Wie sind die Öffnungszeiten?

Montag 10:00 - 17:00 Dienstag 10:00 - 17:00 Mittwoch 10:00 - 17:00 Donnerstag 10:00 - 17:00 Freitag 10:00 - 17:00

Goldblum and Partners

Startseite
Schweiz
Zürich
Goldblum and Partners

Swiss law firm focused on Corporate/M&A, Banking and Finance, Tax Law, Restructuring and Insolvency

A Swiss law firm, Goldblum and Partners AG, has offered services since 2007 and is a fully independent advisor and counsel for all clients. We are focused on providing expertise in the practices of Corporate Law, Mergers & Acquisitions, Banking & Finance, Tax Law, Intellectual Property, Dispute Resolution, Restructuring and Bankruptcy. Goldblum and Partners also provide fiduciary services and repr

esent clients on Boards of Directors as independent supervisors and advisors; we act as a liquidator and restructurer. For almost 15 years, we have accumulated significant expertise in resolving any client's issues. As a result, we have solutions that can almost always be applied after some minor tweaking to suit any situation that is not relatively standard. We provide quality, timely and qualified services - this is confirmed by our clients and international ratings of law firms, which we have been awarded since 2013. You can always count on quick answers when you contact us and a reasonable issue resolution if you choose Goldblum and Partners as your counsel. Understanding our advantages comes after contacting several other firms.

31/05/2026

The Swiss company formation numbers from 2020 to 2025 look like a simple growth story: 46,842 new registrations in 2020, climbing to a record near 51,700 in 2024. Look closer and the total is the least interesting part.

The mix moved. The GmbH and the sole proprietorship absorbed most new entities, for one reason: a GmbH needs CHF 20'000 in minimum capital, while an AG demands CHF 100'000 with CHF 50'000 paid in. Founders pick the form by the cash they can commit, not by prestige.

Volume also concentrated. Zurich, Zug, Vaud and Geneva carry the weight, with Zug's blockchain cluster pulling crypto and fintech incorporations into one small canton. Those firms hit a second gate: FINMA authorisation or VQF affiliation before they onboard a client.

The rule that catches foreign founders is quieter. At least one person resident in Switzerland must be able to represent the company. The entity is not a postbox, and the register enforces it.

A clean GmbH file clears in two to three weeks once capital is deposited. The structure is cheap to start and expensive to misuse.

30/05/2026

Swiss founders ask us the same question almost every week: should I set up an AG or a GmbH?

On paper the two look alike. Both give you limited liability, both are taxed the same way, and both work for a crypto or fiduciary business. The differences only matter once you raise money, sell shares, or think about who can see your name.

Capital is the first filter. An AG needs CHF 100'000 in nominal capital, with CHF 50'000 paid in. A GmbH needs CHF 20'000, fully paid. For a bootstrapped business, that gap often settles the question on day one.

Privacy is the second. GmbH members are listed by name in the commercial register. AG shareholders are not. If you want your stake kept off a public database, the AG is the only structure that delivers it.

Then there is transfer and perception. AG shares move easily, GmbH quotas need a notary for every change, and many banks and acquirers still read AG as the more serious entity.

Our rule of thumb: GmbH if capital is tight and you stay closely held, AG if you will raise, exit, or need anonymity. What is driving your choice?

29/05/2026

Switzerland passed its DLT Act in 2021. The United States still has no tokenization rulebook in 2026, and this week the SEC delayed the one exemption that was supposed to close that gap.

The reason is narrow but revealing: third-party tokens. When a platform tokenizes a security it did not issue, the SEC cannot cleanly say who the issuer of record is. That single question stalled the entire framework.

The delay is not neutral. Every month without a US rule sends tokenization projects toward jurisdictions that already wrote one. MiCA in the EU and Switzerland's DLT framework both define custody, settlement and investor protection for tokenized instruments today. The US is not competing against a blank page. It is competing against working law.

There is a second problem. An exemption is not legislation. Whatever the SEC eventually ships can be unwound by the next chair, and any issuer building on it inherits that fragility.

For token issuers the takeaway is practical. If your roadmap assumes a US safe harbour by year-end, build a Plan B now. The legal homes for tokenized securities already exist elsewhere. We advise issuers and VASPs on structuring tokenized instruments under Swiss and EU law.

28/05/2026

OFAC has sanctioned six Ethereum addresses linked to a Sinaloa Cartel money laundering network that converted drug proceeds into crypto. For anyone running a virtual asset business, this is not a headline to skim past.

Here is the mechanism that catches firms off guard. The moment a wallet address lands on the SDN list, strict liability applies. You do not get to argue you did not know. A single inbound transfer from that address is a sanctions violation, full stop. There is no investigate-later window.

Swiss VASPs sometimes assume an OFAC action is a US-only problem. It is not. FINMA supervision and the AMLA regime require screening against the SECO sanctions list, and SECO mirrors OFAC designations within days. A six-address listing in Washington becomes a Zurich compliance obligation almost immediately.

The harder problem is speed. Cartel funds split, pass through mixers, and resurface in fresh wallets within hours. A screening tool that refreshes quarterly is structurally too slow to catch this.

The question every compliance lead should answer this week: how quickly does our screening ingest a new designated address? If the honest answer is measured in weeks, that gap is your liability.

27/05/2026

The CLARITY Act is close to the Senate floor, and it would finally give US crypto markets a clear federal home. That home is the CFTC. Here is the part the headlines skip: the CFTC is the smaller of the two US market regulators. Roughly 700 staff and a budget near USD 400M, against the SEC's 5,000 staff and a budget above USD 2 billion.

Spot-market oversight is a different job from the derivatives work the CFTC knows. It means registering venues, running examinations and monitoring retail token trading in real time, at a scale the agency has never handled. The bill leans on new user fees to pay for the build-out, but you cannot hire and train market examiners in a quarter. Appropriations move faster than people.

The risk for issuers is misreading the moment. "Regulated by the CFTC" is being treated as "lighter touch." It is not a permanent posture, it is a temporary capacity gap. Those gaps tend to close retroactively, once staffing and case law catch up.

Our advice to token issuers and venues: build for the regime that arrives in 2027, not the short-staffed one of 2026. A regulator you can out-resource today is not a safe harbour.

26/05/2026

Regulators say the UK payments network is ready for tokenisation. Read the timeline and "ready" looks more like a five-year build.

This month the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England published a joint roadmap for tokenised settlement. It allows stablecoins for unit deal settlement now under modified rules, an interim regime that runs ahead of the UK's finalised crypto framework in October 2027.

The round-the-clock operation everyone wants is staged. From September 2027, CHAPS settlement starts at 1:30 a.m. and overlaps Asian trading hours. Sunday and bank holiday settlement arrives no earlier than 2029. A continuous 22-hour weekday window comes no earlier than 2031. Blockchain records are now accepted as primary books and records, and consultation responses run until 3 July.

For EU and US institutions building treasury and liquidity around always-on rails, this is the point that matters. The UK is sequencing tokenised settlement over five years while the EU's MiCA regime is already live. Plan for a window that stays partly closed until 2031.

Goldblum advises institutions on tokenised settlement structuring and VASP compliance across the Swiss and EU regimes. Ready in 2026, operational in 2031: the gap is where the planning happens.

25/05/2026

Zerohash Europe just cleared a bar no one else in the EU has. It became the first firm authorised under MiCA to also hold a full Electronic Money Institution licence, covering both stablecoin and brokerage services.

The detail that matters: MiCA classifies most fiat-backed stablecoins as e-money tokens. To issue or redeem them at scale, a firm needs EMI permissions, not only a crypto-asset service provider authorisation. Most operators rented those rails from a partner EMI through 2025. Zerohash now holds the whole set inside one supervised entity.

That changes the compliance question for everyone building stablecoin products in Europe. Renting an e-money permission worked while MiCA was bedding in. In 2026, regulators increasingly want the issuer and the e-money licence under the same roof, with a single audit trail and one accountable board.

We have spent a decade structuring Swiss and EU licences for crypto and payments firms, and this is the pattern we expect to repeat. The dual licence is becoming the default for serious stablecoin operators, not the exception.

If you settle or issue stablecoins in the EU, one question is worth asking now: who actually holds your e-money permission, and what happens at your next audit if the answer is someone else?

24/05/2026

Founders ask us how fast they can set up a Swiss company. The honest answer: the incorporation is the easy part.

A GmbH needs CHF 20,000 in capital, fully paid. An AG needs CHF 100,000, with at least CHF 50,000 paid in. You reserve the name, deposit the capital into a blocked account, sign the founding deed in front of a notary, and file with the cantonal Commercial Register. In a canton like Zug, the entry clears in two to three working days. On paper, you can be incorporated in about two weeks.

The clock that actually matters is the bank. The capital deposit account has to open before anything moves, and for a foreign or crypto-adjacent founder, KYC onboarding can run six to twelve weeks. Until that account opens, nothing starts.

If the company touches custody or exchange activity, add VQF (SRO) affiliation and a FINMA assessment running in parallel. That work rarely shows on the formation timeline, but it sets the real go-live date.

So before you wire CHF 100,000, ask a different question: which bank will hold it, and how long will they take to say yes?

23/05/2026

Everyone picks Zug for its 11.85% corporate tax rate. For large multinationals in 2026, that number no longer exists.

The OECD's 15% global minimum tax has quietly rewritten Switzerland's famous cantonal competition. Groups above EUR 750M in revenue now pay at least 15%, and Switzerland collects the top-up itself through its domestic minimum tax, in force since January 2024. Zug's 11.85% becomes 15% for them regardless of where they register.

The spread still matters below that threshold. Ordinary 2026 corporate rates run from roughly 11.85% in Zug and 12.2% in Lucerne up to about 20.5% in Bern and 19.6% in Zurich. For an SME with CHF 2M in taxable profit, that gap is around CHF 173'000 every year between the cheapest and most expensive canton.

So the real question is no longer "which canton is cheapest." It is "which side of the EUR 750M line are you on." Above it, headline rate is noise and substance decides. Below it, the spread is decisive and worth modelling before you commit to an address.

Goldblum advises EU and US founders on Swiss company formation and choosing the right canton for tax, substance and regulatory fit.

22/05/2026

The CLARITY Act advanced this week. Bitcoin broke below $78,000 anyway.

One of the strongest regulatory weeks crypto has seen in years collided with a market that did not care. Macro pressure and crowded positioning overran the policy catalyst, and the move exposed a gap that too many firms ignore: regulatory clarity and market structure are not the same risk.

The clearest signal was in the options book. Traders bought downside protection into a bullish headline. That means professional money read the policy win and still positioned for pain. Sentiment said one thing, the hedges said another.

For any firm holding Bitcoin on the balance sheet, this was a board-level event. The legal news was objectively positive while the price absorbed a double-digit move in hours. Below $78,000 the question stops being whether crypto is legal and becomes who gets margin-called first. Custody terms and collateral agreements answer that, not legislation.

A favourable law lowers legal risk. It does nothing for market risk. Pricing the second one takes position data, custody terms, and a hedging policy written before the drawdown.

What did your risk model assume regulatory progress would do for the price?

Adresse

Stockerstrasse 45
Zürich
8002

Öffnungszeiten

Montag	10:00 - 17:00
Dienstag	10:00 - 17:00
Mittwoch	10:00 - 17:00
Donnerstag	10:00 - 17:00
Freitag	10:00 - 17:00

Webseite

http://www.goldblum.ch/

Benachrichtigungen

Lassen Sie sich von uns eine E-Mail senden und seien Sie der erste der Neuigkeiten und Aktionen von Goldblum and Partners erfährt. Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht für andere Zwecke verwendet und Sie können sich jederzeit abmelden.