Signatures Taken From an Incapacitated Philippa (Undue Influence)

Shortly before Philippa Seilern’s death in January 2018, Ernst Blöchlinger (representing  Industrie & Finanzkontor, I&F, responsible for Philippa’s Stiftung) visited her in Monte Carlo and presented multiple documents for her signature at a time she was bed-ridden, neurologically impaired( Dr. Romain Gouirand, neurologist in Nice) and fully dependent on her housekeeper, Eden Nylen.

If these documents changed the foundation’s statutes, then they were signed at a time when Philippa no longer had the legal capacity to do so. Obtaining her signature under those conditions would constitute a serious abuse of trust.

No lawyer, adviser, or family member was present, an omission that raises the question of deliberate misconduct.

During this visit, Philippa gave Mr. Blöchlinger Eden’s Monte Carlo IBAN number.

Philippa’s act of giving Eden’s IBAN to Mr. Blöchlinger — and his question ‘Is that her?’ — shows that he understood that she expected of him, as foundation manager, to arrange for Eden’s future well-being.

Unlawful Entry Into a Sealed Apartment & Removal of Documents (Evidence Interference)

Within days of Philippa’s death, Peter Seilern Jr.—who had no contact in MC with Philippa—entered her Monte Carlo apartment despite judicial seals (sous scellés).

He returned a second time, demanded the keys, and insisted on entering alone, instructing Eden Nylen not to be present.

During the first visit he removed two envelopes kept with the chauffeur’s file—believed to contain Philippa’s written instructions for Eden and Danny.

This constitutes:
Unauthorized entry into a sealed property,
possible removal of testamentary or instructional documents.

Viewed together, Points 1, 2, and 3 suggest a coordinated effort to gain control over the foundation’s assets. 

 Sudden Resignations at the Foundation (Liability Avoidance)

Just two months after Philippa’s death, both:

Franz-Tassilo Seilern, Managing Director at I&F and director of Gasenza Trust reg. (owner of the MC apartment), and

Ernst Blöchlinger, resigned as Treuhandrat of the foundation.

Replacements were installed immediately.

This coincides with the disappearance of all known foundation assets and zero communication with beneficiaries, suggesting an attempt to distance themselves from decisions or transfers made shortly before or after death.

These circumstances raise the appearance of intentional wrongdoing.

Disappearance of Foundation Assets (Misappropriation)

Philippa’s properties (MC & Lagos) and investment portfolio—estimated at €10–20 million— held through her Liechtenstein foundation.

After her death:
No heirs, charities, or staff received anything.
No inventory, accounting, or distribution has been disclosed.
The MC apartment appears to have been sold without notifying close relatives or the long-serving staff.
These facts raise the possibility of asset diversion through foundation statute changes, hidden transfers, or internal re-designation of beneficiaries.

Attempts to obtain:

Foundation statutes & by-statutes,

Records of transfers,

Instructions left with the bank and notary

were refused.  PS Jr. acted under unknown instruction to seize the apartment keys from Eden.

The Lagos property was held through a Delaware company (Rakuira Ltd), whose ownership was explicitly withheld from family members.

This behaviour collectively indicates concealment.

Conclusion

Across all events… the pattern strongly suggests misappropriation of assets through manipulation of foundation governance and suppression of the grantor’s instructions.

The combination of vulnerable grantor (Philippa), unmonitored Liechtenstein structures, and actions by individuals with conflicts of interest constitutes a case requiring independent investigation.

Eden Nylen’s Financial Harm (Ethical Misconduct)

After Philippa’s death, all reference that Mr. Blöchlinger had formally acknowledged receipt of Eden Nylen’s IBAN number abruptly disappeared.

Philippa had clearly intended to make sufficient provision for Eden after her death.

Why were those intentions not carried out immediately?

Who made that decision?

To deny a long-serving, vulnerable employee what was rightfully her due—and to leave her to endure the resulting hardship for seven years—is an act of profound ethical failure.

It reflects conduct beneath the standards one should expect of Industrie und Finanzkontor Etabl.