Call us +44 (0) 1534 626830
Home News Jersey and The Royal Rift: Princess Camilla's Decade-Long Battle Over a $200 Million Family Trust
News
Print Article

Jersey and The Royal Rift: Princess Camilla's Decade-Long Battle Over a $200 Million Family Trust

08/10/2025

Briefing on the Crociani v Crociani Litigation: The Grand Trust Dispute (2013–2025)

  • The case has spanned multiple jurisdictions, revealing details of the family's opulent lifestyle (e.g., residences in Monaco, Rome, and St. Tropez; associations with figures like Donald Trump) and offshore asset structures.
  • Assets were allegedly hidden in offshore jurisdictions, including the Seychelles, Mauritius, Switzerland, Florida, and Curaçao, with some artworks stored in vaults in Miami and Geneva.

Background and Establishment of the Grand Trust

  1. The litigation revolves around the Grand Trust, a discretionary trust established in 1987 by Edoarda Vesel Crociani (also known as Edy Vessel, a 1960s Italian film star) under Bahamian law.
  2. Edoarda, widow of Italian industrialist Camillo Crociani (who died in 1980 amid corruption scandals involving companies like Finmeccanica), settled the trust primarily for the benefit of her two daughters: Cristiana Crociani and Princess Camilla de Bourbon des Deux Siciles (née Camilla Crociani, who married Prince Carlo of Bourbon-Two Sicilies in 1998).
  3. The trust held substantial assets, including investments, fine art (such as Paul Gauguin's 1893 painting Hina Maruru, valued at around $66 million), jewellery, and shares in family businesses like the Croci Group, totalling an estimated $100–200 million.
  4. Edoarda served as a co-trustee alongside others, including BNP Paribas Jersey Trust Corporation Limited (BNP), which became involved after the trust's administration was transferred to Jersey in the early 2000s, resulting in a change to Jersey law as its governing law.
  5. The trust was designed as a tax-efficient vehicle to preserve and transfer family wealth across generations; however, Edoarda retained significant influence, including as a potential beneficiary through associated structures, such as a Bahamian company.
  6. The core conflict arose from allegations that Edoarda, with assistance from trustees like BNP, improperly transferred assets out of the Grand Trust in 2010 to new structures (such as the Fortunate Trust and the Agate Trust) that favoured Camilla and excluded Cristiana.
  7. Cristiana claimed this was part of a broader family rift, describing her upbringing as a "golden hell" and accusing her mother of ostracising her for not marrying into royalty.
  8. Assets were allegedly hidden in offshore jurisdictions, including the Seychelles, Mauritius, Switzerland, Florida, and Curaçao, with some artworks stored in vaults in Miami and Geneva.

Timeline of the Litigation

The dispute predates 2013, with tensions emerging around 2010–2011.

However, formal proceedings began in Jersey's Royal Court in January 2013, when Cristiana and her children sued Edoarda, BNP, and others for breach of trust, seeking to enforce their beneficiary rights and reconstitute the depleted fund.

Camilla joined the party in April 2014.

  • 2013–2014: Jurisdiction Challenges. Defendants, including Camilla, challenged Jersey's jurisdiction, arguing that the Bahamas or another jurisdiction should apply , based on the trust's original governing law and a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. The Royal Court and the Jersey Court of Appeal rejected this. In November 2014, the UK Privy Council upheld Jersey's jurisdiction, clarifying that such clauses indicate a strong presumption in favour of the named forum but are not exclusive unless specifically stated. Camilla's separate jurisdiction challenge was abandoned after the ruling.
  • 2017: Main Judgment on Breach. The Royal Court found Edoarda and BNP liable for breach of trust, ruling the 2010 transfers unlawful and ordering reconstitution of the Grand Trust with approximately $132 million. Edoarda was deemed to have acted fraudulently, with BNP failing in its fiduciary duties. Appeals followed, with the Jersey Court of Appeal in 2018 upholding key findings but adjusting some aspects of liability.
  • 2019–2020: Contempt Proceedings. In October 2019, Camilla was found in contempt for repeatedly defying a court order to disclose the locations of her mother's assets, including the Gauguin painting and jewellery. The court deemed her non-compliance "wilfully disobedient, flagrant, and continuing." In December 2020, she was fined £2 million plus costs exceeding £200,000.
  • 2021–2023: Appeals on Contempt and Fine. The Jersey Court of Appeal rejected Camilla's appeals against the fine. She sought extensions and a "bank guarantee" from the court to secure reimbursement if her appeals were successful. Still, in October 2021, the Royal Court dismissed this as "wholly misconceived" and "completely inappropriate," emphasising that courts cannot enter into commercial transactions or impose conditions on fines. By 2022, she had paid only £133,333.32, and further attempts to delay were unsuccessful. She expressed distrust in Jersey's jurisdiction and considered appeals to the Privy Council or European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
  • 2024: Global Settlement. The underlying trust dispute was resolved via a global settlement between the parties, ending the main litigation.
  • 2025: Ongoing Contempt Issue. Despite the settlement, on October 8, 2025, the Royal Court refused to discharge the contempt fully, ruling Camilla cannot "simply walk away" without consequences.
    • She must pay an additional £866,666.68 (totalling £1 million) to purge the contempt meaningfully
    • The court emphasised the public interest in enforcing orders and avoiding precedents that would lead to flagrant disregard.
    • Camilla argues the court reversed the burden of proof, claiming:
      • “I was convicted of contempt of court because when I was asked where my mother’s assets were, I said I didn’t know. This is the truth.” S
    • He has paid the fine but seeks guarantees from Jersey for reimbursement if her Privy Council or ECHR appeals succeed.

The case has spanned multiple jurisdictions, revealing details of the family's opulent lifestyle (e.g., residences in Monaco, Rome, and St. Tropez; associations with figures like Donald Trump) and offshore asset structures.

Key Lessons for Trustees

This protracted case offers critical insights into trust governance, disclosure, and contempt risks, particularly for high-net-worth family trusts:

  • Trust Governance and Fiduciary Duties: Trustees must act impartially and avoid conflicts of interest, especially when settlors like Edoarda hold multiple roles (settlor, trustee, potential beneficiary). The court's finding of unlawful restructuring underscores the importance of having independent, professional trustees and conducting regular reviews to adapt to changing family dynamics. Clear documentation, including unambiguous jurisdiction and choice-of-law clauses, can prevent forum disputes—here, the non-exclusive clause led to lengthy challenges.
  • Disclosure Obligations: Trustees and parties must fully comply with court orders for asset disclosure. Camilla's contempt stemmed from perceived inadequate responses (e.g., seven affidavits deemed "wholly inadequate" by BNP), underscoring that claiming ignorance without evidence can be seen as wilful non-compliance. Proactive transparency in reporting to beneficiaries reduces litigation risks.
  • Contempt of Court and Enforcement: Courts prioritise enforcing orders to maintain public confidence. The 2025 ruling emphasises that settlements do not automatically purge contempt; meaningful penalties (e.g., partial acceptable payment) are required. Trustees should incorporate dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., mediation clauses) in trust deeds to de-escalate conflicts early and manage costs, which can escalate into millions, as seen here.

Overall, the case illustrates how family biases and poor planning can erode trust value through litigation, advising early professional involvement to minimise risks.

Sources

The following sources were used in compiling this briefing. You can copy the entire briefing text above into Word, and the links below can be manually added as hyperlinks or footnotes for live access:

JERSEY LEGAL

The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more

Gallery

View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more

Contact

Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.  
×

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.  

news disclaimer -

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[www.gov.UK/government/publications/copyright-acts-and-related-laws]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email info@comsuregroup.com.