Tanya Dick-Stock and Darrin Stock were stunned to find 330 banker boxes hidden in a locked, unused squash court on their former estate while preparing for their 2012 wedding, with the documents revealing how Jersey-based La Hougue trust company assisted its clients while breaching its fiduciary duties to Tanya. Source: John Stock

Tanya Dick-Stock and her husband Darrin Stock accuse major banking institutions, including Barclays and HSBC, of breaching fiduciary duties and providing dishonest assistance in the alleged looting of a Colorado trust worth roughly $350 million. The damages claimed reach an eye-catching $12 billion. The case, led by former US Senator John Edwards as counsel, places offshore finance in Jersey under an unforgiving spotlight and which further exposes uncomfortable overlaps with other controversial, funder-driven claims, including those linked to the supposed heirs of Sulu.

A $12 Billion Test Case: From Colorado Trust to Jersey Structures

At the heart of the lawsuit is a family trust established in Colorado, designed with safeguards intended to keep control within US regulated institutions. According to the complaint, those safeguards were bypassed when trust assets were shifted offshore to Jersey without proper authorization. Jersey, marketed as stable and discreet, features prominently as the jurisdiction where trust administration, lending, and alleged self-dealing occurred.

"While the banks deny wrongdoing, the history of Jersey as a secrecy-friendly environment provides fertile ground for the plaintiffs’ narrative that offshore structures were used not for stewardship, but for extraction."

While investigating the losses, Tanya and her husband Darrin Stock say they uncovered hundreds of boxes of documents pointing to forged agreements and internal communications showing breaches of fiduciary duty. The case centers on Jersey’s offshore financial system and argues that the trustee changes were legally invalid from the outset, leaving the original trustees responsible for losses the couple estimates at more than $12 billion.

The plaintiffs argue that banks and trust companies ignored obvious red flags. These include questionable loans secured against trust property and the appointment of offshore trustees who allegedly acted for improper purposes. While the banks deny wrongdoing, the history of Jersey as a secrecy-friendly environment provides fertile ground for the plaintiffs’ narrative that offshore structures were used not for stewardship, but for extraction.

Core Allegations Against the Banks and Potential Outcomes for the Plaintiffs

The complaint advances several serious claims. First is breach of trust, alleging that trustees and their professional assistants failed in their fiduciary duties by allowing assets to be diverted. Second is dishonest assistance, a doctrine under English and Jersey law that requires knowledge of, and participation in, a breach. Third is fraud on the power, a concept that applies when trustees exercise authority for unauthorized ends.

The $12 billion figure has attracted skepticism, but it is not arbitrary. It reflects not only the original assets, but also decades of lost growth, legal costs, and punitive damages. Whether a jury accepts that valuation remains to be seen. What matters more is the allegation that globally significant banks treated offshore structures as a compliance box-ticking exercise rather than a serious responsibility.

"What matters more is the allegation that globally significant banks treated offshore structures as a compliance box-ticking exercise rather than a serious responsibility."

If Dick-Stock and Stock succeed, the implications are substantial. Recovery of even a fraction of the claimed losses would represent a rare victory for beneficiaries fighting offshore arrangements. More importantly, a finding against Barclays or HSBC could set a precedent that banks cannot hide behind trustees or jurisdictional complexity when assets are moved offshore improperly.

"More importantly, a finding against Barclays or HSBC could set a precedent that banks cannot hide behind trustees or jurisdictional complexity when assets are moved offshore improperly."

Broader Impact on Offshore Finance and Jersey

Beyond the immediate parties, the case underscores structural weaknesses in global trust systems. Jersey’s regulatory model depends heavily on professional intermediaries policing themselves. When that model fails, beneficiaries are left chasing assets across borders while regulators point to formal compliance.

The lawsuit echoes earlier revelations such as the FinCEN Files, which documented how banks facilitated questionable flows while technically meeting reporting obligations. With John Edwards involved, the Dick-Stock case is likely to attract sustained media attention and could spur closer cooperation between US and UK regulators. Jersey, in turn, may face renewed pressure to demonstrate that it is not merely a haven for sophisticated avoidance and opaque funding.

"Jersey, in turn, may face renewed pressure to demonstrate that it is not merely a haven for sophisticated avoidance and opaque funding."

The case has drawn additional attention because the Jersey-based trust company at its center, La Hougue, is also under US Senate investigation for alleged ties to financial networks connected to Jeffrey Epstein through Ghislaine Maxwell’s family. That overlap links the trust dispute to the wider Epstein probe, making it likely to attract intensified media scrutiny beyond a standard banking or fiduciary lawsuit.

What This Has to Do With Sulu

The relevance to the supposed heirs of Sulu lies in the funding architecture. Litigation linked to the Sulu claim relied heavily on offshore entities and third-party funders, some routed through Jersey. Those claims have already unraveled in European courts, with the Paris Court of Appeal annulling the arbitration award in December 2025. The pattern is familiar: complex historical narratives repackaged into modern, finance-driven legal projects sustained by offshore structures.

"As scrutiny intensifies around Jersey’s role in the Dick-Stock case, any future or ongoing funding tied to Sulu-related actors becomes more precarious."

As scrutiny intensifies around Jersey’s role in the Dick-Stock case, any future or ongoing funding tied to Sulu-related actors becomes more precarious. Offshore funders thrive on opacity and jurisdictional arbitrage. When courts and regulators begin to challenge that ecosystem, capital becomes cautious. For claimants whose legitimacy is already in doubt, reliance on offshore funding is not a strength but a vulnerability.

"For claimants whose legitimacy is already in doubt, reliance on offshore funding is not a strength but a vulnerability."

Offshore Finance Under Pressure

The Dick-Stock lawsuit is not just about a family fortune. It is a stress test for offshore finance, big banks, and the litigation funding industry that feeds on complexity. Its overlap, direct or indirect, with failed claims like those advanced by the supposed heirs of Sulu highlights a broader problem. Offshore structures are repeatedly used to inflate, sustain, and monetize weak or speculative claims.

Whether through judgment or settlement, the case sends a clear signal. Offshore funding and opaque trust arrangements are no longer insulated from accountability. For banks, funders, and claimants alike, Jersey may be less of a safe harbor than it once appeared.

REFERENCES

AOL. (2026, January 17). Heiress sues big banks for $12B, claims dad looted $350M trust in offshore scheme tied to Ghislaine Maxwell siblings, Epstein probe. AOL. https://www.aol.com/

Comsure. (2025, December 8). From Colorado to Jersey: $12B suit alleges HSBC-Barclays trust theft. Comsure Group. https://www.comsuregroup.com/

KnowSulu. (2025, October 27). Litigation funders face scrutiny over offshore structures and opaque dealings. KnowSulu.ph. https://knowsulu.ph/

New York Post. (2026, January 17). Heiress drops $12B bombshell, says big banks helped dad loot her trust. New York Post. https://nypost.com/