How Public Records and Property Ownership Expose UHNW Families to Targeting
For ultra-high-net-worth families, exposure does not begin at the gate or the perimeter. It begins on paper.
Public records, property ownership databases, historical transactions, and media reporting create a quiet but persistent trail of information that can be accessed legally, cheaply, and anonymously. Long before a residence is evaluated for physical vulnerabilities, its ownership structure often reveals far more than most principals realize.
This article examines how public records and property ownership expose UHNW individuals to targeting, why this exposure is frequently overlooked, and how it is assessed during professional residential security audits.
Exposure Happens Long Before Physical Threats Appear
When people think about residential security, they tend to focus on visible elements: cameras, gates, guards, lighting, or alarms. These measures are important, but they address only the final stages of threat development.
In reality, most adversarial targeting begins much earlier, during the information-gathering phase. At that stage, no laws are broken. No trespassing occurs. No surveillance is obvious. The adversary simply looks up what is already available.
Public records are one of the most common starting points.
Property records, tax assessor databases, deed transfers, mortgage filings, zoning applications, and historical ownership data are often accessible online. In many jurisdictions, this information can be retrieved in minutes. When properties are held directly in an individual’s name—or in a poorly structured trust or entity—the connection between the residence and the principal is immediately visible.
For UHNW families with multiple residences, this creates a layered exposure problem. Each property reinforces the others, making it easier to map lifestyle patterns, geographic preferences, and long-term holdings.
A Real Conversation in a Beverly Hills Kitchen
Several years ago, one of our Beverly Hills clients asked me to come into her kitchen to discuss something she found unsettling.
She was standing there with an iPad open to a series of news articles about her. The articles were not hostile. They weren’t investigative exposés. They were standard lifestyle and business coverage. But within those articles, multiple residences were mentioned—by location, and in some cases, by address.
She looked at me and asked, “How did these reporters find out all my addresses?”
I reminded her of an email I had sent years earlier during a previous assessment, explaining that her properties were fully traceable through public records. At the time, she had acknowledged the risk but assumed it was largely theoretical.
Her response was immediate: “But I thought they’re all in a trust.”
They were. Unfortunately, the trust name contained the family name.
From a legal standpoint, everything had been done correctly. From a privacy and security standpoint, the exposure remained intact.
This scenario is far more common than most people realize.
Why Trusts and LLCs Often Fail at Privacy
There is a widespread belief that placing property into a trust or LLC automatically provides privacy. In reality, the effectiveness of these structures depends entirely on how they are formed, named, and maintained.
Many trusts are created for estate planning, tax efficiency, or succession purposes—not privacy. As a result, the trust name often mirrors the family name or includes obvious identifiers. When that happens, public records still lead directly back to the principal.
Similarly, LLCs are frequently registered in states that offer little to no anonymity. Even when an LLC is used, the registered agent, managers, or members may be listed in public filings. Over time, additional documents—permits, construction plans, lawsuits, or refinancing records—fill in the gaps.
During security audits, we routinely find that principals believe their properties are “hidden” when, in fact, they are simply one database search away from being connected.
Why Public Exposure Matters for Security
The risk created by public records is not theoretical. Exposure enables several downstream problems:
- Target selection: Adversaries prefer predictable, identifiable targets.
- Lifestyle mapping: Multiple properties reveal patterns of movement and residency.
- Media amplification: Once one address is known, others often follow.
- Third-party leakage: Vendors, contractors, and staff often rely on public records.
- Social validation: Information found in public records is frequently confirmed through social media or press coverage.
When these data points are combined, they create a composite picture that is difficult to erase.
This is why privacy is treated as the first layer of personal protection in professional security audits. Without addressing exposure at the information level, physical security measures are forced to compensate for risks that should never have existed in the first place.
How We Evaluate Public Record Exposure During Audits
During residential security audits, public record exposure is evaluated deliberately and conservatively.
Even though we employ licensed investigators, we intentionally rely on publicly available information during these assessments. This is done to replicate what a motivated but non-technical pursuer could reasonably uncover.
The process typically includes:
- Property ownership searches across current and historical records
- Review of trust and entity naming conventions
- Cross-referencing addresses across multiple jurisdictions
- Identification of linkages between properties
- Review of publicly available planning, zoning, and permitting documents
- Assessment of how easily properties can be associated with one another
The goal is not to uncover secrets, but to measure how easily information connects.
When ownership structures fail at privacy, we document the exposure and provide mitigation strategies that align with legal, financial, and operational realities.
The Long Tail of Historical Decisions
One of the most difficult aspects of privacy exposure is that it often originates decades earlier.
Many UHNW families acquired properties long before privacy was widely discussed in the context of security. At the time, purchasing in one’s own name was normal. Trusts were designed for inheritance, not anonymity. Digital databases were limited.
Today, those historical decisions persist in permanent records.
Changing them requires coordination between legal counsel, tax advisors, estate planners, and security professionals. It is rarely a single-step fix. But ignoring the exposure does not make it disappear.
A professional audit does not criticize past decisions. It simply evaluates their present-day impact.
Media, Social Proof, and Confirmation Loops
Public records are rarely the sole source of exposure. They act as a foundation that other sources build upon.
Once a journalist, blogger, or casual observer finds one address, confirmation is often sought elsewhere. Social media posts, delivery photos, charity event coverage, and even well-intentioned press releases can validate what was found in records.
This creates a confirmation loop: public records suggest a location, media or social content confirms it, and the association becomes widely accepted.
During audits, we frequently see cases where a single Instagram post—zoomed in, analyzed frame by frame—confirms months of quiet information gathering.
The risk is not malicious intent. The risk is cumulative disclosure.
Why This Matters Even With Strong Physical Security
Some principals assume that because they have guards, gates, or cameras, exposure is manageable. In practice, public exposure increases the burden on physical security teams.
When an address is widely known:
- Drive-bys increase
- Unplanned visitors appear
- Media attention spikes
- Protest activity becomes more likely
- Staff routines become easier to observe
Physical security becomes reactive rather than preventive.
Privacy, when managed correctly, reduces the frequency and intensity of these downstream problems.
Mitigation Is Possible—but Must Be Intentional
Mitigating public record exposure is not about disappearing. It is about reducing unnecessary visibility and decoupling identity from location wherever possible.
Effective strategies may include:
- Reviewing and restructuring ownership entities
- Renaming trusts or entities where appropriate
- Using jurisdictions that offer stronger charging order protection and privacy safeguards
- Standardizing how addresses appear across records
- Coordinating legal, tax, and security considerations
- Establishing ongoing monitoring rather than one-time fixes
These steps are highly individual. What works for one family may be inappropriate for another.
This is why privacy mitigation is addressed during audits as part of a broader layered strategy—not as a standalone solution.
Privacy Is Not About Secrecy—It’s About Control
At its core, privacy is about control over information flow.
UHNW families cannot prevent all disclosure. But they can decide what is easily discoverable, what requires effort, and what is deliberately protected.
Public records are one of the most overlooked contributors to exposure because they feel administrative rather than adversarial. In reality, they often provide the first thread an outsider pulls.
A professional security audit treats public record exposure with the same seriousness as perimeter design or access control—because in many cases, it is the reason those measures are needed at all.
Closing Thought
When a principal asks, “How did they find all my addresses?” the answer is rarely espionage.
More often, it is paperwork.
Understanding that reality—and addressing it deliberately—is one of the clearest indicators of a mature, professional approach to personal protection.
By Michael Braun — Former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection. Widely recognized as one of the leading experts in executive protection, UHNW estate security, and security auditing in Beverly Hills and across Southern California.