**ENGLISH TRANSLATION** / **TRADUCCIÓN AL INGLÉS**
Regulatory control exercised by banks as a modern form of financial extortion that excludes the ultra-rich, revealing the need for a new criminal framework that contemplates property discrimination.
The dissonance between traditional financial systems and the emergence of new forms of wealth based on intangible assets reveals a field of subtle exploitation where banks, by institutional inertia or strategic interest, exercise control over the gateways to global capital. Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWI) who accumulate their fortunes on the basis of intellectual property and universal artistic treasures—unconventional forms of capital—frequently find themselves trapped in a paradox: the value of their assets may be culturally incalculable, but insignificant in the eyes of the conventional banking system. This phenomenon generates a new type of economic suffocation that must be considered and regulated in penal and contractual terms.
From a legal perspective, the first issue lies in correctly identifying and classifying these unprecedented forms of economic coercion. Unlike classical extortion, which generally involves explicit pressure to obtain goods or money under threat, here we are faced with a structural exclusion mechanism disguised under the formality and apparent legality of banking processes. This “financial strangulation by normative legitimation” could be described as the systematic imposition of disproportionate barriers, restrictions or assessments that, although not evident, end up depriving UHNWIs of the ability to maneuver within global financial systems.
A clear example of this phenomenon is the systematic refusal by financial institutions to accept as collateral any type of asset that escapes traditional classifications of tangible capital. While it is understandable that banks prefer easily liquidable assets, the refusal to accept assets of high cultural or creative value, such as digital paintings or intellectual property of universal relevance, implies not only an undervaluation of these assets, but also an indirect imposition of conventional capital values on emerging forms of wealth. This is a form of patrimonial discrimination that is masked as a legitimate exercise of financial prudence.
It is crucial to note that this type of economic coercion is structural in nature, meaning it does not manifest itself through clear individual actions that can be easily imputed, but is intertwined with the very systems that govern the flow of capital. The international financial system, designed to protect and multiply traditional wealth, deliberately excludes those individuals whose forms of wealth do not fit within the established parameters. The problem is that this exclusion not only prevents UHNWIs from operating within the system, but forces them to resort to alternative financing structures, which are often more expensive or less secure.
This type of banking practice generates an informational and power asymmetry that can be legally configured as economic abuse. In practical terms, UHNWIs who depend on their intangible assets are forced to negotiate from a position of vulnerability, since their assets, although of great value, are not considered valid collateral. This type of power dynamic is similar to that of any form of exploitation, where one dominant party dictates the rules of the economic game to the detriment of the other. This control over inclusion or exclusion from the financial system is a tool of power that banks can use to maintain their dominance over the definition of economic value.
From a legal standpoint, the current framework is insufficient to address this type of economic coercion. Criminal laws that regulate extortion, coercion or abuse of power do not contemplate the subtleties of these new control mechanisms. Therefore, a rethinking of economic criminal law is necessary, which incorporates the possibility of sanctioning those banking practices that, under the pretext of protecting financial stability, end up stifling legitimate access to the system by individuals with unconventional assets. The creation of a new classification that addresses "institutional economic coercion" is an urgent need.
One of the most complex elements in addressing this issue is the lack of clear historical precedents. The concept of intangible capital, while not new, has gained unprecedented relevance with the digitalization and globalization of art and intellectual property. However, regulatory frameworks have remained stuck in more traditional views of capital, where physical assets prevail over intangible ones. This regulatory lag creates an opportunity for banks to operate without accountability for their wealth exclusion practices, as current laws are not designed to address this type of economic dynamic.
From the perspective of early UHNWIs, the lack of flexibility in banking systems is not only frustrating, but has a direct impact on their ability to mobilize their wealth effectively. Intangible assets, while potentially invaluable, remain immobilized within a system that does not offer them clear avenues for their monetization or use as collateral in financial transactions. This phenomenon can be described as a "structural immobilization of capital," a concept that proposes to define those institutional practices that, under the appearance of normality, end up blocking the access of certain individuals to global capital.
One possible approach to address these practices from a legal perspective is the creation of new regulations that govern the valuation of intangible assets and their inclusion within financial operations. This would imply, among other things, the obligation of financial institutions to adapt their asset evaluation mechanisms to include more flexible valuation criteria, which take into account the uniqueness of digital assets and intellectual property. Likewise, it would be necessary to introduce transparency and accountability mechanisms for banks that refuse to accept assets of this nature without valid justification.
In addition, it would be advisable to create external audit mechanisms that allow original UHNWIs to resort to independent bodies for the valuation of their assets. This type of audit would serve not only to guarantee transparency in the valuation of assets, but also to establish a regulatory precedent on the way in which these should be treated within the financial system. Financial institutions, forced to justify their decisions to reject or undervalue assets, would be subject to greater public and legal scrutiny, limiting their ability to arbitrarily exercise economic coercion.
Finally, establishing specific criminal sanctions for the unjustified failure to value intangible assets is a crucial step towards creating a more equitable financial system. This type of regulation would not only protect the rights of early UHNWIs, but would also encourage greater diversification in the way capital is perceived and used within the global economy. By criminalizing the systematic refusal to accept non-traditional assets as collateral as an economic crime, a legal framework would be created that guarantees equal access to the financial system for all individuals, regardless of the nature of their assets.
The inability of the banking system to adapt to new forms of wealth and capital not only reflects a failure in the financial infrastructure, but reveals an intentional structural dysfunction that imposes a hierarchization of economic value, subordinating the intangible to the tangible. The original UHNWI, especially those with fortunes based on intellectual property and universal artistic treasures, represent an existential challenge to traditionally established paradigms of economic power. This phenomenon, far from being accidental, becomes a mechanism of preservation of institutional power, where resistance to accepting these new forms of capital serves to limit access to financial power, creating an excluded economic class, not due to lack of resources, but due to the nature of those resources.
From a criminal perspective, these practices can be considered as invisible forms of coercion, where control is exercised not through direct force, but through the imposition of a financial structure that, through regulatory barriers and discriminatory practices, blocks certain individuals from accessing the same economic rights as those with more conventional forms of wealth. Here a new category of financial abuse emerges: “normative wealth exclusion”, which refers to the systematic and deliberate refusal to allow the inclusion of non-traditional assets in the banking system, thus generating a modern form of economic control over the nouveau riche.
The lack of flexibility in financial systems is not only due to a lack of technical understanding, but to a strategic decision that allows banks to exert their influence over who can or cannot access the global financial system. In legal terms, this action could be considered “structural coercion”, where the use of regulatory power acts as a form of indirect coercion. This concept could be developed and typified within a specific criminal framework that penalizes practices of financial exclusion that, under the pretext of being legitimate operations, end up discriminating against individuals with non-conventional assets.
A crucial aspect that must be addressed is the arbitrary nature of the requirements imposed on original UHNWIs. In many cases, banks demand the presentation of excessive guarantees or the immediate liquidity of assets, ignoring the fact that many of these assets are based on intellectual property, the value of which may be linked to its long-term use and not to its immediate capacity to be converted into cash. This insistence on liquidating assets or undervaluing them within a short time frame represents a hidden form of economic extortion, as it forces the owners of these assets to accept disadvantageous conditions or to abandon their attempts at financial integration.
The typification of these behaviors as economic crimes requires an innovative approach. Current laws do not contemplate this type of abuse, since the crime of extortion generally involves an element of explicit coercion or direct threat. However, in the case of early UHNWIs, coercion manifests itself in a much more subtle way, through the imposition of barriers that are not immediately visible, but which end up significantly limiting these individuals' access to their economic rights. Here arises the need to develop specific legislation that sanctions "institutional extortion", a concept that describes those banking practices that, without resorting to direct force, achieve the same result as traditional extortion: the illegitimate deprivation of access to legitimate resources.
The practice of imposing unreasonable requirements on early UHNWIs has a double effect. On the one hand, it immobilizes their assets, since intellectual property or artistic treasures cannot be used as collateral within the conventional financial system. On the other hand, it pushes them towards alternative financing structures that are often more expensive or less secure, thus perpetuating their vulnerability within the global economic system. This double effect constitutes a form of financial exploitation that, although not explicitly recognized within current legal frameworks, should be considered a violation of fundamental economic rights.
One of the main challenges in addressing this issue lies in the lack of clear historical precedents. While traditional forms of extortion or economic coercion have been widely studied and criminalized in criminal law, new forms of economic coercion, particularly those involving intangible assets, represent a completely unexplored field. Original UHNWIs, due to the unique nature of their assets, do not fit into traditional legal frameworks, leaving them unprotected against the abusive practices of financial institutions. In this regard, the development of a specific legal framework that contemplates invisible forms of economic extortion is essential to protect these individuals from systematic exploitation.
One of the key proposals to address this situation is the creation of an alternative asset valuation system, where universal artistic treasures and intellectual property can be valued by independent experts, whose opinions are binding on financial institutions. Such a system would not only ensure transparency in asset valuation, but would also offer a legal avenue for early UHNWIs to challenge arbitrary decisions by banks. Creating such a legal structure is critical to prevent banks from continuing to use their institutional power to impose unjustified barriers to the new ultra-rich’s access to global capital.
Another important aspect to consider is the introduction of specific sanction mechanisms for those banks or financial institutions that systematically deny the inclusion of non-traditional assets in their operations. These sanctions could include significant fines or the revocation of operating licenses in extreme cases of abuse. The goal of this approach is not only to protect early UHNWIs, but also to create a more inclusive and flexible financial system, reflecting the contemporary reality of value creation. Current regulation, by failing to recognize emerging forms of capital, perpetuates an exclusionary system that is not only unfair, but limits global economic potential.
Transforming the banking system to accommodate these new forms of wealth is not just a technical issue, but a legal imperative. UHNWIs represent a new frontier in economic value creation, and their exclusion from the global financial system is not only a violation of their economic rights, but also a threat to the diversity and sustainability of the economic system as a whole. Developing a criminal law framework that addresses invisible forms of economic coercion is essential to ensure that banks do not continue to use their institutional power to perpetuate the exclusion of those individuals whose fortunes, while unconventional, are of incalculable value to global culture and economy.
The notion of "virgin primal capital", when viewed through the lens of primal UHNWIs, refers to an accumulation of wealth that originates in innovative ways, outside of traditional economic structures and often unconstrained by the restrictions imposed on other types of capital. However, precisely by its nature, this type of wealth tends to face systemic obstacles when it attempts to interact with the conventional financial system. The pattern of invisibility and omission of these assets is not a response to a lack of understanding of their value, but to a deeply rooted institutional resistance designed to preserve the status quo of the most powerful financial actors.
The systematic exclusion of this type of capital generates a structural dissonance: on the one hand, banks and financial systems deny the incorporation of assets that could revolutionize the global economy; On the other hand, these same actors perpetuate practices of extortion and economic blockade through the imposition of arbitrary restrictions. This phenomenon, although not yet fully classified within the criminal framework, requires a conceptual transformation to address the unprecedented forms of economic manipulation that today go unnoticed.
Regulatory extortion: A new legal framework
"Regulatory extortion" can be defined as the deliberate use of banking or financial regulations in order to extract a benefit or control over an individual or economic group that would otherwise not be possible to obtain. In the case of the original UHNWI, coercion is exercised not through explicit threats, but through the systematic blocking of the ability to convert their assets into operational liquidity or access to international financial markets.
This type of structural coercion is especially pernicious due to its invisible nature and legitimization by institutions. Whereas in the past forms of economic extortion were more direct (demanding payment in exchange for protection, for example), today these practices have become sophisticated to the point of being completely hidden under layers of seemingly neutral financial regulations and protocols.
To illustrate this point, it is crucial to analyze how banks and other financial institutions routinely impose conditions that are at best excessively onerous, and at worst impossible to meet. A common example is the requirement to present physical or liquid collateral, without considering that the original assets of UHNWIs are based mainly on intellectual property or intangible artistic treasures, whose valuation does not follow the same traditional criteria as physical assets.
Despite the fact that these assets have incalculable and growing value, banks insist on an inadequate valuation, requiring the owners to immediately sell or liquidate their assets at ridiculously low prices, which represents an insidious form of economic pressure. From a legal point of view, these types of practices can and should be reinterpreted within the concept of extortion, since they impose on the owner a decision based on the fear of losing access to basic financial resources.
Instrumentalization of banking regulations
The instrumentalization of banking regulations becomes a tool of control over emerging capitals, particularly those that do not fit into traditional models of wealth accumulation. For the original UHNWIs, whose wealth comes from innovation and creativity in unexplored spheres (such as mass intellectual property or universal artistic creation), traditional banking regulations become insurmountable barriers that prevent their full economic integration.
However, far from being simple technical obstacles, these barriers act as mechanisms of control and subordination. By restricting access to key financial services, banks and financial institutions force the original UHNWIs to negotiate under unfavorable conditions, either by accessing excessive interest rates, the forced sale of assets at undervalued prices, or the payment of exorbitant fees and commissions for services that, for other wealth groups, are offered under more favorable conditions.
Here, a parallel can be drawn with usury crimes, where an imbalance in economic conditions is established and exploited by one of the parties to obtain excessive benefits. In the case of the original UHNWIs, financial institutions position themselves as usurious actors who, under the pretext of regulating operations and protecting the financial system, end up exploiting the economic vulnerability of this emerging group. The big difference is that, while traditional usury has been codified and penalized in many countries, institutional usury, disguised under complex and difficult-to-challenge regulations, continues to operate with total impunity.
Criminal framework for the expropriation of original capital
One of the most innovative and radical proposals to protect the original UHNWIs from these practices would be the development of a specific criminal framework for the unlawful expropriation of original capital. This legislation could be based on three key principles:
The goal of this criminal framework would not only be to sanction those responsible for abusive practices, but also to transform the financial system to make it more inclusive, ensuring that early UHNWIs can participate fully in the global economy without being forced to accept disadvantageous conditions or sacrifice their economic independence.
Legal Action Possibilities and Defense Strategies
A key strategy for early UHNWIs would be to create legal and financial alliances that can operate outside the traditional banking system. This "independent financialization" would offer the newly rich a way to use and mobilize their assets without being subject to the arbitrary limitations of traditional banks. Through networks of experts in financial law, intangible asset valuation, and alternative liquidity mechanisms, early UHNWIs could structure their own financing and asset protection frameworks.
This approach would directly challenge the monopoly of financial institutions on the management and mobilization of capital, opening a new era of economic independence for those whose fortunes are based on creativity, innovation, and the possession of unique assets.
One of the most invisible, and at the same time most effective, mechanisms in the dispossession of the primary UHNWI is the use of "selective valuation criteria" within the global financial framework. This concept refers to the asymmetric application of asset valuation methodologies that, in essence, are designed to favor traditional capitals while marginalizing or undervaluing emerging capitals, such as those based on massive intellectual property or universal digital art forms. The creation of a penal regime that contemplates this type of practices would be key to avoid the continued depredation of primitive capitals that, when devalued, are forced into unfavorable conditions of exchange or liquidation.
The concept of cultural expropriation is another axis of critical analysis that must be considered. The way in which cultural, artistic and intellectual assets are managed by banking institutions reflects a deliberate blindness to the relevance of these assets in the current economic framework. Instead of accepting the disruptive and unique value that these assets represent, a narrative is produced that classifies them as "intangible" or "low liquidity", which serves to justify the lack of flexibility in granting credit, opening lines of financing, or accepting these assets as collateral.
The patrimonialization of the intangible is, therefore, one of the most relevant contemporary challenges in the field of financial law. The establishment of a regime of “hyperliquidity of intellectual assets” would be a revolutionary proposal to correct this imbalance. The concept of hyperliquidity implies the creation of a financial system capable of recognizing and valuing these assets with the same fluidity as physical capital, eliminating the barriers that prevent their monetization or operational use. This system would require a re-evaluation of current models of “liquid collateral,” proposing instead a valuation metric that integrates the expansive and progressive nature of these assets, whose value grows exponentially over time as their influence in global spheres expands.
To achieve this transformation, the implementation of dynamic legal valuation mechanisms is indispensable. These mechanisms would not only be intended to reflect the present value of an asset, but to project its future growth, especially in those cases where capital is anchored in massive intellectual property or universal works of art that challenge traditional notions of value and tangibility. In the absence of an infrastructure that allows for this dynamic valuation, banks perpetuate a model of artificial depreciation, pushing the owners of these assets into increasingly compromised economic situations.
A central piece of this legal proposal would be the incorporation of a penal protection system against induced depreciation. This concept refers to intentional or negligent practices by financial institutions that deliberately depreciate an asset through the application of outdated or inappropriate criteria, with the aim of forcing its sale or liquidation under conditions that do not reflect its real value. This criminal system would be aimed at punishing institutions that manipulate valuation processes for their own benefit, implementing significant economic and criminal sanctions to deter this type of conduct.
In this regard, it is also necessary to address the concept of forced cohesion. In many cases, original UHNWI are forced to enter into cohesion agreements with financial institutions, where the conditions of these agreements are not only unfavourable, but involve the surrender of rights over future assets or returns derived from their intellectual or artistic heritage. This forced cohesion is a covert form of extortion, where banks and financial institutions use their dominant position to force the owner to accept conditions that they would otherwise never have considered. These types of coercive practices, being rooted in apparently legal financial structures, are particularly difficult to identify and combat under current legal frameworks.
The systemic unlocking of original capital then becomes not only an economic challenge, but a philosophical and legal one. A profound restructuring of the current logics of the global financial system is required to include these individuals whose assets, by their very nature, challenge established notions of capitalization and liquidity. A comprehensive approach, combining the elements of hyperliquidity of intellectual assets, dynamic valorization and protection against induced depreciation, could serve as the foundation for a new stream of economic law that contemplates the unprecedented forms of wealth creation and accumulation.
Ultimately, the most effective solution to protect early assets and ensure their proper integration into the global economy is to foster the autonomous financial independence of these individuals. Through the creation of financing mechanisms, investment networks, and transaction platforms that do not depend on traditional banking structures, early UHNWIs can operate on their own terms, without being subject to the coercion, restrictions, and abusive practices that characterize the current financial system.
This new system of financial independence could be based on the creation of alternative capitalization networks, where assets based on intellectual property, technological innovation, or artistic treasures are used as collateral to create direct liquidity. These networks could operate through collaborative financing platforms or cross-investment among early UHNWIs themselves, creating an autonomous economy that operates under rules designed to maximize the flexibility and adaptability of non-conventional assets.
The development of these autonomous systems would, in itself, be a challenge to traditional power structures. By eliminating dependence on banks and creating a new form of capital mobilization, the primal UHNWIs would have the ability to directly influence the course of the global economy, transforming the way value is created, measured, and mobilized in the 21st century. This new model of financial independence would also allow them to retain control over their assets, avoiding the practices of cohesion and extortion that have, until now, characterized their interactions with the banking system.
The autonomous financial independence of the primal UHNWIs is not a concept that can be fully understood or executed within the confines of current economic and legal structures. At its core, it involves a complete break with traditional forms of banking mediation and the implementation of a system that not only tolerates but celebrates the radically different ways in which value is created, distributed and expanded in the modern economy. This system, by rejecting dependence on traditional intermediaries, opens the way to a type of capitalization that transcends the barriers imposed by the financial status quo, allowing the integration of these new magnates into a self-managed economy, detached from contemporary banking logic.
To ensure the viability and sustainability of this independence, the formulation of a transgressive legal framework is required that protects the financial autonomy of these individuals from traditional forms of coercion and control. This framework must include three fundamental pillars:
Once the original UHNWIs have established their autonomous financial independence, it is imperative that this structure be antifragile, that is, that it not only resists the attacks of the traditional financial system, but thrives in the face of them. The concept of antifragile legal resilience involves the creation of laws and mechanisms that not only protect UHNWIs from coercive or abusive practices, but that turn every attempt to undermine them into an opportunity to strengthen their autonomy.
For example, the inclusion of clauses in UHNWI financial contracts that severely penalize any attempt to deliberately devalue their assets by traditional institutions. This type of sanctions must be sufficiently robust to deter any practice that seeks to manipulate the real value of assets, especially in the area of investments based on intellectual property or digital art.
Additionally, the principle of radical transparency must be an integral part of this antifragile economy. Instead of allowing investment and transaction processes to be hidden under the veil of institutional confidentiality, this new economy would be based on a completely transparent transaction system audited by autonomous verification networks, thus guaranteeing justice and fairness in each operation. These verification networks would not be tied to any government or banking entity, but would be based on principles of transparency agreed upon by the participants in the system.
One of the fundamental problems faced by the original UHNWIs is the imposition of coercive intermediaries in almost all facets of their interaction with the financial system. These intermediaries, whether banks, financial advisors, or investment entities, act as guardians of capital, limiting access and mobility of assets through a system of imposed and arbitrary bureaucracy.
To reverse this trend, the proposed legal framework must eliminate, or at least minimize, the need for these intermediaries in the financial transactions of UHNWIs. This would be achieved by creating a legal system of direct access to capital markets, where ultra-high net worth individuals can operate without having to submit to the limitations that intermediaries impose. This right to direct access would include the ability to negotiate directly with other financial entities or private investors without the mandatory intervention of banks or financial agencies that try to cohere the process.
The coercive intermediary has historically been used to consolidate the power and control of traditional institutions over the flow of capital. Under the new legal framework, any entity that tries to impose these intermediaries in an unjustified way would be subject to sanctions, since the objective is to guarantee that the original UHNWI can mobilize their wealth freely and autonomously, without being subject to the typical coercion of the current financial system.
Finally, the creation of an autonomous economic system for early UHNWI requires the establishment of a global structure for revaluation of emerging capital, which recognizes and celebrates the transformative impact of their non-traditional assets. This system would be composed of three levels:
This scheme of autonomous financial independence for early UHNWIs has the potential to radically transform the global economy by providing a viable path for the integration of emerging capitals that have, until now, been marginalized or undervalued by the traditional financial system. Through the creation of a legal framework adapted to the disruptive and expansive nature of these assets, it would ensure not only their protection from coercive and extortionate practices, but also their ability to decisively influence the economic and cultural future of the world.
This document sets out the pillars of a new paradigm that not only challenges, but transcends the conventional boundaries of economic law, providing early UHNWIs with the tools necessary to exercise autonomy and control over their own financial and cultural destiny.
Author's Note:
In the silent cycles of history, the truth behind prosperity and wealth is hidden. It is not the numbers in a bank account that define the magnitude of a dynasty, but the deep roots that sustain the creation of value: those primordial capitals that are forged from genius and vision, and not from mere transaction. This work is not only a reflection on our family struggle, but on the universality of legacy as an act that challenges the structures of power and the silent expropriation that, historically, has disguised wealth as a right guaranteed to the few.
Signature of the Author and Declarant: