There may be all sorts of reasons why you might wish to make an investment under an assumed name, not least a desire for privacy. As a High Court case concerning the fate of a cache of gold bullion showed, however, such a course may well be illegal and is certainly not free from risk.
A businessman claimed to be the true owner of 3.96 kilos of bullion stored in vaults in Zurich and Singapore. He asserted that he had acquired the bullion over a number of years via an online investment company to which he gave a false name. He said that when asked to give proof of identity, he had provided the company with an altered version of his US passport and bank documents in the name of his alter ego.
He launched proceedings against the company after it refused to release the bullion to him on the basis that it could not be certain that he and his alter ego were one and the same. The company had made extensive, but fruitless, efforts to trace its named account holder but remained concerned that there might be two claimants to the bullion.
Ruling on the matter, the Court found that the businessman’s claimed conduct might have been illegal, potentially amounting to forgery and breaches of money laundering rules. That, however, was a matter for the criminal rather than the civil justice system. Denying his claim on grounds of illegality would not be proportionate or necessary to protect the integrity of the legal system.
After reviewing documentary and other evidence presented by the businessman, the Court noted that the picture was far from complete. However, it was more likely than not that his account was true and that he and his alter ego were indeed the same person. The Court heard further argument as to the terms of an order to be made in the light of its ruling.