In the US charitable trusts are usually supervised by state attorneys general, roughly similar to how foundations are overseen in Europe, IIUC.[1][2] But the non-profits discussed in this article aren't trusts, but charitable corporations. Similar to this, I believe: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinn%C3%BCtzige_GmbH Their treatment is much closer to regular business entities in terms of scrutiny of administration and expenditures, so long as expenditures nominally serve the charitable purpose, and it's really only the taxing authority who cares one way or another.
[2] In practice oversight of charitable trusts is minimal unless someone complains and there are resources to investigate. As is typical in common law jurisdictions, the rule is ask for forgiveness, not permission. Charitable trusts are typically only scrutinized when a beneficiary complains, AFAIU. Anyhow, at least in the US charitable trusts are basically just a large pile of assets with an administrator who writes checks to charitable corporations, so there's not much to oversee and illicit self-dealing is relatively less common.
Thanks, insightful, especially TIL that there's a fuzzy area between nonprofit and for-profit organizations, by the way I realized that this is true for Switzerland, too.
[1] I'm relying on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung
[2] In practice oversight of charitable trusts is minimal unless someone complains and there are resources to investigate. As is typical in common law jurisdictions, the rule is ask for forgiveness, not permission. Charitable trusts are typically only scrutinized when a beneficiary complains, AFAIU. Anyhow, at least in the US charitable trusts are basically just a large pile of assets with an administrator who writes checks to charitable corporations, so there's not much to oversee and illicit self-dealing is relatively less common.