It is a great myth that only people in the broadly "Anglo-Saxon" cultural or legal tradition understand the value and use of trusts, argues noted trust industry figure Daniel Martineau.

One of the great myths in the trust world over the ages has been that only Anglo-Saxons can really understand trusts. Somehow being brought up in an English language context endows English speakers with the DNA that allows them to understand, accept and be governed by trust principles. As proof of the theory, ethnic groups such as Latin American, Asians, Indians and people from the Middle East are often presented as proof that only Anglo Saxons really get it.

My personal experience is that while there may be culture gaps to get over, and some people will just never take on board the concept that they must give away their assets to a trustee and the control that that implies, there have been some remarkable exceptions to that rule that I have been delighted to be associated with from the Middle East, Latin America, from Asia.

Some recent events have further proven to me that the “trust culture gap” is really governed by environmental factors; if there are obvious and grave consequences to retaining control of assets, then a client will begin to appreciate “proper trust” management principles.

What do I mean by “proper trust” management principles? That the trust is irrevocable for a start; that the trustee exercises real control over the assets and is not merely carrying out orders from the settlor; and that the trustee is fully briefed on the management issues of the trust assets, takes on the active decision-making, and creates a paper trail to document the process.

But will a successful wealth creator really be willing to divest himself of a substantial part of his assets that he has taken a lifetime to accumulate? Will these people (who tend to be micro-managers and control freaks) really back away from the decision-making? Our experience is “yes, if…”. If what? If the settlor is being advised by a first rate private client lawyer (this is the critical element, in my view); if he understands that the consequences of retaining ownership/control are detrimental to the assets that he has created; and if he has a working relationship with trustees that give him confidence in their responsiveness, reasonableness and trustworthiness, (and that they can be removed if they fail on any of those counts).

Two situations that have reinforced to me that even those who suffer from the “trust culture gap” can be cured are with French clients and more recently, Middle Eastern clients.

For years, trust practitioners were misled by the myths that French clients would never accept a “proper trust” and furthermore, even if they did, the French Fisc would not “understand” or recognise them. The truth was that under bank secrecy, clients believed (sometimes encouraged by their offshore bankers) that simply hiding money accomplished the same things as trusts - only better. It gave them confidentiality, tax “efficiency” as well as allowing them to retain direct control, and giving them a cheap and cheerful solution with little or no structure costs.

In the last 18 months the lid has been blown off of this simplistic view.

· The public revelation that Liliane Bettencourt (L’Oréal heir, France’s wealthiest woman and alleged supporter of some of France’s most visible and venerable politicians, allegedly all the way up to the President), has been cheating on her taxes through the use of some rudimentary arrangements in Swiss banks and some offshore companies has highlighted the notion that even the politically-connected elite may be susceptible to investigation and punishment for not managing their financial affairs in a way that can be justified in a transparent world.

· The theft of information for a reported 24,000 clients from HSBC in Geneva by a French IT technician has brought home to French taxpayers (through appearances on French national television) that Swiss bank secrecy laws cannot guarantee confidentiality.

So, what has happened? French clients with non-tax compliant arrangements have come to the conclusion that they have three choices: do nothing and take greater future risks in an increasingly transparent world; or regularise their tax matters by voluntary declaration, or seek a legitimate means of maintaining their offshore investments. Where they come to the conclusion that the third option, seek a legitimate structural solution, is the one that they would like to pursue, our experience is that they do understand that the establishment and management of a “proper trust” is in their best interests, and they do then concede that the trustee needs to exercise control over the assets.

Turning now to even more recent developments, this time the “Arab Spring” in recent months in Northern Africa, we have seen a marked increase of Arab clients who, without a doubt, understand that having a safe pocket of assets that is neither in their name nor in their control is a good thing for them and their family. The “trust culture gap” certainly still needs to be discussed, debated, understood and accepted, but the gap is, without a doubt, closing.