> Sorry, what are you suggesting/saying exactly?

I'm saying that being the legal owner of a company and having actual control of said company are really not the same thing.

There are a number of ways to achieve this, all of which are very dependent on your personal context.

But to be practical, I'll give you an example: a member of my extended family runs a construction company.

For all intents and purposes, he completely controls the company: what it does, what the money generated is used for, etc...

However, he does not own it: as seen from the govmt's perspective, his ex-spouse does.

For reasons I am not going to get into, he could not own both this construction company and other businesses he controls without running into some issues.

What he did: he divorced his wife and through the divorce, he gave her full ownership of the company.

The facts that:

    - they still live as a couple

    - they love each other

    - they trust each other with their lives

    - the wife has zero interest in sticking her nose in the company's business

None of the above appear on any book or has any legal standing.

There is a reason why so many business names in the Anglo-Saxon world have the word "trust" in them.

This is just an example, there are many other avenues.