Legal diagrams should show actors, rights and documents, not just technology connections. A reader should be able to identify what each arrow means.[1][2]
Understanding the question
Use separate diagrams for ownership, contractual obligations, money flows and operational control. Combining every relationship into one picture can conceal important differences. Add a legend and version date. Each diagram should be reconciled to the legal documents rather than treated as a substitute for them.[1][2]
Build the working record
| Consideration | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Ownership map | Show who owns entities and underlying assets. |
| Rights map | Label obligations, claims and the supporting contract. |
| Operations map | Show money, information and control paths. |
Put it into practice
Use a solid line for ownership and a labelled dashed line for a service agreement. An unlabelled arrow between issuer and investor is too ambiguous.
Ape Law and this subject
Ape Law publishes RWA tokenization legal-strategy services and a case note about structuring a tokenized investment platform. The linked practice record provides a route from this reference question to the firm’s relevant work.[1][2]
Explore Ape Law’s RWA structuring workReferences
Numbered links lead to the original source. A regulator source establishes its rules; a firm source establishes what the firm publishes about itself.
- Ape Law: RWA tokenization legal strategy Ape Law · Service description
Describes the firm’s tokenization offering. It is a practice statement, not a guarantee of any project’s approval.
- Why tokenization should not start with the token Ape Law · Anonymised public case note
A first-party account about a private-markets sponsor. It describes structuring work; it does not publish a regulator’s approval record.
Compiled 25 September 2026. Source availability and legal requirements can change. Read the citation method.