It is almost a given that principals who have a full protection team will also have multiple residences, often in different countries. Based on my own experience, three or four residences are fairly typical, though I did work for one client who had more than a dozen residences and that’s not counting luxury hotels he owned in various countries—hotels where he normally kept a penthouse for his own use. The types of residence and their locations will determine to a large extent what type of security must be provided when the principal is not in residence.
For example, let’s take a hypothetical principal, who owns a beach house in California, condo in Aspen, townhouse in New York, villa on the Riviera, and a chalet in the Austrian Alps. Let’s say he also has a seagoing yacht in the Mediterranean. The first consideration is how much time is he likely to spend at each place during the year and what types of threats are likely to occur at each residence. It is understood that each residence will have sophisticated intrusion detection and surveillance arrays. However, I believe that no residence should be left completely unattended. Not only are there security aspects (i.e. the possibility of someone bypassing the security system and planting listening devices, explosive devices, etc.), but in many countries squatters can be a huge problem if a residence is left unoccupied for a period of time. Once squatters have moved in, it can be extremely difficult to legally remove them.
It is almost a given that principals who have a full protection team will also…
by Paul Markel / Jun 1, 2008