ENGLISH TRANSLATION / TRADUCCIÓN AL INGLÉS
A Criminal Analysis of Stock Market Strategies and the Expropriation of Intellectual Property in the Emerging Ultra-Rich
Extortion is a well-known legal concept, in its classic form, in which direct coercion is exercised on an individual to obtain an illegitimate benefit. However, more recent developments in the dynamics of global financial markets, interactions between banks and high-net-worth individuals, and the growing influence of intangible assets and intellectual property, have given rise to unprecedented and complex forms of extortion, forms that remain invisible under current legal frameworks. Financial globalization has allowed banking actors to exert asymmetric pressure on the newly rich, especially those classified as Ultra High Net Worth Individuals (UHNWI) whose main assets come from intellectual innovations or universal digital works of art. These forms of wealth have unique characteristics that place them outside the scope of traditional models of asset valuation and protection, making them ideal targets for manipulation, covert coercion and sophisticated financial extortion.
This analysis focuses on identifying the unsuspected criminal mechanisms that operate at the intersection between the international banking system and the original UHNWIs, those whose assets are born from the intellectual property of innovations or intangible art, such as digital paintings and other artistic treasures of universal relevance. It is argued that banks and other financial institutions, instead of facilitating the incorporation of these new assets into the formal capital system, use intentionally opaque and arbitrary practices that constitute a form of structural extortion. These practices operate in the shadows, without their victims - who are often in the transition towards full financial integration - being able to recognize or, worse still, report the abuses suffered, given the sophistication with which these forms of coercion are executed.
One of the most recurrent strategies employed by banks to consolidate their control over the emerging assets of UHNWIs is the imposition of arbitrary barriers under the pretext of “due diligence” standards or internal risk control policies. While it is true that these measures are necessary in many contexts to prevent money laundering or criminal activities, in the case of high net worth individuals, especially those whose assets consist of universal works of art or innovative intellectual property, such policies become an excuse to delay or block the incorporation of such assets into the formal system. These barriers are imposed in such a way that they force the owners of these assets to accept unfairly unfavorable evaluations, onerous contractual conditions or procedures that place them in positions of financial vulnerability.
For example, the valuation of universal digital works of art or essential intellectual property does not follow the same patterns as conventional physical assets. The inability – or deliberate refusal – of financial institutions to accept alternative valuation methods based on less conventional metrics, such as cultural relevance, global impact or monetisation potential in future markets, constitutes a form of covert expropriation. Owners of these assets are forced to accept arbitrary appraisals made by banks, which are often far below actual values, all under the implicit threat of not being able to access credit lines, liquid capital or high-yield investments if they do not conform to the imposed assessments.
Another unsuspected form of extortion that occurs in this context is the use of blocking tactics or strategic neglect by banks when it comes to pristine assets that have not yet been formally integrated into the financial system. This phenomenon is aggravated when these assets are based on intellectual property, given that the intangible nature of these assets places them in a grey area of valuation and legal guarantee. Banks tend to classify such assets as "high risk" due to their lack of immediate liquidity, which allows them to justify denying access to fundamental financial instruments for UHNWIs, such as the use of deferred payments, structured financing or credit lines guaranteed by intellectual property.
The effect of these actions is a sophisticated form of expropriation in which the bank, under the guise of complying with internal regulations or risk control rules, deprives the owners of these assets of their ability to use their assets as collateral or as a means of financial leverage. In many cases, banks refuse even to allow the creators or owners themselves to value their assets according to their expectations, even though these valuations are based on tangible data, such as future contracts, usage licenses, or cultural valuation metrics endorsed by experts. This refusal can be seen as a form of economic coercion, in which banks exercise their power to impose their own valuations and conditions, allowing them to appropriate, de facto, a substantial part of the real value of these assets without the need to carry out a formal act of expropriation.
A critical aspect of these coercive dynamics lies in the imposition of unequal contractual terms that, while not falling into the traditional categories of extortion, effectively function as forms of financial coercion. Recognizing the strategic importance of integrating these emerging assets—and at the same time aware of the vulnerability of the new ultra-rich, who have not yet consolidated their position in formal financial circuits—banks impose contractual terms that severely limit the room for maneuver of the owners. These impositions manifest themselves in the demand for exorbitant collateral, disproportionately high interest rates, or even the requirement that the underlying intellectual property be transferred to trusts controlled by the bank, under the justification of protecting the integrity of the asset.
In this sense, the practice resembles the classic figure of extortion, in which the owner of the asset is forced to give up control or accept unfavorable conditions under the threat of losing access to the formal financial system. The fundamental difference lies in the sophistication of the tools used: violence or direct intimidation are not used, but rather legal and contractual mechanisms that, although ostensibly legal, violate the principles of fairness, transparency and good faith in contracting.
Since the practices described here do not fit neatly into traditional definitions of extortion or expropriation, a legal analysis is needed that proposes the creation of new criminal frameworks that allow for the prosecution and punishment of these covert forms of financial coercion. First, consideration should be given to the criminalization of "unlawful expropriation of original assets," a figure that encompasses those situations in which, through the manipulation of financial procedures and valuation instruments, the owners of intangible assets are deprived of the possibility of obtaining a fair value for their properties.
In addition, a more rigorous approach to the responsibility of banks in facilitating coercive contractual conditions should be incorporated into the international criminal framework. While banks have historically been untouchable due to their central role in the global economy, their responsibility in these dynamics of financial extortion should be subject to much deeper scrutiny. Imposing arbitrary terms or refusing to accept informed valuations of assets should be criminalized to the extent that these actions deprive owners of their legitimate ability to leverage and monetize their assets, especially when it comes to assets based on intellectual property or intangible art of universal cultural significance.
Another crucial element to consider in this analysis is the way banks use control regulations and “regulatory compliance” policies as tools to discourage UHNWIs from attempting to fully integrate into the financial system. Rather than facilitating the transition of these new rich into formal capital circuits, banks employ arbitrary and irrational requirements—such as the demand for unverifiable documentary evidence, or disproportionate collateral—as a means to maintain control over these individuals and their assets.
The consequences of these tactics are multiple and devastating. Not only are new UHNWIs denied the ability to formalize their assets and access the liquidity they would need to make strategic investments, but a dynamic is perpetuated in which banks retain full control over the assets, dictating the terms and conditions under which these individuals can operate in the market. This form of coercion differs from traditional extortion practices, as it is not based on explicit threats, but on a systemic manipulation of financial rules and regulations.
In the context of the criminal analysis of invisible forms of financial coercion and structural extortion, it is imperative to address the increasing sophistication of financial control strategies that, although legally valid on the surface, constitute a form of economic violence against original ultra-high net worth individuals (UHNWIs). These tactics not only operate under the cloak of complex financial mechanisms, but are also designed to limit the autonomy of these individuals in the management of their own assets. The analysis must delve into how banks and financial institutions use subtly coercive practices to impose their dominance over new wealth, actively blocking the ability of these individuals to access the tools necessary to protect and grow their wealth independently.
Banks, in their role as financial intermediaries, have evolved into entities that not only manage capital, but also establish barriers to entry for emerging assets that do not fit into traditional models. In the case of UHNWIs whose wealth is derived primarily from intellectual property and intangible works of art, banks tend to impose contractual and regulatory structures designed to keep these individuals in a subordinate position, under the control of the banking system.
One of the most effective invisible practices in this coercive strategy is the imposition of binding contracts that severely limit the options of these individuals to diversify their assets or transfer their wealth outside the framework of a specific banking entity. By including contractual clauses that oblige the owner of these assets to undergo recurring appraisals, or that require the bank's approval for any future transaction involving such assets, an asymmetric relationship is created in which the owner's autonomy is drastically reduced. This situation is aggravated when the assets in question are universal treasures or intellectual property that has not been formally integrated into the financial market, which gives banks almost absolute power over the valuation and use of such assets.
Another central aspect in the analysis of these coercive dynamics is the way in which banks manipulate the perception of risk associated with intangible assets. For assets based on intellectual property, especially those linked to cultural or artistic innovations of a global nature, banks tend to impose overvaluations of the risk of such assets, thereby justifying the refusal to provide favorable credit conditions or to offer access to advanced financial tools such as structured investment funds.
This manipulation of risk perception becomes a form of covert extortion when the bank uses its position of power to impose onerous terms on the owners of assets that would otherwise be highly valued in more specialized markets. By blocking the access of these assets to more dynamic financial circuits, banks maintain control over the liquidity of UHNWIs, forcing them to operate under unfavorable conditions and, in many cases, leading to the gradual loss of their net worth through unfavorable interest rates, fees and contractual conditions.
Primal UHNWIs, especially those who can also be classified as universal polymaths – geniuses in multiple disciplines whose global recognition is still in the process – are particularly vulnerable to these forms of invisible extortion. Their wealth is mostly linked to their creative capacity and the production of intangible assets, such as digital painting or innovations in cutting-edge fields. However, their inexperience in the complex dynamics of the global financial system makes them easy prey for banking institutions that, under the guise of offering advisory services and asset protection, end up consolidating their control over these individuals.
One of the most common tactics in this context is the implementation of “risk management” schemes that, while presented as safeguards to protect the individual’s assets, actually function as tools to transfer control of the assets to the bank. This is achieved, for example, by requiring that the assets be managed by a bank-controlled trust, or by imposing restrictions on the use and disposition of the assets, under the guise of ensuring their long-term security. These conditions, although disguised as professional advice, in practice drastically reduce the owner's ability to manage their own assets, establishing a relationship of financial dependency that perpetuates the UHNWI's subordination to the bank.
A key tactic in this coercive dynamic is the systematic refusal by banks to recognize independent or non-conventional metric-based valuations for assets of high cultural or intellectual value. In many cases, the owners of these assets present valuations supported by experts in art, culture, or intellectual property, which clearly establish the potential and current value of such assets. However, by rejecting these valuations, banks force the owners to accept the bank's internal appraisals, which are often significantly lower and less favourable to the owner.
This rejection not only affects the UHNWI's ability to use their assets as collateral to access high-end financial instruments, but also contributes to the gradual erosion of the perceived value of their assets in the market. By imposing its own valuation methodology, the bank becomes the sole arbiter of the value of these assets, establishing absolute control over their financial future. This practice can and should be seen as a form of financial extortion, given that the bank uses its institutional power to force the owner to accept unfavourable conditions under the threat that, if they do not do so, they will not be able to access formal financial channels.
Given the sophistication and subtlety of these tactics, it is essential to propose a reformulation of the concept of financial extortion, adapted to the new contexts of asymmetric power between banks and the original UHNWI. This criminal framework must recognize that economic coercion does not always take the form of an explicit threat or direct violence, but can manifest itself through the manipulation of financial processes, the imposition of abusive contractual conditions and the deliberate creation of obstacles to the financial integration of non-conventional assets.
In order for these practices to be prosecuted criminally, it is necessary to develop a criminalization that recognizes the responsibility of banks in the use of their institutional power to extract value from emerging assets through covert coercive means. This criminalization should include the creation of new criminal figures, such as "institutionalized financial coercion" or "unlawful expropriation of intangible assets," which allow the owners of these assets to denounce and legally pursue the institutions that perpetuate these practices.
This new legal framework must also consider the ways in which banks use the monopoly of financial information to consolidate their control over emerging assets, blocking the possibility of owners accessing fair valuations and the tools necessary to defend their economic interests. The creation of a protection system for UHNWIs that recognizes their vulnerability to these dynamics is essential to guarantee a more equitable and transparent financial environment.
As we delve deeper into the coercive structure applied by financial institutions towards early UHNWIs, a phenomenon emerges that could be called "regulated exclusion," a form of extortion through the imposition of regulations designed to limit the access of these emerging assets to conventional financial resources. This form of exclusion does not operate explicitly, but is based on the exploitation of regulatory loopholes and the interpretative flexibility that banks and other financial institutions have when applying their internal policies. Through these practices, UHNWI, especially those with non-conventional assets based on intellectual property and intangible artistic assets, are prevented from accessing the financial services essential for the consolidation of their wealth.
In this context, universal artistic assets and other intangible assets play a central role, since they represent forms of wealth that escape traditional banking control schemes. Since these are treasures that do not fit into valuation patterns based on tangibility or immediate liquidity, banks adopt a stance of rejection or disinterest. This lack of interest, however, is not simple negligence; It is a deliberate strategy of exclusion that allows financial institutions to evade the responsibility of facilitating the incorporation of these assets into the system, while preserving control over tangible and more easily integrated assets.
A typical example is the reluctance of banks to accept as collateral digital works of art or cultural assets of universal value whose financial appreciation does not follow conventional regulations. Instead of designing financial products appropriate to the particularities of these assets, banks impose unreasonably restrictive criteria, which ultimately forces the owners of such assets to seek alternatives outside the formal banking system, or to give in to unfavorable conditions imposed by the bank in order to access basic financial services.
This regulated exclusion can be understood, from a criminal perspective, as a sophisticated form of extortion, in which the owners of these assets are indirectly forced to accept devalued conditions or to give up the full integration of their assets into the financial system. At a conceptual level, the mere fact that a financial institution has the ability to unilaterally define which types of assets are acceptable and which are not, without offering viable alternatives for non-conventional assets, constitutes a form of systemic coercion. From this perspective, banking regulations not only exclude these assets, but also make them vulnerable, forcing UHNWIs to operate under parallel and unregulated schemes, with all the economic and legal consequences that this entails.
Another associated phenomenon emerges from this form of regulated exclusion: asset discrimination. This discrimination operates through the fragmentation of the assets of UHNWIs, especially those who possess a diversity of assets between tangible and intangible. Banks, knowing that tangible assets are easier to control and value under traditional schemes, tend to grant greater benefits, preferential rates or access to financial products to UHNWIs whose assets are mainly based on physical goods. On the other hand, those individuals whose assets are mainly composed of intellectual property, digital art or intangible assets face greater difficulties, higher interest rates and more restrictive contractual conditions.
This type of discrimination is not explicit, but is manifested through valuation policies, which tend to undervalue intangible assets under the excuse of their “high volatility” or “low liquidity”. The lack of liquidity argument, however, fails to take into account that many of these assets, particularly those with global cultural or artistic relevance, have a considerable market value that, while not following traditional supply and demand patterns, is subject to appreciation factors that banks choose to deliberately ignore. This refusal to recognize the value of intangible assets becomes a tool of control and coercion, in which UHNWIs are forced to accept unfavorable conditions in order to monetize or use such assets as collateral.
From a criminal point of view, this property discrimination can be configured as a form of passive extortion, in which the financial institution does not directly extort through an explicit threat, but through the creation of a hostile financial environment that forces the asset owner to give in to the conditions imposed by the bank. The asymmetric power relationship translates, in this case, into a form of covert coercion, where banks use their dominant position to extract value from the intangible assets of UHNWIs without them being able to negotiate on equal terms.
A concrete manifestation of this asset discrimination occurs in the imposition of forced trusts, a mechanism that banks use to consolidate their control over the emerging assets of UHNWIs. This instrument, which is initially designed to protect assets from external risks, becomes a means of coercion when it is used to force the owners of intangible assets to cede control of their assets to a third party —generally controlled by the bank— in exchange for limited access to the benefits generated by said assets.
These types of practices are generally justified under the excuse of “professional management” or “asset security,” but in practice they represent a significant loss of autonomy for the owners of intangible assets. By ceding control of their assets to a trust, UHNWIs lose the ability to make strategic decisions about their own assets, becoming subject to the decisions of the bank or trustee managing the trust. This relationship, far from being equitable, is configured as a form of structural extortion, in which the bank sets the rules of the game and the owner of the assets has no choice but to accept them if they wish to access any type of liquidity or financial support.
From a legal perspective, this imposition of trusts should be examined under the lens of contractual coercion. While trust contracts are, in principle, voluntary agreements, in these cases the asymmetry of power and the lack of viable alternatives make these contracts, de facto, an imposition. The creation of a criminal framework that recognises these practices as forms of extortion would be a first step towards protecting the property rights of UHNWIs and ensuring that they can negotiate with banks on more equitable terms.
Another key tool in the arsenal of financial coercion used by banks is the systematic denial of flexibility in the contractual terms and financial structures offered to UHNWIs. This refusal to adapt to the particularities of intangible assets translates into a lack of tailored financing options, forcing owners of universal and intangible artistic assets to operate under rigid schemes that do not fit the nature of their assets.
A clear example of this lack of flexibility is the refusal to accept deferred payments or post-payment structures for transactions involving intangible assets. While tangible assets can easily be used as collateral to obtain credit and financing on favorable terms, intangible assets, not having immediate liquidity under traditional criteria, are excluded from this type of instrument. This puts art asset owners at a structural disadvantage, where they are forced to sell their assets at devalued prices or accept unfavourable financing conditions simply due to the lack of suitable options.
From a criminal perspective, this denial of flexibility can be considered a financial control strategy, where banks exercise their power to maintain control over emerging assets by preventing them from accessing the same financial opportunities as tangible assets. The lack of viable alternatives not only makes UHNWI vulnerable, but also perpetuates a system of dependency in which intangible asset owners are forced to accept conditions that do not reflect the true value of their assets.
Within the financial control structure, the mechanisms of coercion are reinforced by the use of informational asymmetries. These asymmetries allow banking institutions to maintain a dominant position in the relationship with the original UHNWIs, exploiting the lack of access to key financial information that could empower the owners of universal intellectual and artistic assets. Here, financial institutions deliberately withhold information about alternative financial instruments, asset revaluation options, and emerging markets that could benefit the UHNWIs, especially those whose wealth is based on intellectual property or intangible artistic treasures. This selective concealment is yet another strategy of covert control that contributes to the perpetuation of banking dominance.
Informational asymmetries represent a fundamental barrier to the ability of the original UHNWIs to make informed financial decisions. Banks, aware of the power represented by their exclusive access to specialized information networks, use these asymmetries as a mechanism to limit the financial empowerment of these individuals, keeping them in a chronic dependence on the banking system. While a UHNWI with full access to critical financial data might find opportunities outside the traditional banking system—on secondary art markets, intellectual asset trading platforms, or blockchain-based financing systems (which we will not mention here)—financial institutions deliberately avoid providing access to such avenues for wealth appreciation. This not only prevents the full development of UHNWI wealth, but also perpetuates a power structure in which banks act as information gatekeepers, dictating what options are available for each type of asset.
This deliberate denial of access to key information must be considered, from a legal perspective, a form of systemic extortion. Although it does not present itself as direct extortion—there is no explicit threat—the fact that banks keep this information under control, with full knowledge of the disadvantages this creates for UHNWIs, translates into a covert exercise of power. Here, extortion manifests itself in the structural dependence that is generated around the flow of financial information, a flow that banks manipulate to maintain their strategic advantage over the owners of emerging assets.
In addition to informational asymmetries, another critical phenomenon is the invisibility of alternative markets. These markets, which could be highly beneficial for early UHNWIs with intangible assets, are systematically marginalized by banks. For example, investment markets in digital art, universal cultural assets or innovative intellectual property are expanding, but are not favored by banks due to their lack of control over such markets. Instead of providing access or encouraging the development of financial products that allow UHNWIs to integrate into these new spaces, traditional financial institutions choose to block access or impose such restrictive barriers that make these options impractical.
This invisibility is particularly damaging to those individuals who seek to maximize the value of their assets through unconventional means. By limiting access to these markets, banks force UHNWIs to operate within the boundaries of traditional markets, where the structure of control and barriers to entry overwhelmingly favor financial institutions. This phenomenon is not accidental, but is part of a deliberate strategy to perpetuate the monopoly of traditional financial capital over emerging assets, using the institutional power of banks to direct the flow of capital away from alternatives that could erode their control.
From a criminal perspective, this invisibility can be considered an indirect form of expropriation of asset value. By denying access to these markets and restricting the possibilities of financial diversification, banks act as coercive intermediaries that limit the ability of UHNWIs to grow their assets autonomously. This type of practice, although invisible to most, must be classified as a violation of the right to free asset management, since banks are using their power to deliberately exclude certain assets from the benefits that other markets could provide.
Another central point in this analysis is the control that banks exercise over the discretionary valuation of intangible assets. Original UHNWIs, especially those whose assets are based on universal cultural or artistic goods, face a significant barrier when trying to establish the real value of their assets vis-à-vis financial institutions. Banks, having the ability to define the rules under which assets are valued, use methodologies that tend to undervalue intangible assets. Despite the existence of external valuations carried out by recognized experts in the field of art and intellectual property, banks frequently choose to ignore or minimize these valuations, imposing their own internal evaluation criteria.
This deliberate undervaluation is not a simple technical issue, but is part of a structural strategy to restrict the liquidity of UHNWIs, especially those with unconventional assets. By imposing valuation criteria that do not reflect the true value of intangible assets, banks limit the ability of UHNWIs to use their assets as collateral in financial transactions, blocking their access to credit or advanced financial tools. This not only affects the ability of UHNWIs to monetize their assets, but also perpetuates a relationship of dependency in which banks control the narrative on the value of assets, establishing almost absolute dominance over the financial destiny of these individuals.
From a criminal perspective, unfair discretionary valuation can be configured as a form of financial coercion. By unilaterally defining the terms under which assets are valued, banks are exercising disproportionate control over the economic destiny of UHNWIs. This practice, although commonly accepted as part of internal banking processes, constitutes a violation of the property rights of individuals by blocking their ability to access a fair and accurate valuation of their assets.
Given the sophistication of these practices, it is imperative to develop an innovative criminal classification that recognizes the dynamics of invisible expropriation that affect the original UHNWI. This new framework must recognize that expropriation no longer occurs only through the physical appropriation of assets, but also through the manipulation of information, the invisibility of markets and the imposition of unfair valuations. These forms of expropriation are as much or more pernicious than traditional practices, since they operate in the shadows and are presented as part of the “normal” functioning of financial institutions.
To protect the original UHNWI from these forms of extortion and coercion, it is necessary to establish criminal figures that criminalize the manipulation of valuations, the deliberate exclusion of alternative markets and the imposition of information barriers. These criminal figures must recognise that UHNWIs, due to the intangible nature of many of their assets, are particularly vulnerable to these asymmetric power dynamics, and that the law must evolve to offer them adequate protection.
This criminal framework should not only contemplate sanctions for institutions that perpetuate these practices, but should also include redress mechanisms that allow UHNWIs to access fair valuations, key financial information and alternative markets without interference from banks. The creation of these mechanisms is essential to restore balance in the relationship between UHNWIs and financial institutions, ensuring that these individuals can manage and grow their wealth without being subject to the coercive dynamics of the current banking system.
One of the most invisible and pernicious manifestations within the coercive banking practices towards early UHNWIs is the use of selective exclusion from financial services through the imposition of arbitrary and irrational criteria. This strategy is deployed in subtle ways, but is designed to frustrate UHNWIs' attempts to integrate their assets into the conventional financial structure. Here, banks do not act openly by blocking access, but rather by raising administrative, technological and procedural barriers that are so difficult to overcome that affected individuals are forced to give up or give in to the demands of banking institutions.
Banks tend to justify the imposition of excessive requirements on UHNWIs based on the need to comply with regulations or due diligence (compliance), but the reality is that many of these demands are arbitrary and have no direct relation to the security of assets or the integrity of the banking system. A classic example is the request for disproportionate guarantees for the opening of credit lines or the use of deferred payments. These requirements are not related to the value of the assets provided by UHNWIs, which are usually backed by tangible and intangible assets of universal value. The requirement for guarantees beyond the assets offered then becomes a disguised coercive mechanism that seeks to discourage or control the integration of these individuals' assets into the banking system.
This excess of administrative barriers not only results in the effective exclusion of UHNWIs, but also places them in a position of structural vulnerability. By being blocked or subjected to processes that indefinitely delay the integration of their assets, UHNWIs are forced to seek risky or informal alternatives, or failing that, to submit to the onerous conditions imposed by banks. This cycle reinforces the systemic dominance that banking institutions exercise over these emerging assets.
In the current environment, where liquidity and financial flow are key elements for effective wealth management, financial flexibility is an essential component. However, banks continue to refuse to allow flexible transactions, such as the use of deferred or post-payment in transactions backed by assets of great cultural or intellectual value. The refusal to accept more modern payment methods adapted to the reality of UHNWIs represents a strategic impediment to wealth growth. This lack of flexibility is often justified under the argument of protecting the financial system from unnecessary risks, but in reality, it operates as a deliberate brake to maintain financial control in the hands of traditional institutions.
It is important to note that the use of post-payment in high-net-worth contexts, particularly in the purchase and sale of universal artistic assets or high-value intellectual property, is a commonly accepted practice in other tangible asset markets. However, banks, when treating these assets with conventional financial criteria, do not recognize the liquidity potential that these assets offer, which reinforces their refusal to make payment terms more flexible. This attitude creates a framework of patrimonial injustice, where the owners of these assets are forced to dispose of their capital under adverse conditions, giving up an optimal and fluid use of their assets.
From a legal point of view, the imposition of arbitrary requirements can be classified as a form of indirect financial coercion, which uses unconventional mechanisms to limit the patrimonial autonomy of UHNWIs. Unlike direct extortion, which involves an explicit threat, these practices act through structural and invisible barriers, creating an environment where the individual's will is undermined. Instead of accessing financial services on equal terms, UHNWIs are placed at a disadvantage due to the imposition of exclusion criteria that have no rational legal or financial justification.
It is therefore necessary to build a new criminal legal framework that considers the imposition of disproportionate requirements as a violation of the right of access to financial services on equal terms. This framework should recognize that banks, by establishing financial rules without a transparent and adequate justification, are using their power to selectively block certain individuals, particularly those whose assets are perceived as disruptive or difficult to control. This criminal classification must contemplate sanctions for entities that perpetuate these exclusion dynamics and must create structural remediation mechanisms that allow UHNWIs to access financial services without facing arbitrary obstacles.
Another aspect of utmost importance is the manipulation of valuation outlooks that occurs when banks block or ignore the owner's perspective on the value of their assets. This phenomenon is particularly visible in the management of intangible assets such as intellectual property and universal works of art. Original UHNWIs, in many cases, present solid foundations and tangible evidence that support the revaluation of their assets. However, banks tend to dismiss or undervalue this information, imposing their own valuation methodologies, which are usually more conservative and unfavorable.
This shift in actuarial valuation is done with the intention of limiting the leverage that UHNWIs could obtain when revaluing their assets. By forcing the undervaluation of cultural or intellectual assets, financial institutions prevent these assets from accessing advanced financial instruments, such as credit lines with favourable rates or specialised investment products. This not only blocks the growth of assets, but erodes the bargaining power of UHNWIs, who are forced to accept financial conditions that do not reflect the real value of their assets.
From a criminal perspective, the refusal to recognise legitimate valuations should be considered a form of indirect asset expropriation. The law should protect the right of UHNWIs to have their assets valued fairly and objectively, allowing the incorporation of independent experts that can offer a second opinion on the real value of intangible assets. In addition, banks should be obliged to justify any significant deviation from the valuation proposed by the owner, otherwise these would be considered arbitrary and potentially criminal practices.
In the face of these coercive and exclusionary practices, early UHNWIs must seek strategies to regain financial autonomy and break the cycle of dependency that banking institutions have established. Some of these strategies include:
Progress towards financial autonomy for early UHNWI depends on their ability to challenge current banking structures and build alternative networks that are not controlled by the interests of traditional financial institutions.
It is essential to note that bank manipulation is not limited only to the exclusion and undervaluation strategies already detailed, but reaches even greater sophistication by employing tactics that can be conceptualized as structural cognitive coercion. This type of coercion is designed to make primary UHNWI internalize the notion that their wealth, based on intangible assets and intellectual treasures of humanity, is not recognized or valid within the traditional financial framework. The repeated denial of access to financial services under fair conditions not only materially affects these individuals, but also seeks to condition their perception of the value of their own assets, generating a decrease in their confidence in their ability to interact effectively with international financial systems.
Structural cognitive coercion is not direct or overt; it unfolds through the accumulation of psychological and emotional barriers that are activated by repeated experiences of rejection, undervaluation, and disavowal. These barriers are imposed by banking institutions' systemic refusal to accept the legitimacy of UHNWIs' cultural and heritage value, and by their insistence on treating these assets from an outdated frame of reference, which does not contemplate the emerging realities of intellectual property-based capital and universal artistic treasures.
Early UHNWIs, not seeing their assets recognized or valued fairly by financial institutions, begin to internalize the narrative that their assets are inherently less liquid, or less valuable, within the global economic context. This gradual delegitimization process leads to a progressive erosion of asset autonomy, as the owner begins to adjust his expectations and decisions based on a distorted framework, which does not correspond to the true nature of his assets.
The appropriate criminal strategy to address this type of coercion must focus on the recognition of the psychological and social effects that this practice has on individuals. It is not only a matter of classifying explicit blockages as forms of financial extortion, but also of classifying the impact that the manipulation of the perception of value has on the individual's ability to participate in the global economy on equal terms. It is essential that the new criminal legal framework contemplates sanctions for institutions that, through their market power, impose a restrictive mental framework on the owners of original assets, blocking their ability to negotiate, invest or mobilize their assets effectively.
A key aspect of this classification is the legal recognition of the right of UHNWIs to obtain an independent and fair actuarial appraisal of their assets. This right is based on the need to balance power asymmetries between individuals and banking institutions, ensuring that cultural and intellectual assets are not undervalued or distorted by methodologies that favor the interests of large financial institutions.