UHNWIs generally own multiple assets, not only within their country of citizenship/primary residence but all over the world, from residences, private yachts, supercars, offices and private jets. Often, many of these assets are not always used at once by the owner, perhaps sometimes left empty, parked, moored, or under the supervision of an employee, such as a house manager, fleet manager, crew or even chartered.
Of course, many individuals may have a full-time security team who protect such vacant assets when the owner is not in-country, or the asset is not in use, such as a manned guarding company, or Residential Security Team looking after their residence, regardless of being occupied or unoccupied by the owner, some yachts also have a full-time security presence onboard, but not always, relying on the crew to oversee this element.
Below we shall share some notable public incidents from over the past 18 months, and offer some insight which may be of value to our readers.
Notable UHNWI – Yacht Incident #1
In July 2023, the $300 million superyacht “Kaos” was vandalized in Ibiza, Spain, when climate activists sprayed the vessel in red and black paint. Futuro Vegetal (Vegetable Future) vandalized the 360ft vessel using fire extinguishers filled with paint. The superyacht was initially commissioned by then-Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Khalifa bin Hamad bin Abdullah bin Jassim bin Mohammed Al Thani.
The protesters posed with a sign stating, ‘’You Consume Others Suffer’’. The group has stated on their social networks, “The only reason we continue to maintain an economic system that leads us to eco-social collapse is to sustain the privileges of this small, privileged class’’.
Biodegradable paint is deemed eco-friendly; however, they are the same as normal paint, only considered natural and deemed ethical, It must be treated the same as any normal paint, and the impact caused due to vandalism is the same (psychological and reputational, aesthetical, and costly).
Notable UHNWI – Yacht Incident #2
In September 2023, eco-activists targeted the yacht once again in Barcelona, Spain, with biodegradable red paint and a banner reading ‘’Billionaires should not exist’’. Two activists from the climate groups Scientist Rebellion and Extinction Rebellion accessed Marina Port Vell, a dock for superyachts.
A spokesperson for Marina Port Vell said that ‘’the boat had not been damaged, after a quick reaction on behalf of the security team, the incident has been corrected and the boat is now in a perfect state’’, the spokesperson from Marina Port Vell told CNN.
It is important to note that this was the second time this asset was targeted, within the same country in a very short space of time.
Stansted Airport – Private Jets
On June 20th, 2024, a spokesperson from ”Just Stop Oil” said activists had entered the airfield in Essex and used fire extinguishers filled with orange paint. The aircraft is owned by several corporate entities, according to charges read to the court this year. Activists acted in response to US pop star Taylor Swift’s environmental impact, despite her aircraft not being present at the given time of the incidents.
The two adversaries cut through a wire fence on the outer perimeter of the airfield, and gained access to the tarmac, an airport spokesperson said that the incident occurred three miles (5 kilometers) from the main terminal, and police assured the public there was no threat.
High-Profile Athlete – Private Residence Incident
In August 2024, two members of Futuro Vegetal breached the perimeter walls of a private residence in Ibiza, Spain, covering it with red and black paint, and unfurling a banner outside its entry that read, “Help the planet, eat the rich, abolish the police”.
Futuro Vegetal, known for its extreme tactics, justified its actions on social media, claiming, “We tinted an illegal mansion in Ibiza’’.
The group criticized the athlete for owning the $12 million mansion, labelling it as an “illegal construction” and highlighting the climate crisis’s impact on the Balearic Islands. The three members were arrested by Guardia Civil two days after the act and were released after 24 hours, charged with criminal damage.
In response to Futuro Vegetal, the victim demanded that they provide a €50,000 compensation for the damage. Bassaterra, the group’s leader, spoke out against the demand, “This is water-based paint, so it can be washed off with a hosepipe. But even in the worst-case scenario, even if the facade had to be repainted, it doesn´t cost €50,000’’.
Bassatera compared throwing paint to “spitting,” claiming; “no one would think of asking for criminal damage for spitting on a facade.” He reported that the group intends to ask the court for an expert opinion on the compensation and emphasized that the victims’ €11 million villa “was built without planning permission.”
Considerations
You might be asking yourself, it’s only paint, so what’s the issue? or, at some stage, persons attended the incident and claimed to have brought the incident under control, one underlying concern, is how these adversaries gain access to the asset in the first instance, and in all cases, go undeterred and undetected (until it was too late), how effective is, or was the response once the damage had been caused?
It is important to also keep in mind, that these were activists with fire extinguishers or canisters filled with paint, what if the adversaries had far worse intent, for example, a terrorist, or lone attacker with a weapon? We would think that a port catering for yachts of this nature listed above was sufficiently secured, ensuring only those with the appropriate privileges could gain access, along with appropriate controls in place.
One would also assume that an airfield’s perimeter would be secured appropriately to deter and detect adversaries from breaching a fence, with an angle grinder and gaining access to the tarmac. Despite being 5km away from the public terminal as stated above, does this mean the location of the breach is of lesser concern, or does the existence of private jets, with potentially both high-profile and non-high-profile owners present, in a more remote location deem itself as a more desirable target to motivated adversaries?
A private residence owned by one of the most famous athletes in the world was able to be accessed by adversaries, they were able to vandalize the front of the property, gain access to the gardens, and obtain a photo from what seems to be the main lounge area, noting that the adversaries were not detained at the scene.
If this property was situated in a private gated community, unknown to us, how were the adversaries able to gain access? would having a dedicated security team on site make any difference?
Assumption
An assumption is something that is taken for granted or accepted as true without question or proof. Assumptions can be useful in making decisions or acting when there is not enough information available, but they can also be dangerous if they are incorrect or based on faulty reasoning.
Within the security field, the assumption is even more dangerous, the provision of security controls should be based on fact and information. It has never happened, or will not happen to us, is another example of negligence, regular, fit-for-purpose risk assessments must be conducted to establish suitable mitigation options (controls), which are proportionate, and practical.
Reputational Risk and Damage
To adequately analyze risk, a detailed TVRA (Threat-Vulnerability and Risk Assessment) needs to be completed for all assets that an individual owns, as each asset will likely face a diverse, differing range of threats. The process includes an assessment in granular detail, whilst also exploring the potential for reputational risk and damage, to do this properly, can take time, and requires experienced, qualified professionals.
Although the above incidents are serious in their own right, the outcome could have been far worse if the adversary had other intent, and ultimately could have been avoided/prepared for if appropriate risks were identified. The adversaries in the above instances were able to achieve their goals, obtain access to the asset, damage the asset, and expose their actions on social media, and news agencies, globally.
Unfortunately, as their actions were a success, those impacted were also named, causing not only reputational damage, but also exposing what may have been a private asset, the locations of these actions were also outlined, bringing those locations, operations and organizations into disrepute, ask yourself, if you were leading the security program for a private family office, would you now question the controls in place at these locations since these incidents occurred, or what you need to assess in the future to better protect your clients assets?
