BLOG

Every jurisdiction in this series has been assessed against a common set of criteria: the quality of its legislative framework, the depth of its statutory policyholder protections, the track record of its regulator, the strength of its sovereign backing, and the honesty of its failure record. Mauritius’s case rests not on a claim that it alone has avoided PPLI-specific failures — true PPLI carrier collapses are rare across all jurisdictions — but on something more substantive: a purpose-built statutory framework, a regulatory enforcement record confirmed at the highest appellate level, and a clean track record across the entire insurance sector. That combination of framework quality and institutional credibility is what distinguishes it. THE FRAMEWORK: PURPOSE-BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP The

Seychelles is occasionally referenced in PPLI discussions, but it is not a developed PPLI jurisdiction. Understanding what it is — and what it currently lacks — matters for advisors whose clients may encounter Seychelles-domiciled structures through marketing channels that outpace regulatory reality. THE FRAMEWORK The Financial Services Authority of Seychelles (FSA) was established under the Financial Services Authority Act 2013 and regulates the non-bank financial services sector including insurance under the Insurance Act 2008. The FSA covers fiduciary services, capital market and securities business, collective investment schemes, insurance, international trade zone activities, and gambling — a broad mandate for a small-island regulator with limited institutional depth relative to the jurisdictions reviewed elsewhere in this series. Seychelles does not have a

Asia’s PPLI ecosystem spans some of the world’s most sophisticated financial regulators (Singapore’s MAS, Hong Kong’s Insurance Authority) and some of the most catastrophic insurance fraud in global history (Indonesia’s USD 2.8 billion in state-controlled insurer losses). For UHNWI clients with Asian exposure, the distinction between these regulatory environments is not academic. SINGAPORE The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) regulates insurance under the Insurance Act (Cap. 142) with a risk-based supervisory framework. Singapore is an emerging PPLI centre for Southeast Asian high-net-worth individuals, with investment-linked and variable universal life products structured for accredited investors. Singapore has not experienced a major PPLI-specific insurer failure. The MAS is generally regarded as one of the most effective financial regulators in Asia. Enforcement cases

Puerto Rico offers something no other jurisdiction in this analysis can: domestic U.S. territorial status, Act 60 tax incentives, and a PPLI regulatory framework under the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. It is the only ‘offshore’ PPLI jurisdiction that is technically onshore. That unique positioning comes with its own set of risks — some specific to Puerto Rico, some inherited from the wider Caribbean. THE FRAMEWORK: PUERTO RICO The International Insurers and Reinsurers Division (IIRD) under Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCS) licenses and supervises international insurers. Act 60-2019 (formerly Acts 20/22) provides 100% income tax exemption on dividends and distributions, 75% property tax exemption, and full exemption on premium taxes for Act 60 resident investors.

When Swiss banking secrecy collapsed between 2009 and 2016, Swiss Life’s PPLI Business Unit management made a documented corporate decision: the fleeing clients of UBS and Credit Suisse were a sales opportunity. What followed was a USD 1.45 billion tax evasion conspiracy prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not the only risk in the Swiss and Liechtenstein PPLI ecosystem — but it is the most documented. THE FRAMEWORK: SWITZERLAND Switzerland’s Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) supervises insurance under the Insurance Supervision Act (ISA, 2006, revised 2024). A defining feature of FINMA’s enforcement toolkit is that it has no power to impose monetary fines. FINMA uses profit confiscation, licence revocation, and public censure instead. This non-punitive model has

Malta offers EU membership, Solvency II compliance, and lower operational costs than Luxembourg or Ireland — making it an attractive proposition for cost-conscious PPLI providers seeking EU market access. The MFSA’s broader regulatory record suggests that lower cost comes with commensurate regulatory intensity. THE FRAMEWORK The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) regulates insurance under a Solvency II-compliant framework. Malta’s EU membership enables full EU passporting rights, and the jurisdiction has positioned itself as an accessible EU insurance domicile for carriers seeking to serve European PPLI clients without Luxembourg’s cost structure. The Insurance Recovery and Resolution Directive (IRRD) implementation is a supervisory priority for 2026, indicating that Malta’s framework continues to evolve toward EU baseline standards. As an EU member state,

Ireland is a Solvency II-compliant EU jurisdiction with a sophisticated financial services sector, a common-law legal system, and access to the EU single market. It is also the jurisdiction whose largest insurance failure required EUR 1.6 billion in public funds — and whose Insurance Compensation Fund explicitly does not cover life insurance. THE FRAMEWORK Insurance in Ireland is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) under the Insurance Act 1936 (as significantly amended) and EU Solvency II transposition legislation. Ireland has positioned itself as a major insurance hub for EU single market access, particularly post-Brexit, with a growing international life insurance sector. EU passporting enables Irish-authorised insurers to write business across all EU member states, making Ireland an alternative