Succession planning across Hong Kong CIS

A family whose principal lives in Almaty, whose assets sit in a Hong Kong holding company, and whose children hold residency in a third country does not have a succession problem. It has three overlapping succession problems, each governed by a different legal system, each with a different answer on forced heirship, and none of them aligned by default. That is the position our desk sees regularly from principals whose wealth has moved faster than their documents.

Succession planning across Hong Kong and the CIS requires a coordinated approach that maps each jurisdiction's rules on the transfer of assets at death – including forced-heirship regimes common across the CIS, the position under Hong Kong law, and the interaction with any offshore holding structure – and then builds a set of instruments (wills, trusts, and holding arrangements) that survive the conflict between them. The governing instruments in Hong Kong include the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29) and the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622); the CIS countries each maintain their own civil-code succession rules, which the family's advisers must address in parallel.

This page sets out the service we provide, the route we run, and the decisions that the principal must own before any instrument is signed.

When does the succession question become urgent?

For most CIS principals with a Hong Kong footprint, the planning moment arrives earlier than expected. It is rarely a health event that brings the matter to a head.

More often the trigger is structural: the family acquires a significant Hong Kong or offshore asset, a new holding company is formed, or a child reaches majority and is introduced to the ownership map. At that point, the question of what happens if the principal dies tomorrow becomes a board-level issue, not an estate-planning footnote.

A second common trigger is regulatory exposure. Several CIS jurisdictions have strengthened their rules on foreign-held assets and on the disclosure of beneficial interests. When a family is asked to document its ownership chain – by a bank, a regulator, or a counterparty – the absence of a succession plan becomes visible. A Significant Controllers Register entry at the Companies Registry in Hong Kong, for instance, identifies a natural person as the ultimate beneficial owner. If that person has no will governing Hong Kong assets, the company's continuity on death is uncertain.

A third trigger is residence change. A principal who relocates from Moscow or Almaty to a third country acquires a new set of succession rules, often without knowing it. Residence-based succession rules in the destination country can conflict sharply with the civil-code rules of the CIS origin jurisdiction and with the Hong Kong position. Resolving that triangle before it becomes adversarial is the purpose of the planning exercise.

In our cross-border practice, the matters that arrive without a plan are harder to resolve than those that arrive with a draft one. The difference is sequence.

The cross-border interface: how Hong Kong and CIS succession law interact

Hong Kong and the CIS states are not connected by any mutual recognition treaty on succession. Each system applies its own conflict-of-law rules to determine which law governs the transfer of a given asset class at death.

Hong Kong applies the common-law rule: immovable property passes according to the law of the place where it is situated (lex situs), while movable property follows the law of the deceased's domicile at death. A principal domiciled in Kazakhstan at death would, under Hong Kong conflict rules, have their movable Hong Kong assets – including shares in a Hong Kong company – governed by Kazakh law in the first instance. Whether that result is intended or not, it is the default.

Most CIS states operate under civil-code inheritance regimes derived from the Soviet legal tradition. Those regimes typically impose statutory heirship rights on defined classes of relatives – spouse, children, and sometimes parents – that cannot be entirely defeated by testamentary disposition. The share reserved for compulsory heirs varies by jurisdiction. It is a structural feature of the legal system, not a procedural technicality.

The interaction is the problem. A CIS principal who holds shares in a Hong Kong company may believe that a will executed in Hong Kong resolves the succession question. It may not. If the principal is domiciled in a CIS state, that state's forced-heirship rules could be applied to the movable property (the shares) by a local court. Hong Kong's own law has no forced-heirship regime. But a local court in the principal's country of domicile may assert jurisdiction, apply its own rules, and produce a result that conflicts with what the will says.

Hong Kong trust law provides one response to this problem. The Trustee Ordinance, as reformed with effect from 1 December 2013, includes firewall provisions designed to protect Hong Kong-law trusts against foreign forced-heirship claims. A properly constituted Hong Kong-law trust, settled before the principal's death, removes the trust assets from the principal's estate for succession purposes and places them in a structure governed by Hong Kong law. The 2013 reform also confirmed that a settlor may reserve certain powers over the trust without invalidating it, and abolished the rule against perpetuities for Hong Kong trusts – both features that matter for long-term family wealth planning.

That protection is not absolute. Its effectiveness depends on how the trust is structured, whether the relevant CIS jurisdiction respects the transfer into trust as valid, and whether the assets are actually moved into the trust in a legally effective manner. These are questions that require analysis of both legal systems, not just one.

For further illustration of how cross-border asset structures interact with succession, see our related matter note on private trust arrangements covering family assets in Greater China.

How does the route work – step by step?

The route begins with a mapping exercise, not a document. Until the family's full asset and residency picture is clear, no instrument can be reliably drafted.

Step one: Asset and jurisdiction mapping. We compile a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction schedule of assets: Hong Kong operating and holding companies; offshore vehicles (BVI, Cayman, or other); real property by location; financial accounts by domicile of institution; and any intellectual property or contractual interests with a situs that matters. Alongside the asset map, we document the principal's domicile, habitual residence, and citizenship – because these three concepts do not always align and each may be relevant to a different system's conflict-of-law analysis.

Step two: Conflict-of-law analysis. With the map in hand, we identify where the systems conflict. Which assets are at risk of forced-heirship claims under CIS law? Which instruments already in place (a will, a shareholder agreement, a company constitution) would be tested on a death scenario? Are there double-domicile risks if the principal has been resident in more than one country?

Step three: Structure review and recommendations. We set out the options. For principals with significant Hong Kong and offshore assets, the tool set typically includes: a Hong Kong-law discretionary trust for offshore and Hong Kong movable assets; jurisdiction-specific wills covering immovable property in each country; review of company constitutions and shareholder agreements for death-related provisions; and, where the CIS jurisdiction requires, a local notarial instrument or testament to cover assets situated there.

Step four: Locally licensed counsel join the process. For the execution of documents in Hong Kong – including any deed of settlement, any amendment to a company constitution, and any Hong Kong probate-related step – we work alongside locally licensed Hong Kong firms. Their involvement is not optional; it is how Hong Kong-law documents achieve validity. For CIS-side instruments, allied counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdiction handle notarisation, civil-code compliance, and registration where required.

Step five: Document execution and structure implementation. With the plan agreed, the instruments are drafted and executed in the correct sequence. Sequence matters. A trust deed executed after a will, but before the will is lodged, may have different legal consequences than the reverse. We co-ordinate the timing across jurisdictions to ensure each document is effective when and where it needs to be.

Step six: Maintenance and review triggers. A succession plan is not a once-and-done exercise. We identify the events that should trigger a review: a change of residence, a new acquisition in a new jurisdiction, a marriage or divorce within the family, or a change in any relevant law. We document those triggers so the family is not caught by a change it did not know had occurred.

The sequence above describes the standard position. Your matter turns on the documents, the jurisdictions actually engaged, and the order of steps – which is where the route is won or lost. To discuss your position in confidence, write to us at info@lockhartyip.com.

What documents and decisions does the principal own?

The principal's role in a succession planning engagement is not passive. There are decisions that only the principal can make and documents that only the principal can execute. Understanding them in advance makes the process faster and the instruments more durable.

The first decision is the domicile question. Where does the principal intend to be domiciled at the end of their life? This is not always the same as current residence, and for CIS nationals who have lived across multiple countries, it may be genuinely contested. A clear, documented statement of domicile intention – supported by the facts of the principal's life and connections – reduces the risk that multiple jurisdictions compete to apply their rules on death.

The second decision is the distribution map. Whom should the assets go to, in what shares, and on what conditions? For families with children from more than one relationship, with dependants in different countries, or with a mix of business and personal assets, this is rarely straightforward. The trust deed or the will cannot be better than the instructions that go into it.

The third decision is the governance of any trust. A Hong Kong discretionary trust requires a trustee. For family structures, the choice between an individual trustee, a corporate trustee, and a private trust company is a governance decision with long-term consequences. We advise on the options and their implications across the jurisdictions where the trust will operate, but the principal makes the call.

The fourth decision is disclosure. A trust structure, a holding company arrangement, or a complex succession plan may have reporting consequences in the CIS jurisdiction: for currency control purposes, for beneficial-ownership registers, or for tax reporting. These are not reasons to avoid the structure. They are parameters the plan must address. The principal must be willing to document the structure accurately wherever required by law.

What the principal does not need to own is the technical sequencing. That is our job.

What are the common planning errors for CIS principals?

Three mistakes appear with regularity on our desk. Each is understandable. None is cheap to fix after the fact.

The first is the single-jurisdiction will. A principal drafts a will in Kazakhstan, covering all assets. The will is validly executed under Kazakh law. But it does not, without more, transfer Hong Kong company shares – because Hong Kong has its own probate process and its own rules on what foreign grants of probate it will recognise. The shares remain in limbo until a separate Hong Kong process is completed. That process takes time and involves cost. In a family dispute, it creates a window for challenge.

The second mistake is the unreviewed shareholder agreement. A CIS principal holds shares in a Hong Kong joint venture under a shareholders' agreement that contains a transfer restriction and a right of first refusal. On the principal's death, the estate's ability to transfer those shares to the intended heirs may be blocked by the agreement's terms. The succession plan that does not account for this is incomplete.

The third mistake is the trust that was settled but not funded. A trust deed is executed – sometimes at considerable cost in professional fees – but the assets are never transferred into it. The trust exists on paper. At the principal's death, the assets form part of the estate and are distributed accordingly, as if the trust did not exist. Funding the trust is a legal step, not an administrative formality, and it must happen before the planning work is done.

For a related illustration of asset-protection planning involving offshore holding structures, see our matter note on estate planning covering assets held through Cayman Islands structures.

How does the Hong Kong trust interact with the CIS forced-heirship position?

The Hong Kong trust is a powerful planning tool for CIS principals, but its effectiveness against forced-heirship claims depends on a sequence of conditions that must each be satisfied.

First, the trust must be constituted under Hong Kong law. The Trustee Ordinance's firewall provisions – the anti-forced-heirship protections introduced in the 2013 reform – apply to trusts governed by Hong Kong law. A trust governed by Cayman or BVI law may have equivalent provisions under those jurisdictions' own statutes, but the Hong Kong firewall applies specifically to Hong Kong-law trusts.

Second, the relevant CIS jurisdiction must not have public-policy (ordre public) grounds to override the trust structure. Most CIS civil-code systems recognise trusts to a limited degree, but they are not common-law systems and their courts may characterise a trust settlement as a gift or as a simulated transaction in some circumstances. Whether a specific CIS court would seek to override a Hong Kong trust is a question that requires jurisdiction-specific legal opinion, not a general assumption.

Third, the assets must have been validly transferred into the trust. For Hong Kong company shares, this requires execution of a stock transfer form and update of the company's register of members. For offshore assets, the relevant offshore registry or register must reflect the trustee as holder. A trust deed that is not followed by valid asset transfers does not protect the assets.

Where a full trust structure is not appropriate – for tax, governance, or family reasons – alternatives include a well-drafted will with jurisdiction-specific supplementary instruments, a holding structure that concentrates ownership in a single entity so that the succession operates at the entity level (transferring membership interests rather than underlying assets), or a combination of instruments that addresses each asset class separately.

A mid-sized CIS family group came to us in early 2026 with a BVI holding company above a Hong Kong operating structure and no succession documents whatsoever. The beneficial owner had recently re-domiciled. We mapped the asset and residency picture, identified the forced-heirship exposure in the origin jurisdiction, and built a plan that combined a Hong Kong-law discretionary trust for the offshore and Hong Kong assets, a local will in the CIS jurisdiction for immovable property there, and revised company articles addressing the death and disability of the sole director. The instruments were executed across three jurisdictions over a structured timetable. The family's exposure was resolved before the next corporate event required disclosure of the ownership chain.

Decision matrix: which instrument fits which situation?

Not every CIS principal with a Hong Kong connection needs a trust. The instrument should match the situation. The following matrix sets out the principal positions our desk encounters.

Situation A: CIS principal, domiciled in a CIS state, holding Hong Kong operating company shares directly, with a spouse and adult children. Exposure: forced-heirship claims in the CIS state over the movable assets (the shares). Route: consider a Hong Kong-law discretionary trust to hold the shares, removing them from the estate for succession purposes; execute a CIS-side will and any required notarial instrument for local assets; review the company articles for death-related provisions. Timing risk: the trust must be funded before death; a trust executed but not funded solves nothing.

Situation B: CIS principal, re-domiciled to a third country (UAE, EU, or similar), holding assets through a BVI or Cayman vehicle above Hong Kong operating companies. Exposure: succession rules of the new domicile country apply to movable assets; CIS rules may assert a residual claim; Hong Kong probate may be needed for any directly held Hong Kong assets. Route: review the offshore trust or holding structure; consider whether the offshore vehicle's constitutional documents address death of the sole beneficial owner; confirm whether Hong Kong probate is engaged; obtain local-law opinions in both the new domicile and the CIS origin country.

Situation C: CIS national holding a minority interest in a Hong Kong joint venture under a shareholders' agreement with transfer restrictions. Exposure: on death, the estate's ability to pass the shares may be blocked by contractual restrictions; the will may be overridden by the agreement. Route: review the shareholders' agreement for death-related clauses; negotiate an amendment if required; ensure the succession plan addresses the contractual position, not only the legal-title position.

Situation D: Second-generation family member, resident in Hong Kong, with assets inherited from a CIS principal whose succession instruments were prepared in a single jurisdiction. Exposure: gaps in the original plan may have left title questions unresolved; a Hong Kong probate or re-sealing step may be needed. Route: trace the title chain; identify the gap; consider a rectification or supplementary instrument; take locally licensed Hong Kong counsel through the probate or re-sealing process.

If an earlier filing, structure or enforcement attempt produced an adverse or stalled result, a second read can identify the strategic error and the routes still open. Write to us at info@lockhartyip.com to discuss.

Checklist: is your succession plan cross-border ready?

Before an instrument is signed, a CIS principal with a Hong Kong connection should be able to answer yes to each of the following.

Is your domicile clearly documented and consistent with your actual life facts?
Does your succession plan cover assets in every jurisdiction where you hold a direct or indirect interest?
Have you verified whether each CIS jurisdiction where you hold assets has a forced-heirship regime, and what share it reserves?
If you have a trust, has it been funded – i.e., have the assets been legally transferred to the trustee, with the registers updated?
Do your Hong Kong company articles and any shareholders' agreements contain provisions that work alongside your succession plan rather than against it?
Is there a local will or notarial instrument in place for any immovable property in a CIS jurisdiction?
Have you identified the events that should trigger a review of the plan?
Has locally licensed Hong Kong counsel been engaged for the Hong Kong-law elements of the plan?

A no to any of these is a gap. Gaps in a succession plan are not theoretical. They are the points where a dispute begins.

Our private wealth practice is built around exactly these cross-border succession questions. We work with principals and their families at the point where the asset map, the residency picture, and the family's intentions need to be brought into a coherent set of instruments.

Related practices

Holding Structures – structuring offshore and Hong Kong holding vehicles for asset protection and succession
Tax Positions – residence, substance and cross-border tax implications of succession restructuring

Frequently asked questions

Do I need a Hong Kong adviser for succession planning across Hong Kong and the CIS?

Yes, if you hold assets in Hong Kong or through a Hong Kong entity. A Hong Kong-connected adviser is necessary because Hong Kong has its own probate process, its own rules on recognition of foreign grants of probate, and its own trust law – all of which interact with any succession plan that touches Hong Kong assets. A CIS lawyer alone cannot resolve the Hong Kong elements, and a Hong Kong lawyer alone cannot resolve the forced-heirship position in the CIS state. Cross-border succession planning for this corridor requires both, working in a co-ordinated sequence.

What does the route look like for succession planning across Hong Kong and the CIS?

The route begins with an asset and jurisdiction map, then moves through a conflict-of-law analysis to identify where the systems interact or conflict. From there, the plan sets out the instrument mix – typically a Hong Kong-law trust, jurisdiction-specific wills, and reviewed company documents – followed by execution in a timed sequence across the relevant jurisdictions. Locally licensed Hong Kong counsel handle the Hong Kong-law instruments; allied counsel admitted in the CIS jurisdiction handle the local documents. The process ends with a documented set of review triggers so the plan stays current.

Which jurisdiction's law applies to succession planning across Hong Kong and the CIS?

No single law governs the whole picture. Under Hong Kong conflict-of-law rules, immovable property passes according to the law of the place where it is situated, while movable property – including shares in a Hong Kong company – follows the law of the deceased's domicile at death. If the principal is domiciled in a CIS state, that state's law (including its forced-heirship regime) may govern the movable assets. The planning objective is to achieve the family's intended distribution within the constraints of each system that legitimately has a claim – not to apply a single law uniformly, but to build instruments that are valid and effective in each jurisdiction that matters.

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.