This is our published view
The bench stands behind it
For your facts, in confidence, put the question to the firm.
The bench stands behind it
The position
A UAE takaful fund is a segregated pool that belongs to the participants, not to the shareholders.
A UAE takaful fund is a segregated pool that belongs to the participants, not to the shareholders. The participants contribute on the basis of donation, tabarru, into a fund that carries the risk and pays the claims; the shareholders manage that fund for a fee and do not own its surplus. The federal law states the separation in strong terms: the takaful fund has an independent legal personality and a financial liability distinct from the company, is registered with the Central Bank and falls under its supervision (Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025, Article 105(1)). Beneath the law, the operative regulation frames the same pool as a financially independent Participants’ Account within the company and sets out how contributions, surplus, deficits and fees run through it (Regulation Regarding Takaful Insurance, In-Force, effective 30 December 2022).
Three features define the structure and the economics. The surplus in the participants’ fund belongs to the participants; the company may not distribute it to shareholders except as the management consideration it is owed (2022 Regulation, Article 24). The shareholders are paid by a Wakala fee, and a share of investment profit under Mudaraba where used, not out of the underwriting surplus (Articles 10 and 24). And when the participants’ fund runs short, the shareholders must lend it interest-free, a Qard Hasan, up to the whole of their equity (Article 27). Those three provisions, read together, are the takaful model.
The currency of the stack is itself part of the answer, and it is not a simple choice between current and legacy. The 2025 federal law sits on top. The operative 2022 regulation replaced the old Insurance Authority takaful regulation but was itself issued under laws that have since been repealed, and it survives only through the transition provision that preserves prior regulations until they are replaced (Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025, Article 183). Alongside it, some Insurance Authority financial regulations for takaful remain live. Section VII maps which instrument governs what, and which must be confirmed before reliance.
The structural core of takaful is a wall between two funds. The participants’ contributions form a Participants’ Account that has financial independence from the company; that account, not the company, is responsible for compensating participants and beneficiaries, and the company manages it on the participants’ behalf by Wakala (2022 Regulation, Article 4(d)). Its assets and liabilities must be kept completely separate from the company’s own, and it must not include the statutory guarantee deposit (Article 23.4). The wall runs further: a company writing more than one kind of takaful must keep personal takaful wholly separate from property and liability takaful, with two or more separated participants’ accounts (Article 21), and family takaful contributions must themselves be split between an Investment Account and a Risk Coverage Account (Article 22).
This separation is the reason the surplus and deficit questions have the answers they do. Because the participants’ fund is a distinct pool held for the participants, a surplus in it is theirs and a deficit in it is not, in the first instance, the shareholders’ loss but a shortfall the shareholders are required to bridge by loan. The economics in the sections that follow all rest on this wall.
The federal law does more than restate the account separation. It gives the takaful fund its own legal personality. A company carrying on takaful business must establish a fund that has an independent legal personality and a financial liability distinct from the company, registered with and supervised by the Central Bank; contributions based on tabarru, per the Higher Shariah Authority’s standards, are deposited into that fund, which is liable for the compensation and benefits due; the fund must have its own articles of association, separate from the company’s, set per Central Bank and Authority standards; it has an independent financial position disclosed in the company’s statements; and the Board of the Central Bank will issue the controls and procedures for its establishment and operation (Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025, Article 105(1) to 105(5)).
The gap between that provision and the operative regulation is a live interpretive question, and it is flagged here rather than resolved. The 2022 regulation, which predates the 2025 law, frames the pool as a financially independent Participants’ Account within the company (Article 4(d)), not as a separate legal person with its own registration and constitution. The law now requires the stronger form. How a company already operating on the account model transitions to a separately incorporated, separately constituted takaful fund is not answered by either instrument on its face; the mechanism the law points to is the Central Bank Board’s controls under Article 105(5), which had not been located in force for this article. Until those controls issue, the reconciliation of the 2025 fund with the 2022 account is an open point, and a takaful structuring exercise should treat the separate-legal-personality requirement as the governing standard the operational detail must be built toward.
The company’s return is a fee for management, not a share of the underwriting result. Risk management and the investment of contributions are conducted on the basis of Wakala, or Wakala and Mudaraba, or another form, provided the Central Bank and the Authority approve it (2022 Regulation, Article 10). The Participation Membership Policy, the document that governs the relationship with each participant, must state the Wakala fee and its method of calculation, and the company’s share of Mudaraba profit or the Wakala fee for investing the account, and its method (Article 11.1(f)); it must also disclose that payments are made as tabarru, and that the company provides a Qard Hasan where the account is short (Article 11.1(c) and (e)). The policy is approved by the committee and then by the Central Bank, which may object after the Authority’s opinion (Articles 11.2 and 11.3).
The consequence for structuring is that the fee architecture is where the shareholders’ economics are made, and it is made at the outset and hard to unwind. The Wakala fee and any Mudaraba share are the shareholders’ return; the surplus is not. Setting those rates, and the split between the risk-Wakala and the investment-Mudaraba, is the load-bearing commercial decision, and it is committed in the membership policy and subject to approval, which is the point at which it stops being freely adjustable.
The surplus in the participants’ accounts is the participants’. The company, after the committee’s opinion, must establish the rules under which participants share that surplus, either across accounts or account by account, subject to complete separation between family takaful accounts and the others, and participants in one account may not share in another’s surplus (2022 Regulation, Article 24.1). The surplus must be determined with the actuary’s knowledge and approval (Article 24.2), and the company may retain a portion as a contingency provision on top of the technical provisions (Article 24.3).
The line that matters most for the shareholders is the prohibition. The company must not distribute to the shareholders any profit from the surplus realised in the participants’ accounts, except for the consideration it collects for managing those accounts under the membership policy, or an incentive permitted by the Central Bank’s instructions (Article 24.4). In other words, the shareholders’ access to the participants’ fund is capped at their management fee and any regulator-sanctioned incentive; the underwriting surplus itself is ring-fenced for the participants. This is the provision that a conventional-insurance intuition most often gets wrong, and it is stated in the regulation without qualification beyond the management-consideration carve-out.
The mirror of the ring-fenced surplus is a mandatory interest-free loan. Where the participants’ account’s assets are insufficient to meet its liabilities, the company must provide a Qard Hasan to the account (2022 Regulation, Article 27.1). The regulation is careful about its nature: the commitment is not a contractual one owed to the participants but a regulatory duty, and the committee must ensure it is not taken into account when the Wakala fee is set (Article 27.1). The exposure is bounded but large: the obligation is capped at the total of the company’s shareholders’ equity (Article 27.2). The loan is recoverable from surplus realised in later periods, in one payment or instalments, as the general assembly decides and the committee approves (Article 27.3). And it is enforced: if the company does not provide the Qard Hasan to meet a realised loss, it must notify the Central Bank within fifteen days, failing which the Central Bank may act, including suspending the company from business (Article 27.4).
For a structurer, this is the exposure that fires from the structure rather than from a discretionary decision, and it deserves the sharpest attention. The shareholders’ fund stands behind the participants’ fund up to the whole of its equity, automatically, whenever the participants’ pool is short. A parallel provision in the legacy financial regulations, seen on the Central Bank’s rulebook but not read in full for this article, states that the right to recover a Qard Hasan is not counted as an asset in the shareholders’ solvency calculation (Insurance Authority Board Decision No. 26 of 2014, Financial Regulations for Takaful; primary verification of its current text and status noted below). If that reading holds on the primary text, the Qard Hasan is a solvency cost that does not restore solvency until it is actually repaid from future surplus, which is the point at which the deficit exposure and the capital position meet.
The takaful rulebook is a layered, mixed-currency stack, and the field discipline is to confirm each layer separately rather than assume a single current instrument. At the top is the federal law, in force since 16 September 2025, carrying the fund and the business-model rule (Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025, Articles 104 and 105). Below it is the operative Regulation Regarding Takaful Insurance, In-Force and effective 30 December 2022, which carries the accounts, surplus, Wakala and Qard Hasan mechanics used throughout this article.
That 2022 regulation is where the currency reading earns its place. On its face it cancelled and superseded the old Insurance Authority Takaful Regulations, Resolution No. 4 of 2010 (2022 Regulation, Article 33), so it is the current takaful regulation. But it was itself issued under the Federal Law No. 6 of 2007 on insurance and the 2018 Central Bank law (Article 1.2), both of which have since been repealed, and it defines “the Law” as the 2007 insurance law and cross-refers to that law and its executive regulation throughout. It continues to bind only because the 2025 law preserves prior regulations until replaced (Article 183). The practical trap is precise: a reader who follows the 2022 regulation’s cross-references to “the Law” lands on a repealed 2007 statute, and must read those references as pointing to the current federal law that replaced it. The regulation is current; its stated parent law is not.
Around these sit the surviving Insurance Authority instruments and the newer Central Bank standards, and their status differs one from another. The Financial Regulations for Takaful (Board Decision No. 26 of 2014) and the instructions for life and family takaful (Board Decision No. 49 of 2019), which carry the solvency, technical-provision, investment and Wakala-fee-cap detail, appear on the Central Bank’s rulebook as live legacy instruments; their current text and in-force status were seen only in rulebook search results and are flagged for confirmation against the primary instrument before reliance. The Central Bank has separately issued a dedicated suite of takaful Shariah-governance standards (on Shariah governance, the annual Shariah report, the committee charter and external Shariah audit for takaful companies), which are the Central-Bank-era counterparts to the banking-sector standards and are noted here for a dedicated reading. The Insurance Authority itself was merged into the Central Bank in 2020, which is why all of these instruments, whatever their origin, are now Central Bank instruments; the precise merger decree is not stated here because the secondary sources on it conflict and it was not verified against the primary text.
What is settled sits on the primary instruments. The two-fund separation is settled (2022 Regulation, Articles 4(d), 21 to 23). The surplus belongs to the participants, and the shareholders’ access to it is capped at their management consideration, is settled (Article 24). The Wakala, or Wakala and Mudaraba, basis for the shareholders’ return is settled (Article 10). The mandatory Qard Hasan up to shareholders’ equity, and its enforcement, is settled (Article 27). And at the federal level, the fund’s separate legal personality and its supervision by the Central Bank are settled (Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025, Article 105).
What is open is bounded and named. The reconciliation of the 2025 law’s separately-incorporated takaful fund with the 2022 regulation’s in-company Participants’ Account is open, pending the Central Bank Board controls the law calls for (Article 105(5)). The current text and in-force status of the legacy financial regulations for takaful (Decisions 26 of 2014 and 49 of 2019) are open pending primary confirmation. And the exact 2020 decree that merged the Insurance Authority into the Central Bank is open on the sources seen.
What is moving is the layer between the law and the operational detail. The single largest trigger is the issuance of the Board controls for the takaful fund under Article 105(5), which will settle how the separate-legal-personality fund is established and operated and will likely supersede parts of the 2022 account model. Alongside it, any reissuance of the 2022 Regulation under the 2025 law, and any replacement of the surviving Insurance Authority financial regulations by Central-Bank-era standards, re-anchors the detail in this article. The rule the stack itself teaches is the one to carry: confirm, instrument by instrument, that the version relied on is the current one, because in takaful the current operational regulation rests on a repealed parent law and the current parent law is not yet matched by an operational regulation.
This analysis rests on Federal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2025 and on the Regulation Regarding Takaful Insurance, each as it stands on the Central Bank’s live rulebook and each in force on the date of this article, and it flags the Insurance Authority financial regulations for takaful for primary confirmation. Where the position turns on those legacy regulations, on the takaful Shariah-governance standards, or on the Board controls awaited under Article 105(5), those instruments govern and are read in the pieces that follow.
For your facts, in confidence, put the question to the firm.
The bench stands behind it