Succession & Wealth Planning | PCD Monaco Conference 2026

Succession planning should be, in theory, a straightforward professional exercise: identify the assets, understand the family, apply the appropriate legal structures, and document the intentions. In practice, the evidence presented by the PCD Monaco Conference's succession panel suggests that something rather different is happening in a significant proportion of cases — and that the failure points are as often psychological as they are legal.

Moderated by David Bell, the panel brought together Jean-Charles Gardetto of Gardetto Law Offices (Monaco), Cécile Vuillier founding partner of META OCTAV (Geneva/Hong Kong), David Wilson of Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd (Switzerland), and James Badcock, UK private client lawyer. Taken together, they offered a view of the succession planning landscape from Monaco, Switzerland, and the UK — three of the most commonly used jurisdictions for structuring wealth held by internationally mobile families.

Why Plans Fail

Asked what causes succession plans to fail, the panellists' responses were notably convergent. For Gardetto, the two primary culprits are a lack of communication — families discovering the structure only at the point of death, often without understanding it — and a lack of coordination, where multiple excellent advisers in different jurisdictions each do their job without anyone ensuring the pieces fit together.

Vuillier added a psychological dimension: the founder's inability to genuinely let go of control, a difficulty in projecting themselves into the succession scenario that can cause even well-structured plans to collapse under the weight of unresolved emotion. Wilson pointed to the paradox of over-engineering: some families have beautifully elaborate documentation, binders of legal instruments — but the assets were never actually contributed into the structures.

Badcock completed the picture: simply not planning at all remains the most common failure mode, though this too can have a psychological dimension. Many clients are aware that their circumstances keep changing, and use that uncertainty as a reason to defer decisions indefinitely.

Monaco's Planning Toolkit

Gardetto's tour through Monaco's estate planning toolkit was detailed and revealing. Monaco's Law 1448 has been a significant development, introducing private international law rules that allow residents to choose which law governs their estate — enabling, for instance, a British family to elect English law and thereby avoid Monaco's forced heirship rules. The Principality has recognised trusts since 1936 under Law 214, and the choice between a Law 214 trust and a foreign trust carries specific tax implications that require careful analysis depending on the relationship between settlor and beneficiaries.

A proposed Patrimonial Foundation is working its way through the legislative process, expected to become law within one to two years — though Gardetto noted that the current draft lacks several provisions that would make it truly competitive with equivalent instruments in other jurisdictions. The Société Civile Particulière remains a useful vehicle, particularly for families holding French real estate.

Switzerland's Toolkit — and Competitive Positioning

Wilson drew parallels with the Swiss landscape: recognised trusts, wills, and succession packs, with the increasingly important Swiss Private Trust Company (PTC) offering regulatory clarity and — critically — access to investment protection treaties that provide asset protection against expropriation risk. Switzerland's democratic model and its tradition of discretion, he noted, are features that distinguish it from offshore jurisdictions, particularly in the context of increasing transparency pressure elsewhere.

The BVI's beneficial ownership register is going live on 1 April, he noted with deadpan timing — meaning anyone with access and $75 can now check the beneficial owners of BVI companies. Switzerland and Monaco are not planning equivalent public registers.

The Next Generation

The panel's discussion of the next generation was among its most substantive. All four panellists noted a generational shift in how wealth and succession are approached by adult children. The next gen ask different questions: about purpose and impact, about the environment, about what the structures are actually for.

A Saudi family's adult children, working through a dozen Anstalts and a similar number of Jersey protector companies, had asked simply: "What is this all for? Where is there a place for us?" Some of the complexity, on review, had no further purpose beyond history.

Vuillier described a recent case — extraordinary in its precocity — of a 14-year-old who attended a trustee meeting fully briefed and asking sophisticated questions about discretionary trusts and jurisdiction comparisons. This is, she acknowledged, exceptionally rare. More commonly, the challenge for advisers is to persuade first-generation clients to begin the conversation with their children at all.

Privacy, Registers, and the Technology Risk

On the question of privacy and beneficial ownership registers, the panel was aligned: transparency is a real concern for clients, and the Swiss model — no public register, discretion "in the blood of the Swiss people" as Vuillier put it — remains a genuine competitive advantage. In Monaco, the register exists but is not easily accessible, and requires professional justification for access.

The bigger risk, Badcock noted wryly, is often the technology itself: the UK's Companies House recently exposed information that should have been private through a technical vulnerability. The law may be right; the systems may not be.