Who does what in an HNW case: a professional-collaboration model

A professional-collaboration model sets out, for one HNW case, who leads, who advises, who executes and who must be kept informed, and how each party's licence or registration is checked. The family stays accountable for every decision; the lead adviser coordinates; each professional owns only their own advice and documents. The rest of this page gives the roles, a stage-by-stage RACI table and the hand-offs that most often fail.

Why a written model helps

In practice the model is a written agreement, often informal, kept by the lead adviser. It differs from simply "having advisers" in one respect: every decision and every document has a named owner, and everyone works from the same set of family facts.

Cross-border cases typically involve a lawyer, a tax adviser in each relevant country, one or more banks, an insurer and its representative, a trustee, a corporate service provider (CSP) and, for larger families, a family office. Each is regulated differently and sees only part of the picture. A lawyer handling a share sale may be the first to see a liquidity event; an accountant may see a change of tax residence; a bank's compliance team may see that a source-of-wealth narrative does not match a trust deed. The model on this page describes roles. It is a framework for families and their advisers, not a description of any service this site provides.

Roles and how to check each one

Two further checks apply to everyone. MAS publishes an Investor Alert List of persons it has flagged, but states that the list "is not exhaustive", so absence from it is not evidence of regulation. And MoneySense warns that dealing with unregulated persons, including those based overseas, means forgoing the protection given under MAS regulations.

RACI by stage

The table uses the RACI convention: R = responsible for doing the work; A = accountable for the decision; C = consulted before the decision; I = informed after. The family is accountable throughout because only the family can make the decisions; the lead adviser coordinates but does not decide.

The stages match the eight-step process. Where a stage has two R entries, the parties should agree in writing which one owns the final document.

One fact base and information flow

The single most useful discipline in a multi-adviser case is one fact base: business, ownership, money flows, tax residence and family relationships described once, dated, and shared with each professional (with the family's written consent) rather than re-told to each one. Banks, insurers and trustees each run their own customer due diligence, and inconsistencies between what each is told are a common cause of delay — see source of wealth.

A practical information protocol:

1. The lead adviser holds the master fact file and a version log.
2. Each professional receives only the sections relevant to their mandate, and confirms the version they relied on.
3. Changes — a new tax residence, a marriage, a business sale, a new controller — trigger an update to all parties who relied on the earlier version.
4. Corporate changes follow statutory timelines; for example, companies must file updates to their register of registrable controllers with ACRA within 2 business days of entering or updating the information (ACRA RORC Guidance v2.0, 16 June 2025).
5. Decisions are minuted with the date, the options considered and who advised on each.

Fees, commissions and conflicts

Each professional in the chain is paid differently — hourly or fixed legal fees, advisory or management fees, commissions from product providers, interest margins on credit, trustee fees. None of these is wrong in itself, but each creates a different incentive, and the family should see them side by side.

MoneySense suggests asking advisers two direct questions: "Do you have any commercial arrangements with the product providers you recommend?" and whether they are restricted to recommending products from specific providers. MoneySense also explains that a firm may describe itself as independent only if it does not receive commercial benefits from product providers that could create bias, is free from restrictions on the products it may recommend, and is free from conflicts arising from a connection with a product provider (page updated 2026-09-14).

MAS's Guidelines on Fair Dealing (FSG-G04), effective 30 May 2024, apply across insurers, financial advisers, banks, trust businesses and capital markets firms. A sensible collaboration agreement asks each professional to disclose in writing how they are paid for this case, any referral arrangements between professionals, and any affiliation with a provider being considered.

Ten hand-off failures

1. Inconsistent facts given to the bank, insurer and trustee, triggering repeat enquiries.
2. Assignment revokes a nomination. Under a revocable nomination, assigning a policy — for example to a premium-financing lender — revokes the nomination (LIA, 2026). See financing and leverage.
3. Trust nominations are not easily reversed. Once made, the policy owner cannot unilaterally change a trust nomination (LIA).
4. Ownership mismatch between the trust deed, the policy owner and the bank account holder.
5. Controller registers not updated within ACRA's 2-business-day filing window.
6. Nominee directors not arranged through a registered CSP, contrary to the 2024 Act.
7. Accredited investor opt-in without explanation of the safeguards given up.
8. CRS self-certifications that contradict the tax adviser's residence analysis.
9. Wills that assume they cover everything, when CPF savings and nominated policies pass outside the will (MoneySense).
10. No one owning the annual review, so a change in residence or family status is never reflected.

The 2023 money-laundering case shows why gatekeepers are scrutinised: the inter-ministerial committee that reviewed it recommended, in October 2024, further support for gatekeepers such as corporate service providers in guarding against money-laundering risks (MAS media release, 2024-10-04).

Engagement checklist

Before work begins, the family and lead adviser can confirm:

1. Each professional's licence or registration, checked on the relevant register and dated.
2. A written scope for each party, including what they are not responsible for.
3. The named lead and how disagreements between professionals are escalated to the family.
4. Written consent for sharing the fact file, and which sections each party receives.
5. Fee, commission and referral disclosures from every party.
6. A document-ownership list (who drafts and who signs each deliverable).
7. A review calendar and the trigger events that require an earlier review.

The section-by-section questions are in the due-diligence checklists. If you need these points applied to your own circumstances, you can register your enquiry through the contact options on this site.