In his role, Jersey-based Ashley will take a lead on client service delivery, with a particular focus on the firm’s Ultra High Net Worth (UHNW) clients across the UK, Ireland, the Middle East and Africa. He will also oversee the management of a broad range of trust and corporate structures holding a wide range of assets.

With more than 25 years’ experience in the finance industry supporting the specialist needs of multi-jurisdictional clients, Ashley joins Crestbridge having previously worked for more than two decades at a major global bank. In a number of senior level roles, he has built considerable expertise in the private client sector, providing specialist support in the management of various asset classes including discretionary and advisory managed portfolios, private equity investments, gold and commercial property.

He is a member of STEP and holds the STEP Diploma in International Trust Management.

Ashley’s appointment maintains Crestbridge’s growth trajectory this year, which has seen the addition of significant senior industry expertise to the privately-owned firm’s team, to support its client base of top-end global families.

Commenting on Ashley’s appointment, Crestbridge Managing Director, Steve Le Seelleur, said: “Ashley’s appointment underlines our aim to attract experienced, senior industry leaders to our team, as we continue to grow as a business and, importantly, retain our focus on delivering top tier service to Ultra High Net Worth families. I’m really pleased to welcome someone of Ashley’s calibre to the team and look forward to working with him as we continue to evolve and enhance our range of solutions for global families of wealth.”

Ashley added: “Crestbridge has earned a fantastic reputation, both as a firm that stands out for its service delivery and for its ‘people culture’ and commitment to nurturing a highly experienced, driven team. Those two factors are inextricably linked and align with my own passion for working with and supporting teams where the focus is absolutely on quality and excellence. I’m looking forward to joining with my colleagues to ensure we continue to deliver outstanding service to our high-end portfolio of global clients.”

We were delighted to welcome Amy Hall, Children, Young Persons and Families Service Manager at Mind Jersey, along with volunteers from Youthful Minds to our office.

They shared their experiences and insights into the challenges faced by young people today — it was both inspiring and thought-provoking.

Hearing directly about the work they do was a powerful reminder of the meaningful impact we can make together.

We look forward to continuing to support the Youthful Minds programme in 2026.

The events in Riyadh, Doha and Dubai – attended by Crestbridge Family Office Services CEO Heather Tibbo – attracted a high-calibre audience of current and future female leaders, and featured a number of keynote talks, discussion sessions and networking opportunities to create a platform for sharing insights and championing the importance of female advocacy.

Reinforcing the strategic importance of the region to Jersey as an international finance centre, the events were also attended by senior representatives from the Government of Jersey, including Minister for Treasury and Resources Deputy Elaine Millar and Helen De La Cour, Director of Financial and Professional Services, as well as key representatives from the Jersey Financial Services Commission, Director General Jill Britton and Kerry Petulla, Executive Director of Enforcement, Intelligence and Financial Crime.

Key themes discussed at the events, which were hosted by Jersey Finance Director – GCC, An Kelles, included:

• How women are an important force when it comes to wealth management and leading global business ventures
• How the future of family business is increasingly being influenced by women who have earned their seat at the top table
• The importance of advocacy, and of current female – and male – leaders providing clear pathways and opportunities for leaders of the future
• How advisers, partners, and jurisdictions need to be alive to this shifting trend and be adaptable to the ambitions of successful female leaders

Heather Tibbo said: “Through the families we work with, we have seen women taking an increasingly significant stake in family business and wealth management planning over recent years, and that theme came across strongly at Jersey Finance’s Perspectives events in the region. It was notable through the various speakers, however, how the dial has shifted – from women talking about taking a seat at the top table, to actually now owning that seat and advocating for the next generation of female leaders too. This was a really positive showcase for female leadership.

“The events were also important in helping to strengthen the vital relationships Jersey has with stakeholders in the Middle East – a key market where we also have significant experience as a firm and with London as a centre of excellence. We are pleased to be able to support Jersey Finance’s considerable ongoing strategic focus in the region, underlining the high-quality proposition Jersey offers Middle Eastern families of wealth.”

As part of the New York programme, Steve Sokić and Darrell King joined Jersey Finance to discuss “US and Offshore Trust Sectors: A Story of Mutual Evolution”, exploring how Jersey trusts can support US clients and the ongoing collaboration between the two jurisdictions.

It was a pleasure to contribute to this event and to continue strengthening connections across our industry.

Read the full article and series highlights here.

Framing the decision

Jurisdiction selection is clearly important, after all, it’s the place(s) that ‘house’ the wealth holding structure(s), so that house had better be in order, robust, flexible and able to withstand various risks in the future. It can play a key role in mitigating fundamental family risks – around taxation, for instance, but also around asset protection and the potential for unforeseen litigation, forced heirship, marital breakdowns, privacy and succession planning issues.

Trends in recent years have brought these issues increasingly to the fore – specifically the greater complexity of the makeup of families, greater complexity in family demographics, and greater complexity in geographical interests. Industry figures support this, with the majority (73%) of family offices expecting there to be an expansion in the number of family offices worldwide in the future and 55% anticipating that families will adopt greater asset class and geographic investment portfolio diversification (Deloitte Private Global Family Insights Series, September 2024).

This all means that achieving a family’s risk objectives has become more and more challenging – and jurisdictional selection is at the heart of that.

As a result, today, top of the wish-list for advisors when it comes to supporting families with jurisdictional decisions is ensuring that their jurisdictional partners are strong and robust but with an element of flexibility built in too, so that a family can be agile and ready to respond quickly to shifting future conditions.

The jurisdictional picture, though, is not straightforward either, at least at first glance or to the layperson. Many jurisdictions now promote themselves as “family office destinations” or “asset protection” jurisdictions citing local rules with regard to regulation exemptions or statutory limitation periods. These types of exemptions and statutes, though, are now fairly common as many jurisdictions tend to learn and indeed copy from one another, at least from a legislative and regulatory perspective.

The result is a landscape of onshore – normally a family’s home country; offshore – such as Jersey, Cayman etc; and increasingly ‘mid-shore’ jurisdictions, all of which offer a family something slightly different.

The emergence of the mid-shore option is particularly interesting – having recognisable technical and practical attributes of both onshore and offshore locations.  The USA, as well as perhaps Switzerland and Singapore, are common examples. There are technical legal or tax reasons for incorporating a mid-shore option into a family’s structure, as well as more subjective or perception-based criteria too.

Overall, it’s clear that greater family complexity alongside an evolving jurisdictional landscape has put jurisdictional selection front and centre of family structuring decisions. Considering a family’s context and bespoke needs will be key in coming to a sensible conclusion.

The balanced scorecard

Often families will make jurisdictional decisions based on familiarity, existing connections and their own perceptions – after all that’s human nature. But adopting a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach can be a helpful way to come to a rational and objective decision, free of human bias or inadvertent ignorance of the options open to them.

A balanced scorecard, by definition, normally includes a number of relevant criteria, which then are analysed and importantly prioritised for a particular family’s facts and circumstances.  Key criteria for a balanced scorecard framework would typically include:

• Regulatory framework: the main role of a jurisdiction’s regulator is the security of the family’s assets and data, so important, yet often overlooked – they ensure the licencing of local trust companies & other professionals and ensure they are fit and proper, along with ensuring money laundering and proceeds of crime etc are properly protected against. Local regulation may also provide for important exemptions and frameworks for various wealth vehicles like Private Trust Companies (PTCs) (or similar) and/or investment advice for a single-family group. So clearly it’s important to assess the jurisdiction’s regulations as to whether they satisfactorily provide security for a family’s assets and information, what are its anti-money laundering credentials, and does it meet high standards when it comes to licensing providers?
• Legal structuring tools & framework: legal or tax advice normally includes a specific type of vehicle to hold and administer that particular family’s wealth, and these range from trusts and holding companies (most common) to limited partnerships, to PTCs, to segregated cell companies and more. As mentioned above, many jurisdictions have essentially ‘borrowed’ wealth vehicles from one another into their local legislation. So, naturally the question arises as to which jurisdiction(s) offer the right sort of modern and flexible vehicles and related legal framework which best meet the need of the advice?  For example, local legislative and/or jurisprudence clarity as to perpetuity periods, firewall legislation, settlor/grantor reservation of powers, purpose trusts, fraudulent conveyance rules and limitation periods, settlor/grantor capacity guidance, and other.
• Quality of court/judiciary: the importance of the rule of law cannot be overstated, particularly with the challenges and uncertainty in this regard in many parts of the world. Local courts and its judiciary are of course fundamental and key in ensuring this happens in practice. The questions/criteria to ask about here include history of integrity, quality and fairness of the local judiciary, and also have the legal structuring tools referred to above been sufficiently tested and/or clarified? Also, what and where is the ultimate court (e.g. Privy Council or other)?
• Quality of local firms and people: whilst jurisdictions provide the legal framework and ‘home’ for the legal tools needed, jurisdictions themselves by definition do not ‘run’ those legal structures – that is done by local licenced trust companies and other professional firms, or put another way, by real people, systems and processes. The quality of those local firms and people is thus a major risk mitigating factor for any wealth holding structure. So, the question/criteria arises as to whether or not there is an abundance of high quality trust companies and local professional expertise in the jurisdictions? This in practice varies, often considerably, between jurisdictions.  It often says a lot about a particular jurisdiction as to what firms have decided to set up shop there.
• Proximity and connectivity: ease and frequency of communication, including in-person, is often a key ingredient in any wealth holding structure, regardless of its components. So it naturally follows as to whether the jurisdiction offers good physical and digital connectivity (for the particular family members and their advisors) and communication, and can it demonstrate good digital infrastructure resilience?
• Tax regime: taxation is of course important given it’s depleting effect on family wealth, but particularly punitive, confiscatory, draconian and/or double taxation, which often many occur and gets quite complex in cross-border family and asset situations. This is why most advisors will seek a tax-neutral (low or no tax) jurisdiction as a central base of the family’s wealth, to simplify matters for the family, and then focus on tax compliance and legitimate planning based on where individual family members are resident and/or where assets are located. In some cases, a jurisdiction’s tax treaties may also be relevant.
• Privacy and confidentiality laws: ensuring privacy of one’s personal information, including wealth, is paramount for the safety and security of many families worldwide, save for legitimate and secure sharing of information for tax, regulatory or other compliance requirements. Many argue this is a human right, which is supported by, for example, the right to privacy and private life that is enshrined in certain declarations and conventions in the European Union.  This criteria understandably remains often a top concern globally for wealthy and other families for a number of reasons, including political or social instability in home countries and the related fear of physical safety of family members as well as undesired and unnecessary general public attention to private matters, particularly (but not only) for high profile or celebrity UHNW persons.  So naturally it’s important to consider a jurisdiction’s privacy and confidentiality laws and its reporting rules.
• Family home country rules: in many cases, the family members’ home countries (where they live) ,and/or the places where family assets are located, often have tax regimes that dictate, restrict and/or otherwise discourage use of certain jurisdictions. So its important to know, from a tax compliance point of view, which jurisdictions are or may be ‘off the list’ so to speak and then focus on others that are ok to consider.
• Other Connected Jurisdictions: here’s one that many miss…what on the surface may appear like one jurisdiction under consideration, may in fact be more than one or even multiple. Its very important to understand the full jurisdictional picture and thus exposure.  This often, albeit inadvertent, multi-jurisdictional exposure has arisen in good part via many, mainly larger, trust companies that have in recent years outsourced a number of trustee duties and functions to related and/or unrelated companies in other, normally lower-cost, jurisdictions (e.g. bookkeeping, accounting, payments and other).  This normally requires local regulatory approval.  It would naturally follow that many, if not most of the criteria outlined here, ought to be also applied to such additional jurisdictions where applicable (e.g. is quality being compromised and/or is privacy risk exposure unnecessarily increased?).
• Political, social and economic stability: our world today, and indeed throughout history, has varying degrees of political, social and/or economic instability, which in turn is one of the risks families seek to mitigate to preserve their wealth. Accordingly, any jurisdiction in which wealth is structured must have a proven history of stability in this regard, but also ‘levers’ built in to allow for a change in jurisdiction where this stability erodes or otherwise comes into question.
• Cultural affinities: wealthy families are human after all, and like all humans they have natural tendencies and affinities, which for a jurisdiction to house wealth may include particularly strong personal cultural, societal, linguistic or other affinity with a specific location.
• Global ranking indexes: all of the criterial thus far are normally assessed by an advisor on a case by case basis, but there are certain independent rankings available that can evidence a jurisdiction’s particular qualities, like the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI). That said, these are normally higher level finance rankings, i.e. beyond wealth structuring, so their limitations should also be noted.
• Intergovernmental agencies: jurisdictions globally are often, but to varying degrees, exposed and susceptible to implications arising from views of various intergovernmental agencies like the OECD or FATF (e.g. so-called “black” or “grey” lists), so it’s prudent to also consider what those organisations have to say (or how they categorise) the jurisdictions under consideration.
• Personal experience: finally, again, families and their advisors are only human and their own experiences, connections and knowledge, even where limited or lacking, often forms an important basis for considering jurisdictions, which can be either helpful or a detriment, but nonetheless should be considered.

Note that “cost” is not part of the criteria above.  There is of course a rationale and practical reason for its exclusion. Simply put, when applying the criteria above applies in a poor score or assessment, most often the average cost in that jurisdiction is low, and vice versa when the score is high.  That’s simply how supply and demand works.

This scorecard approach is very helpful in bringing together the multiple considerations at play to help a family to choose a jurisdiction that can enable it to meet its objectives.

It’s also important, however, to consider the holistic picture. Typically, a family structure will include a central head office and operational hub; it will include holding structures, such as trust and foundation vehicles; and it will include an investment analysis and allocation function. All of these are critical components of the family operation and may well require different jurisdictional qualities – but it is important to consider how the different jurisdictional elements come together, to ensure seamless integration and minimal disruption.

As families look to the future, jurisdictional selection will be critical in enabling them to achieve their objectives. Getting it wrong can be costly, disruptive, and leave a family open to future challenges and other risks. Adopting a balanced and objective approach, however, can help diversify and mitigate risks, and provide a good level of certainty and reassurance in meeting long-term estate and succession planning ambitions.

Crestbridge Family Office Services (FOS) Assistant Manager Tallie Renouf has received further industry recognition, being included in a list identifying future leaders within the private client industry across the UK and Crown Dependencies.

Tallie is one of the industry’s stand-out young talents recognised in the latest ‘UK and Crown Dependencies NextGen Leaders List’, published this month by eprivateclient (8 September).  Through her inclusion in the national list, she is noted as combining a strong academic record and class topping exam results with a firm commitment to continuous self-improvement and professional development.

Tallie works on a number of the firm’s dynamic and complex structures, providing support to Crestbridge’s team of directors, while she has also taken on the role of mentor to other emerging talent in the team and helps with the organisation of various initiatives as part of firm’s charity committee.

The annual list from eprivateclient recognises and celebrates young practitioners working in diverse areas of the private client sector across the entirety of the UK as well as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. In compiling the list, judges consider a number of factors, including expertise, achievements over the past year, career progression and company performance.

Tallie was also featured in eprivateclient’s ‘Channel Islands NextGen Leaders List’, published in June.

Commenting on Tallie’s latest success, Steve Le Seelleur, Managing Director, Crestbridge Family Office Services, said:

“Tallie embodies Crestbridge’s ethos, leading by example to bring intellect, aptitude and drive to our team. She fully deserves this national recognition, which builds on her success earlier this year. Being consistently included in initiatives like this is a reflection of the focus Crestbridge has on nurturing young talent and creating an environment where everyone can grow and thrive.”

Following the arrival of Steve Sokić as Chairman earlier this year and alongside CEO Heather Tibbo, Steve Le Seelleur brings further significant senior industry expertise to the independent and privately-owned private client trust and family office-focused firm, as it continues to pursue a strategy of growth.

In his role as Managing Director, Steve has responsibility for the performance of the business, working alongside Heather Tibbo and Steve Sokić to lead a team of highly talented and experienced trust professionals to ensure the delivery of exceptional client service. His arrival reflects Crestbridge FOS’s commitment to the sector, clients and future growth, with the firm having recorded strong organic growth since its inception in 2013, driven by its focus on attracting industry leading professionals, supporting top-end global families, and delivering innovative solutions to NextGen clients.

With more than 25 years’ experience in the fiduciary and wealth management industry, Steve is an experienced practitioner across multiple jurisdictions, with particular experience in the Middle East

Prior to joining Crestbridge FOS, Steve was Managing Director of the Jersey office of a private equity-owned global financial services business and before that was a Director and Member of the Executive Committee of HSBC Private Bank’s trust business in Jersey. He has also sat on the boards of Private Trust Companies and has vast experience managing structures with a wide variety of asset classes. He is an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Bankers.

Commenting on Steve’s appointment, Crestbridge FOS CEO Heather Tibbo said:

“Since establishing the business in 2013, our vision has always been to set new standards of technical expertise and service excellence within our discipline. A senior executive team that can clearly demonstrate those qualities is absolutely critical, and for that reason I’m delighted to welcome someone of Steve’s calibre to the business. The experience and knowledge he has gained throughout his -career, together with his proven ability to lead and develop teams and his belief in the importance of client service, will be invaluable as we continue to support our clients with their wealth planning needs and pursue our bold and ambitious growth plans.”

Steve Le Seelleur added:

“Crestbridge Family Office Services has earned a fantastic reputation in the trust, family office and UHNW private client space, and that is thanks to the quality of its people and the emphasis it places on service quality. It’s a privilege to be joining a business that shares my own values, that demonstrates such a positive people culture, and that has a really high-end portfolio of global clients.  I’m looking forward to working closely with Heather and Steve, as well as my colleagues right across the business, to help us achieve our collective goals.”

Co-written by Steve Sokić, Chairman, Crestbridge Family Office Services

and Darrell King, Managing Director, Americas, Crestbridge Fiduciary

What is the issue for STEP Members?

It is still the case that, for many global wealthy families, jurisdiction selection for their trusts is not always based on a reasoned, balanced or logical analytical process.

What does it mean for STEP Members?

Against a backdrop of greater family mobility, geopolitical volatility and global diversification of family interests, jurisdiction selection is fast becoming one of the most pressing issues facing UHNW clients and their family offices today.

What can STEP Members take away?

Armed with a clear, balanced scorecard framework, members will be better enabled to help families arrive at reasoned and objective trust jurisdiction decisions and help reduce jurisdictional risk.

The fundamental purpose of structuring family wealth by using trusts, holding companies and/or other vehicles is to mitigate various risks pertaining to that wealth — and to the family.

The question of “where” to structure the wealth is one very important part of that risk mitigation exercise; one which is almost always considered but, regrettably, in practice, is not always based on a reasoned or balanced analytical process for many global wealthy families. In turn, this often gives rise to further (jurisdictional) risk exposure, something the planning process is intended to mitigate, not create more of. The case for a balanced scorecard framework is strong. It is a powerful tool in helping families to arrive at reasoned and objective jurisdictional decisions.

After all, the jurisdiction chosen is the ‘house’ where the family’s assets are held, often over generations, so that house had better be in order: robust, flexible and able to withstand various risks in the future.

The jurisdictional picture though, is not straightforward. Many jurisdictions now promote themselves as “family office destinations” or “asset protection trust” jurisdictions citing local rules regarding regulation exemptions or statutory limitation periods. A lot of that is ‘marketing fluff’ and lacks sufficient substance, at least across broader relevant considerations.

Scorecard

Whether looking at trusts onshore, offshore or ‘midshore’, often families and/or their advisors will make jurisdictional decisions based on familiarity, existing connections and their own perceptions – it’s human nature. But adopting a ‘balanced scorecard’ approach can be a helpful way to remove some of the often-unconscious bias and come to a more rational and objective decision.

A balanced scorecard, by definition, normally includes a number of relevant criteria, which are then are analysed and prioritized for a particular family’s circumstances, with the ability to ‘score’ each jurisdiction under consideration for a particular family. Key criteria would typically include:

Legal structuring tools & framework: legal or tax advice normally covers a specific type of vehicle(s) to be utilized to hold and administer a particular family’s wealth. These range from trusts and holding companies to limited partnerships, PTCs, segregated cell companies and more. Many jurisdictions have essentially ‘borrowed’ such vehicles from one another and factored them into their local legislation. For example, providing local legislative and/or jurisprudence clarity as to perpetuity periods, firewall legislation, settlor/grantor reservation of powers, purpose trusts, fraudulent conveyance rules and limitation periods, settlor/grantor capacity guidance, and other relevant matters.

Quality of court/judiciary: the importance of the rule of law cannot be overstated, particularly with the challenges and uncertainty in this regard in many parts of the world. Local courts and their judiciary are fundamental in ensuring this happens in practice. The questions to ask revolve around the history of integrity, quality and fairness of the local judiciary, and whether legal structuring tools have been sufficiently tested.

Regulatory framework adequacy: the main role of a regulator is to ensure the security of the family’s assets and data. They ensure the licencing of local trust companies and other professionals and ensure they are fit and proper, along with ensuring money laundering and proceeds of crime activities are properly protected against. Local regulation may also provide for important exemptions and frameworks for various wealth vehicles like Private Trust Companies (PTCs) and/or investment advice for a single-family group.

Quality of local firms and people: while jurisdictions provide the legal framework and ‘home’ for the tools required jurisdictions themselves do not ‘run’ those legal structures – that is done by local licenced trust companies and other professional firms – by real people, systems and processes. The quality of those local firms and people is thus a major risk mitigating factor for any wealth structure. A separate scorecard is normally advisable in this regard including criteria like ownership structure, strategic focus on private wealth, ‘bench strength’, regulatory history, client’s geographic affinity, systems, etc.

Proximity and connectivity: ease and frequency of communication, including in-person, is often a key ingredient in any wealth holding structure, regardless of its components. It naturally follows as to whether the jurisdiction offers good physical and digital connectivity and communication, and can demonstrate good digital infrastructure resilience?

Tax regime: taxation is important given its depleting effect on family wealth, but particularly important are the punitive, confiscatory, draconian and/or double taxation measures that could apply in complex cross-border family and asset circumstances. This is why most advisors will first seek a tax-neutral (low or no tax) jurisdiction to be utilised as a central base for the family’s wealth, to simplify matters for the family, and then focus on tax compliance and proper planning based on where individual family members are resident and/or where assets are located.

Privacy and confidentiality laws: ensuring privacy of one’s personal information is paramount for the security of many families worldwide, save for legitimate and secure sharing of information for tax, regulatory or other compliance requirements. Many argue that this is a human right, which is supported by, for example, the right to privacy and private life that is enshrined in certain declarations and conventions in the European Union. This criterion remains a top concern for families for a number of reasons, including political or social instability in their home countries.

Family home country rules: in many cases, the family members’ home countries (where they live) and/or the places where family assets are located, often have tax regimes that dictate, restrict and/or otherwise discourage use of certain jurisdictions (e.g. so-called ‘blacklists’).

Other connected jurisdictions: what on the surface may appear like one jurisdiction under consideration, may in fact be more than one. It’s important to understand the full jurisdictional picture. For example, inadvertent, multi-jurisdictional exposure has arisen often where larger trust companies have outsourced certain functions to related or unrelated companies in other normally lower-cost jurisdictions. (This normally requires local regulatory approval.) It follows then that most or all of the criteria outlined here ought also to be applied to such additional jurisdictions.

Political, social and economic stability: instability is one of the key risks families seek to mitigate to preserve their wealth. Accordingly, any jurisdiction in which wealth is structured must not only have a proven history of stability in this regard, but also ‘levers’ to allow for a change in jurisdiction where this stability comes into question.

Cultural affinities: wealthy families are human after all and have natural tendencies and affinities. These may include particularly strong personal cultural, societal, linguistic or other affinities with a specific location, and may well be a form of ‘tie-breaker’ between jurisdictions.

Global ranking indexes: there are certain independent rankings available that can evidence a jurisdiction’s particular qualities, like the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI). These are, however, normally higher-level finance rankings, i.e. beyond wealth structuring, so their limitations should also be noted.

Intergovernmental agencies: jurisdictions globally are often, to varying degrees, exposed to implications arising from views of various intergovernmental agencies like the OECD or FATF, so it is prudent to also consider what those organisations have to say.

Personal experience: a family’s own experiences, connections and knowledge, even where limited or lacking, often form an important basis for considering jurisdictions. This can be either helpful or a detriment but should nonetheless be considered.

Notably, “cost” is not included among the criteria above, and this is by design. In practice, jurisdictions that perform poorly against these criteria typically have lower average costs, while those that perform well tend to be more expensive. This reflects fundamental principles of supply and demand, as well as the relationship between quality value and price.

As families look forward, jurisdictional selection will be critical in enabling them to achieve their objectives. Getting it wrong can be costly, disruptive, and leave a family open to future challenges and risks. Adopting a balanced and objective approach, however, can help diversify and mitigate risks, and provide a proper level of comfort and reassurance in meeting long-term estate and succession planning ambitions.

Charlie Lucas, who has experience working for clients across a variety of asset classes including discretionary investment portfolios, private equity and real estate, has been promoted to Senior Administrator, whilst Darren Rostron, who provides support for a number of different client structures including discretionary and charitable trusts, private trust companies and foundations, has been made Administrator.

Effective from 1 July 2025, the promotions recognise Charlie and Darren’s achievements over the past year, as well as their ongoing commitment to professional development.

Congratulating them, Paul Hunter, Senior Director, Crestbridge FOS, said:

“Our focus continues to be to ensure we provide an environment where our people can learn, grow and thrive – and it’s in that light that we are delighted to be able to recognise Charlie and Darren’s efforts with the promotions they deserve. Our success as a business is built on the contribution of our whole team, and that’s an ethos that will continue to guide us as we look forward to the second half of 2025 and beyond.”

Tallie is one of the industry’s stand-out young talents recognised in the latest Crown Dependencies NextGen Leaders List, published this month by eprivateclient (11 June). She is noted as combining a strong academic record and a commitment to continuous self-improvement with emotional intelligence and considerable experience – working on a number of the firm’s dynamic and complex structures. She also acts as a mentor to other emerging talent in the team.

The annual list recognises and celebrates young practitioners working in diverse areas of the private client sector in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. To be featured in the list, judges consider a number of factors, including individual expertise and achievements over the past 12 months, career progression, feedback from colleagues, and the performance of their company.

Mark Beer, Client Director, Crestbridge Family Office Services, said: “Crestbridge has a strong track-record in nurturing young talent, reflecting our commitment to creating an environment where everyone can thrive. Tallie fully deserves this recognition. She leads by example, through her commitment to professional development, her ability to work as a real team player, and her impressive technical knowledge. Tallie has built strong, trusted relationships with clients, who consistently praise her responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise. She is an ambassador for what we stand for at Crestbridge.”