Can samsara apply to non-human beings?

Summary: How the Concept of Samsara Sheds Light on Cross-Jurisdictional Financial Entity Risk — with a Real-World Twist

Ever wondered how abstract philosophical concepts like samsara might influence the way we evaluate risk in cross-border finance — especially when it comes to entities beyond traditional human-controlled structures? In this article, I’ll take you through a unique lens: drawing on the cyclicality of samsara to unpack how animals, spirits, and other non-human participants would hypothetically impact modern financial risk models, with a focus on real regulatory standards and the messiness of international trade certification. Along the way, I’ll share some personal experiences in handling cross-border trade audits, referencing actual OECD guidelines and a juicy dispute between two countries over “verified trade” status.

Where Finance Meets Samsara: Why This Matters in Practice

Let’s cut to the chase: the financial world is obsessed with cycles — credit cycles, business cycles, regulatory cycles. The idea of samsara, or the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, might seem like a stretch when talking about entities like animal-backed trusts or AI-managed funds. But if you’ve ever had to explain to a customs official why your import documentation includes assets “owned” by a non-human entity, you’ll get why these philosophical ideas matter.
Picture this: I once handled a shipment for a biotech firm where some intellectual property “owners” were AI constructs — not humans, not corporations, just legal fictions. The customs broker in Germany was utterly baffled. “Who can be accountable for this asset in the event of default or fraud?” he asked. The answer, as it turns out, depends on how we define participation in economic cycles — and that’s where the samsara analogy comes in.

Step-by-Step: Mapping Samsara to Financial Risk in Non-Human Entities

Here’s how I’ve approached this when trying to build a cross-jurisdictional risk model:

1. Identify the Entity’s Legal Definition
   Start by clarifying whether the entity (animal, AI, trust) has recognized legal personhood in any jurisdiction. For example, OECD CRS guidance only accepts financial accounts for entities with legal standing.
2. Trace the ‘Lifecycle’ of the Asset
   Just like samsara implies cyclical existence, assets held by non-humans often “reincarnate” — transferred, revalued, spun off, or dissolved. I map out the asset’s journey: who owned it, who manages it, and what triggers its next transition.
3. Assess Regulatory Recognition Across Borders
   Here’s where it gets messy. Each country’s regulator has its own definition of what counts as a “verified trade” or “qualified asset.” For example, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) recognizes only certain legal entities in C-TPAT certification. The WTO’s 2021 World Trade Report discusses how non-traditional entities are treated in global supply chains.
4. Stress-Test for Fraud, Default, and Repatriation
   I simulate what happens if the non-human entity defaults or is dissolved. Who inherits the liability? OECD’s Principles of Corporate Governance highlight the importance of identifying ultimate beneficial owners — a challenge when your “owner” is not a human.

A Real-World Case: Dispute Over “Verified Trade” — Country A vs. Country B

Several years ago, I was called in to mediate between a tech exporter in Singapore (Country A) and a German importer (Country B). The exporter’s holding structure included a conservation trust where the beneficial owners were, on paper, endangered animals (yes, really — the trust’s purpose was to fund their welfare, and the animals were listed as “beneficiaries”).
When the importer tried to claim reduced tariffs under the WTO’s “verified trade” provisions, German customs balked. Their argument: “Animals cannot be ultimate beneficial owners; only humans or registered corporations can.” Singapore, referencing local trust law, insisted the structure was valid.
The issue escalated to the level of the World Customs Organization (WCO). Ultimately, the trade was allowed, but only after a new special “non-human beneficiary” clause was drafted for that consignment.

Industry Expert’s Perspective: Interview with Dr. Lena Hoffmann, Trade Compliance Advisor

In a recent call, Dr. Hoffmann told me: “We’re entering an era where the line between human and non-human economic actors is blurring. Regulatory frameworks are struggling to keep up, especially when it comes to assigning liability and ensuring anti-money laundering compliance. Samsara is a fitting metaphor — assets and ownerships are in a constant cycle of transformation, but the need for accountability never disappears.”
She pointed me to the EU’s regulatory guidance on beneficial ownership, which specifically excludes animals and AI from holding assets directly, but allows them as trust beneficiaries with strict oversight.

Country-by-Country Comparison Table: “Verified Trade” Standards

Personal Takeaways & Odd Pitfalls: When Samsara Gets Too Literal in Finance

Here’s a confession: the first time I tried to map the “asset life cycle” for a non-human trust, I completely missed a regulatory loophole — the AI managing the trust was not licensed in any jurisdiction, so any profits it “earned” were stuck in limbo. The lesson? You can’t shortcut the due diligence process, and you can’t assume regulators will accept creative structures, no matter how philosophically sound.
From my years of fieldwork, the trend is clear: financial risk models increasingly need to account for non-human actors, but the rules are all over the place. The cyclical, ever-evolving nature of samsara is a helpful metaphor, but in practice, only entities recognized by law can fully participate in the financial “cycle.” Animals and AI can be beneficiaries, but ultimate ownership and liability must always trace back to a human or a registered corporation.

Conclusion: Navigating the Samsara of Cross-Border Financial Entities

To sum up, while the idea of samsara elegantly mirrors the cyclicality found in asset transfer and ownership in finance, the legal and regulatory world is far more rigid. Non-human entities — be they animals, AI, or legal fictions — may participate as beneficiaries, but rarely as direct owners. If you’re building risk models or structuring cross-border trades, always check legal definitions country by country, and be ready for philosophical debates with real financial consequences. My advice? When in doubt, find the human, and keep the paperwork simple.

Next Steps: Before structuring any cross-border asset involving non-human entities, consult the relevant legal frameworks (see links above), and consider running a mock audit with a compliance expert. It’ll save you hours — and possibly a few existential headaches.