Location is everything, the financial neutrality of intermediary jurisdictions matters. Any intermediary-assisted asset transfer strategy raises issues concerning the neutrality of the intermediary's location. In this context, neutrality means the outward appearance of the proposed intermediary jurisdiction when looked at from the onshore jurisdiction where your money transfer originates.
The apparently large numbers of companies willing to receive your business shrinks substantially when you realise that an intermediary corporation based in say Antigua or Panama -- however willing to help you -- is less than ideal if you don't want to be seen as having any dealings with offshore tax havens.
Yes, even using an offshore-based transfer intermediary has its benefits if everything else fails -- at least your local sending bank doesn't learn of the final destination of your funds. But the fact remains that you are still sending money to an obvious offshore tax haven, and so risk having your affairs examined or even being reported.
It is consequential to our discussion that in some European Union nations it is possible to operate tax-free if the corporation is not controlled or owned by residents. As a result, countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or Denmark -- all popular bases for holding corporations -- host a large numbers of companies whose sole reason for existence is to act as commercial intermediaries of one kind or another.
The issue of the neutrality of the intermediary jurisdiction becomes more complex in cases of self-owned intermediaries. Where a third-party intermediary assists with the completion of funds transfer, your only concern is -- apart from the fees involved, of course -- the suitable location of the intermediary itself from the viewpoint of the originating bank.
When forming a self-owned intermediary, on the other hand, its location has to be chosen with care. Self-owned intermediaries require that you deal with both legs of the financial journey -- the initial remittance received by the intermediary, as well as the subsequent transfer from the intermediary to your chosen offshore haven. To put this another way, you are in need of a jurisdiction and a bank that not only does not cause alarm to the initial remitting bank, but also one where bankers happily send funds on to your chosen offshore haven without a fuss. One without the other defeats the point.
To conclude, an array of options is still available to those who wish to place their assets offshore confidentially -- not only limited to those discussed above.