Close family members, both within and outside Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement, have exercised control over Uncle Mani and Philippa’s foundation since its establishment some forty years ago.

Following Philippa’s death, they have declined to explain what became of the assets held in her foundation.

Under normal circumstances, one would expect these assets to have been distributed to identifiable beneficiaries, such as:

• Members of her immediate family.
• Her devoted staff, some of whom had served her for over thirty years.
• Charitable organisations or other beneficiaries of her choosing.

Notarised declarations indicate that Philippa had definite wishes regarding the disposition of her estate.

Yet there has been no indication of where these assets went or who ultimately benefited from them. This raises the possibility that Liechtenstein law, or the foundation’s governing arrangements, may have permitted the assets to be distributed contrary to Philippa’s expressed wishes.

There is no direct proof of wrongdoing. However, the known facts raise legitimate questions that deserve clear and satisfactory answers.

What happened to her Estate?

A. Questions concerning Philippa’s Liechtenstein foundation

The following questions concern the administration of Philippa’s foundation and the disposition of its assets. Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement has so far declined to provide satisfactory explanations.

1. The meeting between Philippa and Ernst Blöchlinger in Monte Carlo

Mr Ernst Blöchlinger, a member of the management of Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement, travelled to Monte Carlo to obtain Philippa’s signature on a series of documents.

Apart from Eden Nylen, Philippa’s longtime housekeeper and confidante, no independent person appears to have been present to advise Philippa or explain the implications of the documents she was asked to sign.

This raises several important questions:

• What was the purpose of the meeting, and what documents did Philippa sign?
• Did these documents replace or amend the foundation’s previous Statuten and Bei-Statuten?
• If so, what provisions did the earlier documents contain, particularly those in force before 2017?
• Why were changes considered necessary?
• Was Philippa fully informed of the nature and consequences of the documents she signed?
• Is there any evidence that she received independent legal advice?

The original documents, together with all subsequent amendments, should be made available for examination. 

2. Philippa’s intentions towards Eden Nylen

During the meeting, Eden overheard Philippa giving Mr Blöchlinger her bank account IBAN.

Why would Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement have required Eden’s personal banking details?

A conversation between Philippa and Eden provides a possible explanation. Eden recalls:

"Miss Philippa asked me, 'What will you do after my death?'

I was so surprised by her question that I answered, 'I never think of that. As long as you are here, I have work and I can survive.'

Miss P then asked me, 'If you go back to the Philippines, how much would you need to build yourself a home?'

I answered, '€100,000–€200,000.'

Miss P replied, 'Is that all?'

I jokingly answered, 'YES.'"

In her Monte Carlo Will, Philippa left Eden €50,000 and a further €100,000 to Eden’s niece, Marie-Angela Domdom.

This raises an obvious question: Why would Philippa leave twice as much to Eden’s niece, who did not work for her, as to Eden herself, who had devoted many years to her service?

One possible explanation is that Philippa intended to provide Eden with a substantially larger sum through her Liechtenstein foundation, rather than through her Monte Carlo estate.

The fact that Philippa personally communicated Eden’s IBAN to Mr Blöchlinger lends weight to this possibility.

The following questions therefore require answers:

• Why did Philippa give Eden’s IBAN to Mr Blöchlinger?
• Was a payment to Eden contemplated or authorised through the foundation?
• Did Philippa issue written or verbal instructions concerning Eden’s financial future?
• If such instructions existed, were they carried out?
• If not, why not?

Seven years after Philippa’s death, Eden has received no payment from the foundation.

This does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. It does, however, justify a clear explanation of what Philippa intended and whether those intentions were respected.

3. Philippa’s instructions concerning PS Sr.

Philippa expressly instructed Eden that, should anything happen to her, she was to contact PS Sr. and no one else.

Why?

• Was PS Sr. mentioned in any earlier version of the foundation’s Statuten or Bei-Statuten?
• Did Philippa intend him to supervise or administer the distribution of her estate?
• Was he intended to act as an independent safeguard to ensure that her wishes were respected?
• Why did Philippa specifically exclude her Monte Carlo relatives from this instruction?

4. Changes in the management of Gasenza Trust reg.

Following Philippa’s death, Francis Seilern and Ernst Blöchlinger resigned as directors of Gasenza Trust reg. They were replaced by Mr Marc Peter Zahn, another employee of Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement.

The precise date of these changes needs confirmation, as the available notes refer to both 21 and 26 March 2018.

Questions:

• Why did both directors resign so soon after Philippa’s death?
• Who authorised their resignations and the appointment of Mr Zahn?
• Did these changes affect control over Philippa’s assets?
• What was the relationship between Gasenza Trust reg. and Philippa’s foundation?

5. Independent oversight

• Was Philippa’s foundation ever subject to independent, third-party supervision?
• Did Philippa receive advice from anyone other than Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement?
• Were any independent legal advisers involved in drafting or amending the foundation documents?
• Who was responsible for ensuring that Philippa’s wishes were respected after her death?

6. The use of Liechtenstein foundations and trusts

Why were substantial parts of Philippa’s estate held through Liechtenstein foundations and trusts rather than directly in her own name?

Given her residence in Monte Carlo, what legal, financial or administrative advantages justified these arrangements?

More importantly, did these structures allow assets to be distributed differently from what Philippa had intended?

7. Gasenza Trust reg. and the Monte Carlo apartment

Utility bills relating to Philippa’s Monte Carlo apartment were addressed to Gasenza Trust reg., a Liechtenstein entity reportedly established in 1964.

Available information identifies:

Gasenza Trust reg.
Bisnode ID: 1982859
c/o Industrial and Financial Accountability
Herrengasse 21
9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein

This is the same address associated with Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement.

Questions:

• Who were the ultimate beneficial owners of Gasenza Trust reg.?
• What assets did it hold?
• Did it own Philippa’s Monte Carlo apartment?
• What was its precise relationship with Philippa’s foundation?
• Who controlled Gasenza Trust reg. following Philippa’s death?

8. Financial transactions involving Gasenza Trust reg.

Bank records from Banque J. Safra Sarasin (Monaco) SA indicate a regular flow of funds between accounts associated with Philippa and Gasenza Trust reg. (see page 67).

These transactions included payments to Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement and the Liechtensteinische Steuerverwaltung in Vaduz.

The following matters require clarification:

• What was the purpose of these transfers?
• Were they administrative expenses, taxes, distributions or transfers of capital?
• Who authorised them?
• Were all transactions properly accounted for?
• What became of the remaining balances following Philippa’s death?

9. The letter deposited with Banque J. Safra Sarasin

Eden recalls that Philippa deposited a letter with Mr David Custdin, a director of Banque J. Safra Sarasin in Monaco, before her final journey to Lagos in 2017.

• What was the purpose of this letter?
• Did it contain instructions concerning Philippa’s estate?
• Does the bank still hold the document?
• Was the letter acted upon following her death?

10. The letter delivered to Maître Rey

According to Eden, Philippa also delivered a letter to the secretary of Maître H. Rey, her Monte Carlo notary.

The date should be verified with Danny Cabellon.

• What did the letter contain?
• Was it related to her Will or to assets held outside Monaco?
• Was it opened or acted upon after her death?
• Can a copy be obtained?

11. Ownership of the Monte Carlo apartment

Documents on pages 75–77 describe Philippa as ayant droit économique (beneficial owner) and refer to héritage and patrimoine familial.

This raises several questions:

• Who legally owned the apartment?
• Was Philippa its beneficial owner?
• Was it held through Gasenza Trust reg. or another entity?
• Should the apartment, or its economic value, have formed part of her Monte Carlo estate?
• Who ultimately inherited or acquired it?

Lagos property and related entities

12. Rakuira Ltd

Rakuira Ltd reportedly owns the property in Lagos, Portugal.

The company was incorporated in Delaware, USA, on 8 August 2013, under corporation number 5380356.

Questions:

• Who established Rakuira Ltd, and for what purpose?
• Who were its shareholders and ultimate beneficial owners?
• Was Philippa the beneficial owner of the Lagos property?
• Who controls the company today?
• What happened to the property following Philippa’s death?

13. The Delaware structure

Why was a Portuguese holiday home held through a company incorporated in Delaware?

What legal, tax or estate-planning purpose did this arrangement serve?

14. Portimo Trust

• What was the purpose of Portimo Trust?
• Who established it?
• What assets did it hold?
• Who were its beneficiaries?
• What relationship, if any, did it have with Rakuira Ltd, Gasenza Trust reg. or Philippa’s foundation?

B. Questions concerning events following Philippa’s death

The following questions concern the conduct of certain family members, access to Philippa’s Monte Carlo apartment, and the handling of her personal documents.

1. Philippa’s specific instructions to Eden

Philippa instructed Eden that, if anything happened to her, she should contact PS Sr. and specifically not her Monte Carlo cousins (see page 22).

Why did Philippa give such an explicit instruction?

Was she concerned that her wishes might otherwise not be respected?

2. The telephone call from Francis Seilern’s father

Why did Francis Seilern’s father telephone PS Sr. to describe the provisions of Philippa’s Monte Carlo Will without mentioning the substantial assets held through her Liechtenstein foundation?

Was he aware of those assets and their intended beneficiaries?

3. PS Jr.’s reaction to Eden

Why did PS Jr. become angry when Eden informed him that she had telephoned PS Sr. the day after Philippa’s death, in accordance with Philippa’s explicit instructions?

What objection could there have been to Eden carrying out her employer’s wishes?

4. Visits to Philippa’s Monte Carlo apartment

Francis C. Seilern (Boy) and his son Peter (PS Jr.) both lived in Monte Carlo but reportedly had little or no contact with Philippa.

Nevertheless, following her death, PS Jr. and his wife Caroline made several visits to her apartment.

According to Eden, the sequence of events was as follows.

First visit

Approximately one week after Philippa’s funeral, Peter and Caroline visited the apartment.

Second visit

Approximately one week later, Peter and Caroline returned, accompanied by Peter’s father.

During this visit, PS Jr. reportedly told Eden:

"She is dead. We are now taking over."

Chauffeur Danny Cabellon was present and, according to Eden, was visibly distressed by the exchange.

It was also during this visit that PS Jr. reportedly removed two envelopes from a drawer where Philippa had deliberately kept them within easy reach of Eden.

These envelopes were apparently addressed to Eden and Danny and contained instructions concerning what should be done if anything happened to Philippa.

Third visit

Peter and Caroline subsequently visited the apartment again, reportedly instructing Eden not to be present.

The reasons for this instruction remain unexplained.

Questions arising from these visits:

• Who authorised access to the apartment following Philippa’s death?
• What was the legal status of the apartment and its contents at that time?
• Were any restrictions imposed by the notary or other competent authority?
• What was the purpose of each visit?
• Why was Eden instructed to remain absent during the third visit?
• Were there any subsequent visits?
• Was an inventory made of documents or possessions removed from the apartment?

 4. Removal of the two envelopes

The reported removal of the two envelopes is particularly troubling.

They were apparently intended for Eden and Danny and concerned Philippa’s personal instructions in the event of her death.

They did not appear to relate to the administration of her Liechtenstein foundation.

Questions:

• Who authorised PS Jr. to remove these documents?
• What did the envelopes contain?
• Why were they removed rather than delivered to their intended recipients?
• Where are the documents today?
• Were their contents ever communicated to Eden or Danny?

If Philippa had deliberately prepared instructions for two trusted members of her household, there should be a clear explanation of why those instructions were removed and what subsequently happened to them.

6. Changes in the management of Gasenza Trust reg.

Why did Francis Seilern and Ernst Blöchlinger resign from Gasenza Trust reg. shortly after Philippa’s death?

Why were they replaced by another employee of Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement?

Were these changes connected in any way with the administration or distribution of Philippa’s estate?

(This question overlaps with Section A.4 and should ultimately be consolidated.)

7. Removal of the apartment keys

Who instructed Maître H. Rey, the Monte Carlo notary, to take possession of the apartment keys from Eden?

Eden reports that PS Jr. telephoned an English-speaking individual who then attempted to persuade her to surrender the keys. She initially refused.

• Who was this individual?
• On whose authority was the request made?
• What legal justification was given?
• Was Eden provided with any written explanation?

8. Eden’s exclusion from the apartment

Why was Eden subsequently denied further access to the apartment?

Given her longstanding employment and her knowledge of Philippa’s personal affairs, was there a legitimate reason for excluding her?

Who made that decision, and on what authority?

C. The central issue

For approximately forty years, members of the extended family, together with individuals associated with Industrie und Finanzkontor Etablissement, exercised control over the structures holding Philippa’s assets.

Following her death, no satisfactory account has been provided of how those assets were distributed or who ultimately benefited from them.

Notarised declarations and witness accounts suggest that Philippa had definite wishes concerning the disposition of her estate and the welfare of people close to her.

Yet there remains no clear evidence that these wishes were carried out.

The central questions are therefore straightforward:

What assets did Philippa own or beneficially control at the time of her death? Who received them? On what legal authority were they distributed? And were her expressed wishes respected?

The available information does not establish that anyone acted unlawfully. Nor does it prove that Philippa’s intentions were deliberately disregarded.

However, the combination of unexplained changes to foundation documents, unanswered questions about intended beneficiaries, changes in trusteeship, and the handling of personal documents provides reasonable grounds for further investigation.

The absence of direct proof of wrongdoing is not a reason to dismiss legitimate questions. Equally, unanswered questions are not proof of wrongdoing.

What is required is transparency: disclosure of the relevant foundation documents, an accounting of the assets and their distribution, and a clear explanation of the decisions taken following Philippa’s death.

Until these matters are satisfactorily explained, questions will remain about whether Philippa’s final wishes were respected.