Every entity was created for a reason. Every jurisdiction made sense at the time.
Taken together, what exists now is a construction that is genuinely difficult to explain — to a bank, to an investor, to a new partner.
No international group sets out to build a problematic structure. Everything begins with reasonable decisions.
Then banks start asking questions that the structure cannot easily answer. Crypto ends up outside the main architecture. The picture no longer reflects the business.
The same logic applies to personal capital.
Digital assets accumulate across wallets and platforms. Control that felt straightforward becomes dependent on intermediaries you did not choose deliberately. Independence turns out to be a configuration — not a fact.
We assess what exists, what is unnecessary, and what is missing.
Then we design a structure that every external counterparty — a bank, an investor, an auditor — can read without explanation.
We look at your structure the way a bank's compliance committee does.
We identify what generates automatic concern and address it — before the questions reach you.
Crypto inside a corporate structure is not a problem.
Crypto that sits outside the architecture — undefined, unembedded, unexplained — is.
We integrate the crypto layer so it reads as part of the logic, not a gap within it.
When a group grows beyond what its original structure was designed to hold, the architecture stops being a tool and starts generating its own complexity.
Banks cannot follow the logic. Investors spend due diligence working out the structure rather than evaluating the business.
We work at the level of the entire group — separating risk profiles, restoring governability, and designing a construction that holds under external scrutiny.
Formally, you control your assets.
In practice, that control passes through a bank, an exchange, a custodial platform — each with its own policies, its own risk appetite, and its own right to decide otherwise.
Most people accept this as the natural order of things.
It is not. It is an architectural choice. And it can be made differently.
We design personal crypto architectures: systems for holding digital assets in which control, privacy and independence are built into the construction itself — not as a statement of intent, but as a technical and documented fact.
This is not about speculation. Not about cryptocurrency for its own sake.
It is about building a private financial infrastructure for those who think about capital as a long-term construction — and who understand that the question is not whether to hold digital assets, but how the ownership architecture is designed.
Access to assets belongs to you alone.
No bank, exchange or regulator can freeze, restrict or alter it.
Because there is no point in the system through which that could be done.
The structure of your holdings is not exposed as a single coherent whole.
Transactional connections do not form readable patterns.
The level of confidentiality is consistent with private banking standards — without private banking's dependencies.
You use capital directly.
International transfers without correspondent banks. Holdings outside the banking system.
Modern payment solutions for everyday use, anywhere.
Non-custodial solutions and decentralised protocols are lawful in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions.
The architecture we design is built in the logic of lawful control over one's own assets — not concealment, not avoidance of obligations. For clients for whom reputational integrity is as material as independence, this is a point of principle.
We treat it accordingly.
We map reality before we propose anything.
What exists, how money moves, where the risks are concentrated — seen through the eyes of a bank’s compliance team, not the owner's.
We develop several structural options, each with a different balance of conservatism, cost, and implementation complexity.
You make an informed choice — not simply accept what you are given.
We run the proposed structure against the questions banks and investors actually ask.
Then we build the narrative — how to explain the structure, the flows, and the crypto layer so it reads as rational, not as a problem
waiting to be discovered.
A structure is not a document.
It changes as the business changes — and as the environment around personal capital changes.
For clients who need it, we work as a long-term strategic partner — adjusting the architecture, filtering out risky steps, maintaining coherence as circumstances develop.
Most problems with banks and investors arise not because lawyers did their work poorly.
They arise because the architectural layer was not in place before the lawyers began.
Our role is that layer — the one that makes the work of your lawyers, tax advisers and banking managers coherent, predictable and defensible. For private clients, it is the layer that turns a collection of wallets and platforms into a governed, private and resilient construction.
We are not a law firm, a tax adviser, or a regulated financial adviser.
We do not register companies, obtain licences, or negotiate with banks on your behalf.
We design the construction that makes all of that work.
Your business is lawful and real. But banks are declining applications, closing accounts, or sending requests you cannot easily answer.
You have companies in several jurisdictions, created at different times for different reasons. Even your own team struggles to explain what sits where and why.
A transaction, a capital raise, or an investor is on the horizon — and the structure needs to be in order before due diligence begins, not during it.
You hold digital assets — across wallets, platforms, and custody arrangements you did not choose entirely deliberately. Formally, the assets are yours. In practice, access depends on intermediaries whose policies you do not control.
You have thought about non-custodial solutions but do not want to navigate the technology alone.
You want a coherent system — not a collection of disconnected tools.
You are not facing a crisis. But you have a specific question that deserves a serious answer — how a bank will read your structure, whether a particular decision creates risk, how your operational model looks from the outside.
You need an honest external perspective, not a proposal for a multi-month engagement.
Vladimir Shuvalov — lawyer, legal and tax adviser, and the founding principal of Thinking Globally Consulting Limited.
Thirty years of practice across corporate law, international structuring, tax planning, and banking relationships — beginning in the early 1990s, when cross-border structures were being built without maps.
Since then: holding and operating structures across multiple jurisdictions, cross-border transactions, crypto strategy integrated into both corporate architecture and personal capital structures, governance frameworks that hold up under real scrutiny.
Vladimir's background →
One principal. A curated network of practising lawyers, consultants and auditors across the EU, UK, Hong Kong and beyond — assembled for the specific situation, not applied uniformly to every client.
What remains constant is the approach: understand the construction as a whole before proposing anything, and design solutions that work not only on paper but in the room where the banker or investor asks the hard question.
Every engagement begins the same way — a conversation.
No commitment, no pitch, no proposal sent in advance.
Whether the question concerns a corporate structure, personal capital, or a single specific problem — the first step is always the same: an honest assessment of where things stand and whether there is a basis for working together.
Thinking Globally Consulting Limited
Registered in England & Wales · Company No. 17138834
128 City Road, London EC1V 2NX, United Kingdom
© 2026 Thinking Globally Consulting Limited · All rights reserved