. The BVI holding company was entirely outside the will's reach – its shares passed under the BVI company's articles of association and a separate shareholders' agreement, not under the will. The Kazakhstan will made no reference to Uzbekistan real property; Uzbekistan's succession procedure would have required a separately authenticated local instrument. We restructured the approach: a Hong Kong-law trust for the BVI holding company shares; a revised Kazakhstan will expressly limited to Kazakhstan real property; and a new Uzbekistan instrument for the Uzbekistan property, executed with the required notarial formalities and apostille. The principal's forced-heirship exposure in each jurisdiction was separately assessed and documented. The instruments were cross-referenced to prevent accidental revocation.

If an earlier structure or filing produced an adverse or stalled result in any of the relevant CIS jurisdictions, a second read can identify the gap and the routes still open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com to begin that assessment.

How does a family-office holding structure interact with the estate plan?

For families whose assets are held, in whole or in part, through a family office structure – a holding entity or group of entities, typically in a low-tax offshore centre, managed centrally on behalf of the family – the estate plan must account for the structure as a whole, not just the assets at the bottom of it.

The key question is: what happens to the holding structure on the death of the principal? In the absence of specific planning, the answer depends on how the shares or interests in the holding entity are held, and what the governing documents say about succession of ownership. A BVI holding company whose shares are held in the deceased's personal name will require a grant of representation or equivalent probate document in the BVI before the shares can be transferred to the heirs. That process takes time, involves cost, and may be complicated by the need to also obtain recognition in the CIS states where the underlying assets sit.

A trust placed above the BVI holding company avoids that problem. The trustee holds the shares; on the death of the principal, the trustee continues to hold – and manage – the structure for the benefit of the beneficiaries in accordance with the trust instrument. No probate is required in the BVI for those assets. No CIS succession procedure is triggered for the offshore layer.

For a related discussion of how trust structures interact with Mainland Chinese assets, see our guide to private trust structures for family assets with a Mainland China connection.

The interaction with the estate plan is direct: the trust instrument must be consistent with the wills covering local assets, must correctly identify the beneficiaries and their shares, and must address the family's succession wishes in relation to the management – not just the ownership – of the underlying businesses. A governance layer, often documented through a family charter or letter of wishes, is frequently needed alongside the legal instruments to make the transition work in practice.

Decision checklist

The following checklist is not a substitute for legal advice. It sets out the questions a family or their in-house counsel should be able to answer before retaining international counsel to draft the estate plan.

• Is there a complete, up-to-date list of all assets in each CIS state, with their legal classification (real property, company shares, financial instruments, other) and the legal entity or person in whose name each is held?
• Has the testator's domicile and habitual residence been assessed for succession-law purposes in each relevant CIS state, and in Hong Kong if applicable?
• Has local counsel in each relevant CIS state confirmed the forced-heirship rules applicable to the family's heir class and the assets in that state?
• Are there existing wills or succession instruments? If so, where were they executed, under what law, and do they contain a revocation clause that may affect later instruments?
• Are any assets held through a trust, foundation, or offshore holding structure? If so, are the governance documents current, and does the trust or holding structure document address succession of control and benefit?
• Have the execution formalities for each instrument been confirmed with local counsel, including any apostille or legalisation requirements?
• Is there a review cycle built into the plan, and a designated person responsible for triggering it?
• Has the interaction between the CIS succession position and any Hong Kong-law instrument been reviewed by counsel with experience of both systems?

If any of these questions cannot be answered with confidence, that gap is the starting point for the engagement.

Related practices

Related practices

• Private Wealth – succession, trust structures, and family-office planning across jurisdictions
• Holding Structures – offshore and Hong Kong holding layers, BVI and Cayman entities
• Tax Positions – residence, FSIE regime, and cross-border tax structuring from Hong Kong

Speak with Lockhart & Yip

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

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