Legal restrictions for EU-foreigners to setup bank account in Czech republic
"It depends on what exactly do you mean by ""seat of residence"". That term has different meanings (legally) in different countries and different contexts. If you're foreigner (even from within the EU), any czech bank will most likely ask you to provide a residence permit. Here are some details: http://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/third-country-nationals-long-term-residence.aspx http://www.czech.cz/en/Business/How-it-works-here/Making-business/How-to-open-a-bank-account-%E2%80%93-Part-1"
I have just established a limited company (three directors spread around the UK) and I am in the process of setting up a business account. We will be able to arrange everything over the phone and each of us will have to appear in one of the branches with original documents: passport, bank statement. We are EU citizens and have UK bank accounts for over 5 years. That would probably be a problem for you. But still, you can try to call around and see if you can find a company to help you. You can also setup an account on one of the online currency exchange websites and then provide your customers with the website's bank account details with appropriate reference. You would have to check the legal side of this solution. As NRI/PIO (Non-Resident Indian/Person of Indian Origin), the overseas income and transfers in foreign currency are exempt from Indian income taxes. However, the account in India has to be designated NRE or FCNR. There are three kind of accounts that an NRI can maintain Interest earned in NRE and FCNR accounts is exempt from income taxes. Interest earned in NRO accounts is not exempt from income taxes, in fact banks would withhold about 30% of interest (TDS). The exact tax liability would depend upon income generated in India and TDS could be applied towards that liability when the tax returns are filed. There are other implications also of designating the account as NRE or NRO. NRE accounts can only be funded via inward remittance of permitted foreign currency e.g. deposit USD/GBP. So proceeds like rental income, pension etc. that are generated in INR within India can't be deposited in this account. The money deposited in NRE account can grow tax free and can be converted back in any foreign currency freely. On the other hand NRO accounts can be funded through both inward remittance of permitted foreign currency or local income e.g. rental, pension etc. All the amount in this account is treated as Indian originated INR (even if remitted in foreign currency) and thus is taxed as any other bank account. The amount in this account is subject to the annual cap of convertibility of USD 1 million. Both NRE and NRO accounts are maintained in INR and can be Saving and Term Deposit. Any remittance made to these accounts in any foreign currency is converted to INR at the time of deposit and is maintained in INR. FCNR account are held in foreign currency and can only be Term Deposit. Official definitions: Accounts for Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) Here's a pretty comprehensive data source on immigration trends: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/international-migration-outlook-2017_migr_outlook-2017-en#.WazX28aB2gA#page18  On page 18 there's a table when you can compare the net immigration flows to the EU and to the US.  The EU net immigration annually is roughly double that of immigration to the US.  For people of immigration origin the US has more; EU figure is 35M.  Source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/1/10/Foreign-born_population_by_country_of_birth%2C_1_January_2016_%28¹%29.png  The US had roughly 43.3M people of immigration origin in 2015.  Source: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states  My point being - there is plenty of incoming cheap work force available in all rich countries. The structure of the US service economy cannot be explained with supply of work force. "Money market accounts, insured in the same way as other deposits, are strange hybrids of traditional bank deposits and bond mutual funds. Because of the high inflation of the 1970s, banks were starved of deposits and could not produce loans at sufficient rates.  For this reason, they desired a way to fund loans, and Congress enacted the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act which permitted a new form of account that retained the functionality of a deposit account, such as checking and now electronic transfers, yet transferred the risk to the account thus most of the profit.  This allowed banks to fund each others' new loans through packaging them into asset backed securities to be held in these special accounts. As an added ""protection"", they are not permitted to carry a market value less than what's owed to depositors and are forcibly liquidated and paid in such event.  This is a rare occurrence because of the nature of the assets held: credit assets such as commercial paper, mortgages, and corporate bonds.  This is the opposite case of deposits because so long as a bank can maintain payments on its liabilities and satisfy a few other regulatory requirements, non-regulation satisfying assets could theoretically carry a zero balance, meaning that a bank could owe depositors more than what could be paid by liquidating all assets. Money market accounts will typically pay a higher rate because of their structure.  While inflation is low and immediate term interest rates set by the central bank are also low, the net figure will not appear high, but the ratio will be fantastic, usually something like 3x. The one downside to money market accounts is that withdrawals are restricted by frequency.  This is not such a problem as before since brokerages are now issuing debit cards tied to brokerage accounts, and excess money can be ""swept"" into money market accounts, bypassing the regulatory restriction. In short, money market accounts are currently a far better choice than traditional checking accounts but pay less than savings accounts." Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments.  In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications. Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options. It makes no difference (to the UK) what country a bank account is in.  What matters is whether you are resident in the UK or not while employed locally in a foreign country.  You're taxed on where you are tax resident (which could be either country, both, or neither), not where the money is earned or banked.  You can assume, with modern exchange of information agreements, that all money you put in bank accounts anywhere in the world will eventually be known to the UK authorities. The rules for when you are a UK tax resident changed recently, there is now a statutory test for residence (pdf).  The rules are complex, but in general if you are outside the UK for less than one full tax year you're still resident, and in many cases where you're gone longer than that you may still be, depending on the length of your trips back to the UK and the ties you have there. So a 6-month winter job in Thailand teaching English as a foreign language will be subject to UK tax if you come back after, even if you leave all the money there or in a third country. If you pay local tax as well there are agreements between countries to avoid double taxation, but these do vary.  What you do about National Insurance payments while gone for a short time is another complex area. With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.