Updated: June 2026

Case study · Sao Tome and Principe · Citizenship

How a Second Passport Provided Lawful AssetOwnership Privacy Without Concealment

Privacy and concealment are different things, and it is easy to confuse them. Our client wanted lawful confidentiality in asset ownership: reduced public visibility, but without violating the law or concealment from tax authorities. To be clear from the outset: a second passport does not eliminate beneficial ownership (UBO) disclosure requirements or tax obligations. We explain how we provided privacy without crossing into concealment.

Sergey EvdokimovSergey EvdokimovManaging Partner, BRIDGESReading time9 min readVerificationReviewed by an expert

This case is based on a real matter. The name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

BRIDGES client story - How a Second Passport Provided Lawful Asset Ownership Privacy Without Concealment
Contents

Case at a glance

Situation, solution and outcome in seven lines

Client
High-net-worth asset owner
Objective
Lawful asset ownership privacy, without concealment
Program
São Tomé and Príncipe, Citizenship by Investment
Boundary
Privacy ≠ Concealment from tax authorities
Key Point
UBO and tax obligations remain in place
Solution
Second passport + lawful structure for privacy
Outcome
Reduced public visibility, within legal framework

Client story

Client's Story

Where they started

The client—a high-net-worth asset owner—sought greater privacy: to make his asset ownership less publicly visible. The request is entirely lawful, but this is precisely where it is critical not to confuse privacy with concealment.

Why the standard route did not work

The distinction is fundamental. Privacy is the reduction of public visibility through lawful means. Concealment is the withholding of assets from tax authorities and circumvention of mandatory disclosure. The first is legal; the second is a violation. We made clear from the start: a second passport does not eliminate beneficial ownership (UBO) disclosure to regulators and banks, does not exempt one from tax obligations, and does not serve as a tool for concealment.

What BRIDGES had to solve

What a passport and a properly structured arrangement actually provide is lawful confidentiality: reduced public visibility of asset ownership while maintaining full compliance with mandatory disclosures to authorized authorities. In other words, information is accessible to those entitled to it by law, but is not publicly disclosed beyond what is necessary. The key is a lawful structure and transparency with regulators, not secrecy from them.

Why a standard answer would not do

At BRIDGES, the client came precisely for this balance: to obtain a second São Tomé and Príncipe passport and establish a lawful structure providing asset ownership privacy—without concealment and without violating mandatory disclosure requirements.

I wanted privacy in asset ownership—reduced public visibility, but strictly within the law. Dmitry immediately drew the line: privacy is lawful, but concealment from tax authorities and circumventing UBO disclosure is not, and a passport does not exempt you from these obligations. We established a lawful structure: information is accessible to those entitled to it by law, but is not publicly disclosed beyond what is necessary. I obtained both a second passport and privacy—without any concealment whatsoever. That honest approach is exactly what I needed.

Alexander · Asset OwnerThe name and certain identifying details have been changed to protect confidentiality.

What Was at Risk

What Was at Risk

The risk was not an external prohibition, but rather the possibility of confusing privacy with concealment. Concealing assets from tax authorities and circumventing UBO disclosure is a violation, and a passport does not exempt one from these obligations. The key was to provide lawful privacy—reduced public visibility while maintaining full compliance with mandatory disclosures.

That privacy (lawful) and concealment (violation) are different things;

  1. 01That a second passport does not eliminate beneficial ownership (UBO) disclosure;
  2. 02That tax obligations remain;
  3. 03That information must be accessible to those entitled to it by law;
  4. 04That the key is a lawful structure and transparency with regulators.

The logic of the solution

How the matter progressed: from checks to result

The chart is built from the facts of this matter and shows the logic of the work without decorative or unverified data.

  1. 01
    Stage 1

    Drew the privacy/concealment boundary. First, we clearly separated: privacy is lawful; concealment from tax authorities and circumvention of disclosure is not. This set the framework for all our work and steered the client away from a dangerous path.

  2. 02
    Stage 2

    Outlined what the passport does not do. We directly stated: a second passport does not cancel UBO disclosure to regulators and banks and does not exempt from tax obligations. The client entered without false expectations.

  3. 03
    Stage 3

    Built a lawful structure. We designed an ownership structure that reduces public visibility through lawful means while maintaining full mandatory disclosures to competent authorities.

  4. 04
    Stage 4

    Obtained the second passport. We secured São Tomé citizenship for the client—an additional status supporting the structure we built within the bounds of law.

  5. 05
    Stage 5

    Complied with all mandatory disclosures. We ensured that data is accessible to those entitled by law—regulators, banks, tax authorities—but not publicly displayed beyond what is necessary.

Takeaway. Conclusion: privacy is lawful, concealment is not. A second passport does not cancel UBO disclosure and tax obligations; a lawful structure provides reduced public visibility while maintaining full compliance with mandatory disclosures.

How we solved the task

How we solved the task

The work was split into verifiable stages so that every conclusion rested on documents.

  1. 01

    Stage 1

    Drew the privacy/concealment boundary. First, we clearly separated: privacy is lawful; concealment from tax authorities and circumvention of disclosure is not. This set the framework for all our work and steered the client away from a dangerous path.

  2. 02

    Stage 2

    Outlined what the passport does not do. We directly stated: a second passport does not cancel UBO disclosure to regulators and banks and does not exempt from tax obligations. The client entered without false expectations.

  3. 03

    Stage 3

    Built a lawful structure. We designed an ownership structure that reduces public visibility through lawful means while maintaining full mandatory disclosures to competent authorities.

  4. 04

    Stage 4

    Obtained the second passport. We secured São Tomé citizenship for the client—an additional status supporting the structure we built within the bounds of law.

  5. 05

    Stage 5

    Complied with all mandatory disclosures. We ensured that data is accessible to those entitled by law—regulators, banks, tax authorities—but not publicly displayed beyond what is necessary.

  6. 06

    Stage 6

    Provided privacy without concealment. The client obtained lawful confidentiality of asset ownership: reduced public visibility, full compliance with obligations. No concealment whatsoever—only privacy within the bounds of law.

Expert comment

When a request for confidentiality comes in, I first draw a very clear line, because privacy and concealment are constantly confused, yet the difference is fundamental. Privacy is lawful reduction of public visibility of ownership, and this is an absolutely normal request from a high-net-worth individual. Concealment is withholding assets from tax authorities and circumventing mandatory beneficial owner disclosure, and that is already a violation. I tell the client directly: a second passport does not cancel UBO disclosure to regulators and banks, does not exempt from taxes, and does not serve as a tool for concealment—and it's good that it doesn't. What can realistically be done is to build a lawful structure where public visibility is reduced, but all mandatory disclosures to competent authorities are observed: data is accessible to those entitled by law, simply not publicly displayed beyond what is needed. This client received exactly this kind of privacy—with a second São Tomé passport and a properly structured arrangement, without a single step toward concealment. Honest privacy works; dishonest concealment is always a landmine.

Sergey Evdokimov, Managing Partner, BRIDGESSergey EvdokimovManaging Partner, BRIDGES

Outcome

What the client received

What was required
How we did it · Result
Greater privacy
Lawful ownership structure · Reduced public visibility
Without violations
Privacy/concealment boundary · Everything within the bounds of law
Maintain disclosures
UBO and tax compliance · Data accessible to those entitled
Support the structure
Second São Tomé passport · Lawful confidentiality
Support the structure
Second São Tomé passport · Lawful confidentiality

The situation: the client wanted greater privacy in asset ownership without violating the law or resorting to concealment. What we did: drew the privacy/concealment boundary; outlined what the passport does not do; built a lawful structure; obtained the second passport; complied with all mandatory disclosures; provided privacy without concealment. What the client received: lawful confidentiality of asset ownership and São Tomé citizenship.

Practical takeaway

What matters in a similar situation

  • Conclusion: privacy is lawful, concealment is not. A second passport does not cancel UBO disclosure and tax obligations; a lawful structure provides reduced public visibility while maintaining full compliance with mandatory disclosures.
  • The client received privacy without concealment—because we built a lawful structure with a second passport, observing all mandatory disclosures, rather than withholding assets from competent authorities.

FAQ

Questions people ask in a similar situation

01Does a second passport give the right to hide assets from tax authorities?

No. Concealing assets from tax authorities and circumventing beneficial owner disclosure is a violation, and a second passport does not exempt from these obligations. Only privacy is lawful—reduction of public visibility within the bounds of law.

02How does privacy differ from concealment?

Privacy is lawful reduction of public visibility of ownership while maintaining full compliance with mandatory disclosures. Concealment is withholding assets and circumventing disclosure to competent authorities, which constitutes a violation.

03Is UBO disclosure retained?

Yes. Beneficial ownership disclosure to regulators and banks is retained. The lawful structure reduces public visibility, but does not eliminate mandatory disclosures to authorized bodies.

04What does a lawful structure actually provide?

Reduced public visibility of legitimate asset ownership: data is accessible to those entitled by law, but not publicly disclosed beyond what is necessary. This is privacy, not secrecy from regulators.

05What is the cost of São Tomé citizenship?

Non-refundable contribution to the National Transformation Fund from $90,000 per applicant. Exact conditions are clarified with the authorized body.

06Seeking greater privacy in asset ownership within the framework of law?

We will structure a lawful framework with a second São Tomé passport providing ownership privacy—reduced public visibility while maintaining full UBO disclosure and tax compliance obligations, without a single step toward concealment.

About the author

Sergey Evdokimov

Author: Sergey Evdokimov

Managing Partner, BRIDGES

As Founder and Managing Partner of BRIDGES, I am responsible for the firm's strategy and personally lead its most complex client matters, including cases in which citizenship or residence decisions require a strategic view and consideration of capital.

I begin by defining the objective: the outcome the client needs, the facts that affect the choice, and the matters that require further review. I then establish the available directions, the sequence of work, and the key decision points.

Once the strategy has been agreed, I oversee the BRIDGES team's key decisions and remain involved at the stages that shape the course of the matter. The purpose is to give the client a clear rationale for the chosen direction and a precise understanding of the next steps.

Prepared on the basis of BRIDGES practice and reviewed by a subject-matter expert.

Discuss your situation with Sergey

We will review your situation and propose a solution

Describe your task in a few words. We will study your situation, assess the legal and practical options and propose the next step based on your goals, documents and country.

Confidential · no obligations · answered by the relevant specialist

Or message us on WhatsApp or Telegram

Anna KovalevskayaHead of Legal, BRIDGES
Anna Kovalevskaya, Head of Legal, BRIDGES

Names and certain details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. The result described reflects one specific situation and is neither a public offer nor a guarantee of a similar outcome. Programme terms are stated as of 2026 and may change - please confirm current parameters with a BRIDGES consultant.