Tax advisors, fiduciaries, and accounting professionals carry strict legal duties of confidentiality. Every message and document shared with a client has professional and legal weight. AMVLET gives advisory firms a private, encrypted communications platform — hosted under your control, governed by your jurisdiction, with no third-party access ever.
Advisory professionals across disciplines share one common obligation: protecting sensitive client information. AMVLET is built for firms where that obligation is not aspirational — it is legally enforceable.
Individual and corporate tax mandates. Declarations, correspondence with authorities, structuring advice — all requiring absolute confidentiality throughout the engagement lifecycle.
Trust structures, estate planning, beneficial ownership management, and succession mandates. The highest-stakes client relationships in professional services, with correspondingly strict data obligations.
Financial statements, audit findings, management letters, and payroll processing. Data that moves between engagement teams, clients, and regulators — all requiring secure, auditable channels.
Multi-generational wealth structures, consolidated reporting, and family governance. Information that crosses generations, jurisdictions, and advisors — demanding a communications layer that matches its sensitivity.
Six categories of client data, all legally protected under every major data protection framework. Conventional communication tools were not designed with any of them in mind.
Tax identification numbers, national identity numbers, passport numbers, dates of birth, home addresses. Data that can identify a client absolutely — and irrevocably.
Tax declarations, income statements, asset portfolios, pension structures, liabilities, beneficial ownership. The complete financial picture of a person's life — compressed into files exchanged by email every day.
Health-related tax deductions, disability status, family circumstances, religious declarations relevant to certain filings. The most sensitive personal categories under every data protection regulation — handled routinely in advisory work.
Corporate structures, shareholder agreements, succession plans, M&A transactions, intercompany arrangements. Commercially sensitive information with major legal and financial consequences if disclosed prematurely.
E-banking login instructions, digital signature certificates, powers of attorney, portal access data. Credentials that, if compromised, enable direct financial crime or legal impersonation.
Payroll records, pension fund data, supplier payment information processed on behalf of corporate clients. Data subjects who never signed your engagement letter — but whose data you are still legally responsible for protecting.
Most professional advisory firms still rely on standard business email, consumer messaging applications, and cloud-based collaboration platforms for day-to-day client communication. These tools share a fundamental characteristic: the data they carry passes through and is stored on third-party servers, in jurisdictions the firm did not choose, under terms it cannot control.
This is not a theoretical risk. It is a structural incompatibility between the confidentiality obligations that govern advisory work and the infrastructure those advisors use to carry it out. A communication tool that exposes client conversations to the platform operator — or to a government authority with a valid subpoena in the platform's jurisdiction — may itself constitute a breach of professional confidentiality obligations.
AMVLET resolves this structurally. Your communications infrastructure runs on servers you control, in a jurisdiction you have chosen, under laws you understand. There is no third party to subpoena. There is no metadata to analyse. There is no platform operator with access to your client conversations.
For advisory firms with clients across multiple jurisdictions, AMVLET's federated architecture means each client relationship can be hosted in the most appropriate jurisdiction — with no data crossover between mandates unless you deliberately authorise it.
Only the authorised parties can read a message — not the platform, not the infrastructure provider, not any third party. Keys are generated and held by the participants, not by AMVLET.
Deploy in your own data centre, in a certified data facility in your chosen jurisdiction, or across both. You define where data lives. It does not move without your instruction.
AMVLET does not collect, analyse, or monetise communication metadata. There is nothing to sell, nothing to correlate, and nothing to produce in response to a third-party data request.
Retain all communications for precisely as long as your regulatory framework requires. Automated purge policies ensure data is deleted on schedule — not when the platform decides.
Client engagements are siloed by matter. No adviser can read a colleague's client communications without explicit authorisation. Access logs record every entry, every time.
All compliance documentation — audit reports, data processing agreements, employee policies, training certificates, technical and organisational measure records — held in one protected repository.
Compliance specialists manually review prepared documentation before distribution. Every document leaving the vault has been verified by a qualified reviewer, not auto-generated and forwarded.
Documents are encrypted on certified infrastructure with daily automated backups. No document is accessible without authenticated, authorised access — and every access is logged.
Sharing is governed by explicit authorisation, not open links. Access can be granted, scoped, and revoked per document, per team member, and per engagement.
Every upload, download, and access event generates an immutable record. Suitable for regulatory review, supervisory inspection, or internal audit at any time.
Advisory firms exchange thousands of documents annually — declarations, supporting evidence, signed authorities, correspondence with tax administrations, engagement letters, and management accounts. The dominant method of transmission remains email: unencrypted in transit, stored on third-party mail servers, retained indefinitely, and entirely without access logging.
A Document Vault integrated with your sovereign communications infrastructure changes this fundamentally. Documents are stored in a structured, encrypted repository under your control. Every document shared with a client travels end-to-end encrypted and expires or is revoked according to the rules you define. No document persists in an uncontrolled environment after the engagement concludes.
Critically, every document-sharing event generates a timestamped audit record: who sent it, who accessed it, when, and from which device. This record is available for regulatory inspection, professional liability defence, or internal governance review — at any time, on demand, without depending on a third-party platform to produce it on your behalf.
For firms operating under data retention obligations — legal holds, statutory minimum retention periods, or client-mandated destruction schedules — the Document Vault enforces those rules automatically, without manual intervention.
Every tool that processes client data makes your firm legally responsible for what that tool does. Here is what each framework demands — and what the consequences are when firms get it wrong.
Every digital tool an advisory firm uses — from document management to encrypted messaging to cloud storage — is a data processor under current data protection law. As the data controller, your firm bears responsibility for what those tools do with client data. Vendor Risk Management (VRM) is the formal process by which controllers assess, contract with, monitor, and where necessary replace their data processors.
The obligation is not optional. It exists under every major data protection framework in force today, and the consequences of ignoring it range from significant regulatory fines to criminal liability for the responsible individuals within the firm. What varies between frameworks is the specific mechanism, the documentation threshold, the scope of extraterritorial reach, and the severity of enforcement action.
The foundational data protection framework for processing personal data of individuals in the European economic area. Extraterritorial reach: applies regardless of where the processing organisation is established.
A written Data Processing Agreement (DPA) is required with every vendor that processes personal data on behalf of the controller. The DPA must specify the subject-matter, duration, nature, and purpose of processing, and include binding obligations on the processor.
Controllers must maintain a written ROPA identifying all vendors involved in processing, the categories of data processed, and the purposes. Supervisory authorities may request this record at any time.
Transfers of personal data to jurisdictions without an adequacy decision require Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), or other approved safeguards. Transfer Impact Assessments are required where SCCs are used.
Processors must obtain prior written authorisation before engaging sub-processors, and must impose equivalent data protection obligations on every sub-processor. The controller must be notified of any intended sub-processor changes.
Administrative fines up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. Supervisory authorities may also impose corrective measures, temporary processing bans, and reputational publication of infringements.
The Gulf data protection framework governing the processing of personal data of individuals within its jurisdiction. Extraterritorial reach: applies to any organisation processing covered personal data, regardless of establishment location.
Data controllers must conclude a written agreement with every processor handling personal data. The controller remains jointly responsible for processor compliance and cannot contractually transfer its regulatory liability.
Personal data of covered individuals may not be transferred outside the jurisdiction without fulfilment of regulatory transfer conditions, including a determination that the receiving jurisdiction offers an adequate level of protection or that binding safeguards are in place.
Processors may only use personal data for the specific purpose for which the controller engaged them. Any secondary processing — including analytics, training, or commercial use — is prohibited without explicit authorisation from the controller.
Explicit, informed consent or a recognised alternative lawful basis is required for each processing activity. Implied consent and bundled consent clauses embedded in platform terms of service do not satisfy the standard.
Significant administrative fines; criminal sanctions including imprisonment for wilful or reckless violations. Regulatory authority with powers of audit, corrective order, and suspension of processing activities.
The revised federal data protection act, in force since September 2023. Replaces legislation from 1992. Substantially aligned with GDPR in structure while maintaining jurisdiction-specific requirements. Applies to processing of personal data of natural persons within its territorial scope.
A written data processing contract is required for every processor handling personal data ("Auftragsbearbeitung"). Verbal arrangements or platform terms of service without explicit data processing clauses are insufficient.
DPIAs are mandatory for processing likely to result in high risk to data subjects. Communication platforms, large-scale client databases, and cross-border data flows all qualify as potentially high-risk. Advisory firms must assess each tool before deployment.
Personal data may only be transferred to jurisdictions with an adequate level of data protection as recognised by the federal authority, or with appropriate contractual safeguards. SCCs approved under the applicable framework are accepted.
New provisions apply specifically to high-risk profiling — systematic processing of personal data to evaluate or predict characteristics of natural persons. Financial profiling and advisory analytics may fall within scope.
Cantonal and federal supervisory authority. Criminal sanctions — including fines for responsible natural persons — for wilful violations. Unlike GDPR, sanctions attach to individuals rather than entities in certain cases, increasing personal liability for firm principals.
The common thread across all three frameworks is unambiguous: professional advisory firms cannot simply select the most convenient communication tool and assume compliance. Every vendor that touches client personal data requires a formal written agreement, documented justification, and ongoing monitoring. The absence of documentation is itself a regulatory violation, regardless of whether any data incident has occurred.
AMVLET eliminates most of this burden for the communications layer entirely. When your communications infrastructure runs under your own control — on your own servers, in your own jurisdiction — you are not a controller delegating to a processor. You are the operator. There is no processor agreement to maintain, no sub-processor list to audit, no Transfer Impact Assessment to renew, and no risk that your communication platform will change its terms, acquire a new sub-processor in a non-adequate jurisdiction, or be subject to a foreign government order to which you have no visibility.
For advisory firms handling the most sensitive categories of personal and financial data, this risk reduction is not incremental. It is structural — and it begins at the point of deployment.
Advisory professionals are subject to some of the most stringent data protection and professional secrecy obligations that exist. AMVLET is designed to satisfy those rules from day one, not retrofitted to them after the fact.
Full compliance including data residency within the applicable jurisdiction, lawful basis for processing client and staff data, complete data-subject rights support, and a Data Processing Addendum included with every deployment.
Designed to satisfy the Personal Data Protection Law: data localisation inside the relevant jurisdiction, explicit consent management, cross-border transfer controls, and governance documentation aligned with national requirements.
Architecture and operational processes aligned with the revised federal framework: written processor contracts, DPIA support documentation, cross-border transfer safeguards, and individual access rights fulfilment built in.
The architecture enforces confidentiality structurally: client data never leaves your controlled infrastructure, conversations are not accessible to third parties, and no metadata is collected or analysable outside the firm.
Platform and operational processes certified to ISO 27001. Independently audited security controls, documented incident response procedures, and a full risk-management framework available for client due diligence.
Built on a published, open protocol maintained by a non-profit foundation. Any firm can migrate its deployment, self-host, or move to another provider at any time — without permission, without penalty, and without data loss.
Book a private briefing with our advisory sector team. We will walk through your firm's specific obligations and design a deployment that satisfies them — before day one.