Patrimony · Restricted access
Before this door opens, the law asks who you are.
The families and institutions this practice serves are not named here, and never will be.
Nothing on this website is an offer, a recommendation, or a view on the merits of any investment. To the extent that any part of it is an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity within the meaning of section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, it is directed only at the persons described below, and it must not be acted on by anyone else. The four paragraphs that follow are short, they are the law, and they are the reason this door is shut.
Under section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a firm that is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority must not communicate an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity unless an exemption applies. Contravention is a criminal offence under section 25, and under section 30 an agreement that results from an unlawful communication may be unenforceable against the person who received it. Those consequences fall on the communicator. That is why this firm, and not you, polices this door.
This room relies on the exemptions in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005. Article 19 admits investment professionals: authorised and exempt persons, and persons whose ordinary activities involve carrying on activity of the kind this room describes, for the purposes of a business. Article 49 admits high net worth companies, unincorporated associations and trusts that meet the thresholds the Order sets. A family office ordinarily enters through the vehicle it operates: where that company or trust meets the Article 49 thresholds, it may pass; a private individual does not pass by standing behind it. The conditions of both Articles require proper systems and procedures to keep this material from being acted on by anyone else, and this gate, together with the declarations it takes and the correction protocol beneath, is how those systems are kept.
Then this room is not directed at you. The protections the law builds for retail investors exist precisely so that material of this kind does not reach them. A declaration made in words you know to be untrue is a misrepresentation: English law allows the party who relied on it to set aside what followed from it, and this firm will use that right, including to refuse any dealing that began at this door. You would stand outside every protection the regime built for you, by your own hand. We ask you instead, plainly and with respect, to go no further.
The categories above are creatures of United Kingdom law. No foreign equivalence exists and none is claimed: your own country's law decides what may lawfully be put in front of you and what you may act upon, and a number of jurisdictions restrict their residents from acting on foreign material of this kind. By proceeding, you confirm that you may lawfully do so under the law of your place of residence. That confirmation, and that responsibility, are yours alone.
Now tell us who you are. We will hold you to it exactly as far as the law does.
Then we must ask you to stop here, and we ask it with respect.
The rules that close this room to private individuals exist for their protection, and we keep them to the letter. Nothing you have seen on this page is an invitation to engage in investment activity. If your family maintains an office or retains professional advisers, they are welcome to read this room and to write on your behalf. If you answered in error, write to the firm at its registered address, marked Patrimony, and say so: the correction is made in writing, not by a second click, because the record of who passed this gate is part of how the gate is kept.
By answering, you make a formal representation of your own legal status, on which this firm relies as its grounds for opening this room. The duty under section 21 is ours and it stays ours: your declaration does not move it, and was never asked in order to move it. What a false declaration does is different: it is a misrepresentation, yours to answer for, on which this firm will rely. The answer is held in your browser and transmitted nowhere: this site collects nothing.
Patrimony · Where you live
Where you live decides what may reach you.
The least understood fact in cross-border wealth is this: the law that governs an approach to you is not only the law of the manager, and not only the law of the firm beside you. It is yours. Your own country decides what may be put in front of you, what you may act on, and sometimes whether your capital may travel at all. We read that law before anything else happens, because a room that ignores it is not protecting you, whatever else it does well.
01 · The map
Terrain, not advice
The same table, under seven different skies.
What follows is terrain, stated at the level of rules as at August 2026, and it is not advice on your facts. Every regime on this map has moved in recent years and several moved in the last twelve months: nothing here is relied on in an engagement without being checked again on the day it matters. Its purpose is narrower and more useful: to show you that we have read the map before asking you to walk it.
The home regime, and the cleanest case. The financial promotion rules decide who may be approached and how; the gate on this practice exists for exactly that reason, and no exchange control stands between a UK family and the table.
Six states, six regimes, and treating them as one bloc is the region's most repeated analytical error. Some states hold recognised routes for sophisticated capital of scale. One state offers no such route at all, and is treated by this practice with corresponding conservatism. Residents of the Emirates outside the two financial free zones stand under a different regulator from the centres themselves, and that distinction is read before any conversation about them begins.
For a resident Indian individual, the exchange-control regime caps what may travel abroad each year at USD 250,000, cumulative across every permitted purpose, which reorders the whole question. And the restriction is not only yours: an intermediary that solicits overseas investment services to residents inside India needs the central bank's prior approval, which is why this practice does not approach anyone in India, ever, and records who approached whom from the first letter. The shapes that work at scale are different ones: diaspora wealth already held outside India in freely repatriable accounts, entities moving under the overseas-investment rules, and families whose investable assets already sit offshore. The diaspora's own rulebook is read precisely at the development practice.
The narrowest doors of all. Contact must genuinely originate with you, the reading of that rule is strict and has tightened, and each member state applies its own version. This practice builds nothing there without country counsel, and says so rather than improvising.
Serious centres with their own licensed cores, and one of them is a stop rather than a route: Hong Kong's regulator treats rewarding an unlicensed introducer as generally unacceptable, so work touching Hong Kong runs through licensed intermediaries or does not run. Singapore draws marketing and introducing into the same licensed category as dealing, and is workable only inside its accredited and institutional framework, confirmed case by case. Where a model does not fit a jurisdiction's law, we do not bend the model or the law. We route differently, or we decline.
The map is not advice. It is proof we have read it.
02 · The screen
Before anything
One question is answered in writing before an engagement exists.
Which law governs you being in this room. Your residence, the residence of your vehicles, and the origin of the approach are established first and recorded. If the answer is not clean, the engagement does not begin. This is not caution for its own sake: it is the difference between a family protected by the rules of three jurisdictions and a family exposed to all of them.
We record it, in writing, from the first contact. In several jurisdictions that single fact is decisive of what is lawful. In others it decides nothing at all, because their rules apply however the contact began, and the screen treats them accordingly. The record protects you exactly as much as it protects us, and we never pretend it does more than the jurisdiction allows.
Residence, domicile and the seat of your vehicles, confirmed before substance is discussed. The answer routes everything that follows, including whether anything follows.
Where your capital may move from, under whose rules, through which regulated channels. Read before the table, not discovered after it.