• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What if you know somebody committed bankruptcy fraud?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tlc123

Junior Member
North Carolina

I know someone that failed to list all of their assets on their Chapter 13 filing. They failed to list items that have value and could be sold to alleviate some of their debt. Where and how can you report them?
 


acemagoo61

Junior Member
Why

tlc123 said:
North Carolina

I know someone that failed to list all of their assets on their Chapter 13 filing. They failed to list items that have value and could be sold to alleviate some of their debt. Where and how can you report them?

Unless the person has 10’s or 100’s of thousands of hidden assets why would you want to make someone’s life more miserable than it is?

Bankruptcy stays on your record for 10 years. Especially for the first few years getting a loan is difficult and loan rates are usually above 20%. If you need a car to continue going to work so you can continue to support yourself, your children, your spouse, pay taxes, mortgage, rent, etc. You will probably end up going to a buy here, pay here’s or dealers who have access to poor credit funds. These people take advantage of your credit predicament. You pay more for the vehicle, more for the loan.

No matter how much you make or don’t make, how much you own or don’t own, we all live in our own economy to scale. There is only so much one could hide without raising suspicion. Someone who did have millions may be able to hide a 100k in a Swiss account and get away with it. Someone making $20k would be lucky (very lucky) if they could hide 2k. Both will pay premiums for loans in the future. I.E. Mr. 20k very well may end up paying 20k in additional interest over the next 10 years. Mr. Millionaire may end up paying 100 of thousands in additional interest in the future, as well as loosing 100’s of thousands in assets.

Also, take two cases, both made the same income, bought a house in the same neighborhood for the same price. One has been saving aggressively for retirement and saving thousands in taxes and has 100k saved. The other saved 100k, but it is in the bank and they didn’t save any money in taxes. Worse, the second person took a $20,000 additional mortgage on their house to try to help with the unsecured debt before realizing they really needed bankruptcy, the first with the same amount of debt, kept the debt in unsecured loans. In bankruptcy the person who paid taxes will lose all their money and have to pay off the second mortgage, the person who didn’t pay taxes on 100k gets to keep the money and is discharged from the unsecured debt. Does this seem fair?

I know these examples are extreme, but they show how inequitable bankruptcy can be, and they do happen.

If someone has rich parents they can rack up debt, file bankruptcy and their parents can buy them cars and homes and that is perfectly ok.

A poor person can try to take care of an indigent parent, end up in debt doing so and lose some of the equity in their house and money in the bank.

Even banks file bankruptcy, not only do they file, they continue to pay executives (who are responsible for profitability) 100’s of thousands a year.

Bankruptcy laws are unfair, the poorer you really are, the worse your circumstances.

Only a fool would file bankruptcy if they could really pay off the debt with out really facing a hardship (hardship is an economy of scale also, at least in my opinion).

Credit card companies are lobbying for a lot stricter bankruptcy rules for unsecured debt, they are doing this based on the position that people are entering into debt they know they can’t pay with full intent of filing bankruptcy. I don’t believe most people rack up debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. What the credit card companies are really seeking is the ability to continue to establish credit lines to customers without really evaluating the likelihood that the customer can repay the debt through solid statistical and actuarial practices. It is the banks responsibility to report credit lines to the credit bureau, their responsibility to check credit reports for open lines of credits. If after doing that they still choose to compete with other lenders by offering additional lines of credits, or fail to shut a line of credit down when they see that the customer has opened additional lines of credit that exceed what they consider a good risk, they are gambling. Anyone else who gambles and looses has no recourse. Why should banks?
In an attempt to make bigger and bigger profits, banks get more and more aggressive and if they get into trouble, well they just file bankruptcy and the executives are in no danger of loosing assets they earned from bonuses made from large profits in previous years because they made so much profit in previous years due to their aggressive credit card lending practices.

Anyways, if banks were more responsible for their lending, the only people who would be filing bankruptcy would be those who came upon a true hardship and do deserve bankruptcy relief. Instead they remain aggressive and want to continue to lend money out without being responsible for it so that they can show a high profit. If banks can’t be financially responsible, what do they expect from consumers not as financially savvy?

Truth is, if everyone played it completely, 100%, safe, who would ever dare take out a loan, you never really know what tomorrow holds. The banks would go out of business. No one would buy a car until they had cash for it. What would that do to labor and automakers? Consumer confidence is a major factor in the economy, when it is up the economy goes up, when consumer confidence is down, spending takes a dive, less goods are sold, more jobs are lost, more consumers become afraid of loosing their jobs in the future so they start buying less creating more job losses.

Being optimistic, taking a risk makes for a better economy. Holding someone to debts they can not really pay without hardship, if they can pay them at all, is bad for the economy. Think of how your mind works when you are under extreme stress; are you more or less productive? Are your decisions more or less sound?

If you’re true joy in life is to see others suffer, then you can advocate hammering people into the ground. Just don’t complain when the trickle down effect takes away your job, or your disability, or wipes out your investments. If everyone plays it completely safe, companies will fold, tax base goes down and everyone looses.

Back to the point, do you really want to make this person more miserable?

Bankruptcy laws are inequitable; do you feel it is up to you to help enforce this inequity? Or should it be up to those responsible for enforcing this inequitable process to dig up any thing perceived as not kosher?

Personally I am not hiding anything, I have nothing. If at the beginning I did things differently and had not tried to recover, pay my bills and protect my credit rating, I would have had a lot in protected assets. Does that mean I want to see this guy hammered? I don’t.

If you feel morally justified in doing this, your being judgmental, judge not least you be judged. You’re committing a sin.

Basically I feel it is you who needs something to crop up to hold your hands over the fire more than the person you wish to turn in.

Life is short, bankruptcy takes 10 years to clear and it is no picnic, have a little empathy.
 
Should you turn the person in? Absolutely. The person is committing a felony. They are defrauding creditors. We all pay higher interest rates because of criminals, and I mean criminals, like this debtor. Sorry I don't have "empathy" with people who run up huge debts and then try to stick someone else with the bill.

As far as 20% interest rate paid by debtors, I'm counsel at a title company and quite often we see people only months out of a bankruptcy buying homes and getting 6 to 7% mortgages. A person with a BK six months old can get a better interest rate on their mortgage than can a self-employed person, with perfect credit, who has to go stated.

It's people like this joker that makes it so much tougher on honest people who choose to pay their bills. Turn the person in. Please.
 
Last edited:

tlc123

Junior Member
This person happens to be my husband...to whom I am still married...I have filed for divorce. We have lived apart for 2 years. He agreed to make monthly payments to me to help pay our debt (my fault for not getting it in writing!) He allowed the home we lived in to go into forclosure 10 months after I left...only because he doesn't know how to handle money. He makes 3 times what I make! He then proceeded to have a child (out of wedlock) with his "girlfriend" to whom he is now paying $600/month child support. I have asked him to sell the boat he has (he bought brand new while we were together) and to give me the money to satisfy his part of OUR debt. He refuses. He also failed to claim this as an asset along with thousands$$$ worth of guns. So, want to talk about making someone miserable....he DESERVES IT!!!!




acemagoo61 said:
Unless the person has 10’s or 100’s of thousands of hidden assets why would you want to make someone’s life more miserable than it is?

Bankruptcy stays on your record for 10 years. Especially for the first few years getting a loan is difficult and loan rates are usually above 20%. If you need a car to continue going to work so you can continue to support yourself, your children, your spouse, pay taxes, mortgage, rent, etc. You will probably end up going to a buy here, pay here’s or dealers who have access to poor credit funds. These people take advantage of your credit predicament. You pay more for the vehicle, more for the loan.

No matter how much you make or don’t make, how much you own or don’t own, we all live in our own economy to scale. There is only so much one could hide without raising suspicion. Someone who did have millions may be able to hide a 100k in a Swiss account and get away with it. Someone making $20k would be lucky (very lucky) if they could hide 2k. Both will pay premiums for loans in the future. I.E. Mr. 20k very well may end up paying 20k in additional interest over the next 10 years. Mr. Millionaire may end up paying 100 of thousands in additional interest in the future, as well as loosing 100’s of thousands in assets.

Also, take two cases, both made the same income, bought a house in the same neighborhood for the same price. One has been saving aggressively for retirement and saving thousands in taxes and has 100k saved. The other saved 100k, but it is in the bank and they didn’t save any money in taxes. Worse, the second person took a $20,000 additional mortgage on their house to try to help with the unsecured debt before realizing they really needed bankruptcy, the first with the same amount of debt, kept the debt in unsecured loans. In bankruptcy the person who paid taxes will lose all their money and have to pay off the second mortgage, the person who didn’t pay taxes on 100k gets to keep the money and is discharged from the unsecured debt. Does this seem fair?

I know these examples are extreme, but they show how inequitable bankruptcy can be, and they do happen.

If someone has rich parents they can rack up debt, file bankruptcy and their parents can buy them cars and homes and that is perfectly ok.

A poor person can try to take care of an indigent parent, end up in debt doing so and lose some of the equity in their house and money in the bank.

Even banks file bankruptcy, not only do they file, they continue to pay executives (who are responsible for profitability) 100’s of thousands a year.

Bankruptcy laws are unfair, the poorer you really are, the worse your circumstances.

Only a fool would file bankruptcy if they could really pay off the debt with out really facing a hardship (hardship is an economy of scale also, at least in my opinion).

Credit card companies are lobbying for a lot stricter bankruptcy rules for unsecured debt, they are doing this based on the position that people are entering into debt they know they can’t pay with full intent of filing bankruptcy. I don’t believe most people rack up debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. What the credit card companies are really seeking is the ability to continue to establish credit lines to customers without really evaluating the likelihood that the customer can repay the debt through solid statistical and actuarial practices. It is the banks responsibility to report credit lines to the credit bureau, their responsibility to check credit reports for open lines of credits. If after doing that they still choose to compete with other lenders by offering additional lines of credits, or fail to shut a line of credit down when they see that the customer has opened additional lines of credit that exceed what they consider a good risk, they are gambling. Anyone else who gambles and looses has no recourse. Why should banks?
In an attempt to make bigger and bigger profits, banks get more and more aggressive and if they get into trouble, well they just file bankruptcy and the executives are in no danger of loosing assets they earned from bonuses made from large profits in previous years because they made so much profit in previous years due to their aggressive credit card lending practices.

Anyways, if banks were more responsible for their lending, the only people who would be filing bankruptcy would be those who came upon a true hardship and do deserve bankruptcy relief. Instead they remain aggressive and want to continue to lend money out without being responsible for it so that they can show a high profit. If banks can’t be financially responsible, what do they expect from consumers not as financially savvy?

Truth is, if everyone played it completely, 100%, safe, who would ever dare take out a loan, you never really know what tomorrow holds. The banks would go out of business. No one would buy a car until they had cash for it. What would that do to labor and automakers? Consumer confidence is a major factor in the economy, when it is up the economy goes up, when consumer confidence is down, spending takes a dive, less goods are sold, more jobs are lost, more consumers become afraid of loosing their jobs in the future so they start buying less creating more job losses.

Being optimistic, taking a risk makes for a better economy. Holding someone to debts they can not really pay without hardship, if they can pay them at all, is bad for the economy. Think of how your mind works when you are under extreme stress; are you more or less productive? Are your decisions more or less sound?

If you’re true joy in life is to see others suffer, then you can advocate hammering people into the ground. Just don’t complain when the trickle down effect takes away your job, or your disability, or wipes out your investments. If everyone plays it completely safe, companies will fold, tax base goes down and everyone looses.

Back to the point, do you really want to make this person more miserable?

Bankruptcy laws are inequitable; do you feel it is up to you to help enforce this inequity? Or should it be up to those responsible for enforcing this inequitable process to dig up any thing perceived as not kosher?

Personally I am not hiding anything, I have nothing. If at the beginning I did things differently and had not tried to recover, pay my bills and protect my credit rating, I would have had a lot in protected assets. Does that mean I want to see this guy hammered? I don’t.

If you feel morally justified in doing this, your being judgmental, judge not least you be judged. You’re committing a sin.

Basically I feel it is you who needs something to crop up to hold your hands over the fire more than the person you wish to turn in.

Life is short, bankruptcy takes 10 years to clear and it is no picnic, have a little empathy.
 

tlc123

Junior Member
PS...He's a POLICE OFFICER!!!!!



acemagoo61 said:
Unless the person has 10’s or 100’s of thousands of hidden assets why would you want to make someone’s life more miserable than it is?

Bankruptcy stays on your record for 10 years. Especially for the first few years getting a loan is difficult and loan rates are usually above 20%. If you need a car to continue going to work so you can continue to support yourself, your children, your spouse, pay taxes, mortgage, rent, etc. You will probably end up going to a buy here, pay here’s or dealers who have access to poor credit funds. These people take advantage of your credit predicament. You pay more for the vehicle, more for the loan.

No matter how much you make or don’t make, how much you own or don’t own, we all live in our own economy to scale. There is only so much one could hide without raising suspicion. Someone who did have millions may be able to hide a 100k in a Swiss account and get away with it. Someone making $20k would be lucky (very lucky) if they could hide 2k. Both will pay premiums for loans in the future. I.E. Mr. 20k very well may end up paying 20k in additional interest over the next 10 years. Mr. Millionaire may end up paying 100 of thousands in additional interest in the future, as well as loosing 100’s of thousands in assets.

Also, take two cases, both made the same income, bought a house in the same neighborhood for the same price. One has been saving aggressively for retirement and saving thousands in taxes and has 100k saved. The other saved 100k, but it is in the bank and they didn’t save any money in taxes. Worse, the second person took a $20,000 additional mortgage on their house to try to help with the unsecured debt before realizing they really needed bankruptcy, the first with the same amount of debt, kept the debt in unsecured loans. In bankruptcy the person who paid taxes will lose all their money and have to pay off the second mortgage, the person who didn’t pay taxes on 100k gets to keep the money and is discharged from the unsecured debt. Does this seem fair?

I know these examples are extreme, but they show how inequitable bankruptcy can be, and they do happen.

If someone has rich parents they can rack up debt, file bankruptcy and their parents can buy them cars and homes and that is perfectly ok.

A poor person can try to take care of an indigent parent, end up in debt doing so and lose some of the equity in their house and money in the bank.

Even banks file bankruptcy, not only do they file, they continue to pay executives (who are responsible for profitability) 100’s of thousands a year.

Bankruptcy laws are unfair, the poorer you really are, the worse your circumstances.

Only a fool would file bankruptcy if they could really pay off the debt with out really facing a hardship (hardship is an economy of scale also, at least in my opinion).

Credit card companies are lobbying for a lot stricter bankruptcy rules for unsecured debt, they are doing this based on the position that people are entering into debt they know they can’t pay with full intent of filing bankruptcy. I don’t believe most people rack up debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. What the credit card companies are really seeking is the ability to continue to establish credit lines to customers without really evaluating the likelihood that the customer can repay the debt through solid statistical and actuarial practices. It is the banks responsibility to report credit lines to the credit bureau, their responsibility to check credit reports for open lines of credits. If after doing that they still choose to compete with other lenders by offering additional lines of credits, or fail to shut a line of credit down when they see that the customer has opened additional lines of credit that exceed what they consider a good risk, they are gambling. Anyone else who gambles and looses has no recourse. Why should banks?
In an attempt to make bigger and bigger profits, banks get more and more aggressive and if they get into trouble, well they just file bankruptcy and the executives are in no danger of loosing assets they earned from bonuses made from large profits in previous years because they made so much profit in previous years due to their aggressive credit card lending practices.

Anyways, if banks were more responsible for their lending, the only people who would be filing bankruptcy would be those who came upon a true hardship and do deserve bankruptcy relief. Instead they remain aggressive and want to continue to lend money out without being responsible for it so that they can show a high profit. If banks can’t be financially responsible, what do they expect from consumers not as financially savvy?

Truth is, if everyone played it completely, 100%, safe, who would ever dare take out a loan, you never really know what tomorrow holds. The banks would go out of business. No one would buy a car until they had cash for it. What would that do to labor and automakers? Consumer confidence is a major factor in the economy, when it is up the economy goes up, when consumer confidence is down, spending takes a dive, less goods are sold, more jobs are lost, more consumers become afraid of loosing their jobs in the future so they start buying less creating more job losses.

Being optimistic, taking a risk makes for a better economy. Holding someone to debts they can not really pay without hardship, if they can pay them at all, is bad for the economy. Think of how your mind works when you are under extreme stress; are you more or less productive? Are your decisions more or less sound?

If you’re true joy in life is to see others suffer, then you can advocate hammering people into the ground. Just don’t complain when the trickle down effect takes away your job, or your disability, or wipes out your investments. If everyone plays it completely safe, companies will fold, tax base goes down and everyone looses.

Back to the point, do you really want to make this person more miserable?

Bankruptcy laws are inequitable; do you feel it is up to you to help enforce this inequity? Or should it be up to those responsible for enforcing this inequitable process to dig up any thing perceived as not kosher?

Personally I am not hiding anything, I have nothing. If at the beginning I did things differently and had not tried to recover, pay my bills and protect my credit rating, I would have had a lot in protected assets. Does that mean I want to see this guy hammered? I don’t.

If you feel morally justified in doing this, your being judgmental, judge not least you be judged. You’re committing a sin.

Basically I feel it is you who needs something to crop up to hold your hands over the fire more than the person you wish to turn in.

Life is short, bankruptcy takes 10 years to clear and it is no picnic, have a little empathy.
 
Aha! Now we get it. Ex wife revenge. Sad isn't it.

Lady, it's time to let it go. Get on with your life now that that loser is out of it. Revenge will not help your situation. Move on and try to be happy.
 

cyana24

Member
ihatearizona said:
Aha! Now we get it. Ex wife revenge. Sad isn't it.

I'm curious. You told the OP to report this "person" to the person's trustee until you found that the OP was the STBX. Why? Regardless of OP's relationship to the "person" a possible crime was committed. Bankruptcy fraud is a felony which causes even folks like us (who have filed bankruptcy) higher rates on loans and any other credit.
 

acemagoo61

Junior Member
A Police Officer - LOL

tlc123 said:
I'm just glad we have "fine upstanding" citizens like this to protect us!

A police officer, someone who arrests people commiting a felony. Boy is that tempting.

I have to assume you don't have children with him or you wouldn't want him to get arrested, lose his job and not be able to pay child support.
 
I just don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people doing things out of revenge is all. I stand by my initial statement of turning him in to the trustee, that doesn't mean I have to like her reasons for doing so.

Also, perhaps the OP doesn't exactly understand how BK exemptions work. In some states you are allowed a wildcard exemption. Perhaps he used this to cover the boat. The guns could be considered tools of the trade considering he's a police officer. There's just a lot that we don't know to call this one fraud for sure.
 

acemagoo61

Junior Member
Felony, felony, felony!!!

cyana24 said:
I'm curious. You told the OP to report this "person" to the person's trustee until you found that the OP was the STBX. Why? Regardless of OP's relationship to the "person" a possible crime was committed. Bankruptcy fraud is a felony which causes even folks like us (who have filed bankruptcy) higher rates on loans and any other credit.

Felony, felony, felony!!! At one time it was perfectly legal to buy cocaine at Sears and Roebuck and committing adultery was a felony.

Yeah I know the law is the law, doesn't mean we have to actively support it. N-A-Z-I doctrine was law.

Ted Turner seems to be able to keep filing bankruptcy, doesn't seem to hurt his life style (is that ok because he is privileged?).

Higher interest rates, wasn't it George W. who was involved in the S & L scandal, I know it was one of them, George, Jed, Jethro, whatever (I voted for both Georges, this is an observation, not a political view). Or how about the congressional check writing scandal. How about financial institutions making profits off of American's income sending Information Technology jobs overseas based on a claim that it is cheaper. It is not cheaper or better labor, it does allow a lot more room for graft and kickbacks and ten years down the line these same companies are going to be looking for tax relief because their systems are total FUBAR because they were "saving money". On top of that, sending these jobs overseas increased loan defaults, decreases tax base, who's the criminal? Come on, the country is bankrupt and they keep charging and charging and those in control have the best medical and retirement plans in the country and have total immunity from their mistakes.

Legally all my concerns in bankruptcy are covered, but I still feel that the bankruptcy laws favors those who are rich and get into trouble over those who are poor and are in most need of relief.

300k in real estate exempt, but 2k in a car. Someone with a 300k house can then turn around and sell it. Get a 200k house and have a 100k for cars, boats, etc.

Who's causing higher interest rates?

I am not on his side, but, how many police officers could ever afford 300k for a house, and on top of that, have it paid for.

It really doesn't sound like he held back a lot, I doubt the boat was a yacht and while guns do hold about 50% of their retail value, just how many did he have that weren't protected assets already?

If by telling the trustee she can save herself from these loans, she probably has a good reason to do so, if not, being vindictive isn't going to help. Bad Karma begets bad Karma. Since she is not filing bankruptcy, makes 1/3 of his income and is stuck with his bills, I am guessing that she don't want a bankruptcy on her credit. Why not? She married him, let him rack up debt on joint accounts, and made a big financial mistake. She doesn't want bankruptcy on her record, even for the reason her ex was a jerk and it wasn't really her fault. A lot of my debt has to do with my ex, only I am legally totally responsible for it, she is free and clear from that aspect. It doesn't mean her life is peachy keen, it isn't, she is still worse off them me.

Bill Gates made a fortune developing software that kept having to be replaced and failed. It was Americans who paid for this buggy, quickly obsolete software. What did Bill do, did he give people new software to replace the buggy stuff. No, he put out a new release, charged for it and now sends jobs and bends over backwards for India.

As far as higher interest rates, inflation plays a whole lot more in interest rates then bankruptcy. Does anyone remember the 70 & 80's? Who profited from that?

The truly wealthy must laugh at us, instead of sticking together and changing the law, we argue over nickel and dimes while they keep stuffing the vaults with cash. We need more lenient bankruptcy laws, not more stringent. Banks must take the responsibility for their gambling for profits. They are the first to ask tax payers to bail them out should they make a mistake. As long as we keep pointing to each other as the problem, the problem will continue, the little guy will always be at risk, very few of us have any control over the economy, companies sending jobs overseas, corporate and government downsizing. You can bust your butt for 20 years, pay your bills, then one morning go to work and watch airplanes crash into buildings and realize that the action will put you out of work.

Those being paid to protect us from such threats dropped the ball. They still got paid, still got their medical and retirement.

You lose everything because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We rushed to aid those hurt by the tsunami as well as those who were directly effected by 9/11. But those who were financially hurt through jobs lost, well they had everything taken from them.
 
Last edited:

Gracie3787

Senior Member
tlc123 said:
North Carolina

I know someone that failed to list all of their assets on their Chapter 13 filing. They failed to list items that have value and could be sold to alleviate some of their debt. Where and how can you report them?

You need to report the fraud to the trustee. Give them all documentation proving the fraud.

I don't have the exact statute #, but 18 U.S.C. 152 requires anyone who has knowledge of another person's bankruptcy fraud and does not report it may face felony charges themselves.

It doesn't matter whether it is revenge or not, the fact is that you have knowledge so now you have a legal duty to report it, and let the trustee, and US attorney decide.

Apparently, bankruptcy fraud is quite common among police officers. I know of a police officer who committed alot of bankruptcy fraud, was reported and is now facing indictment. Scary that these "upholders and enforcers of the law" are breaking the laws themselves, isn't it? :eek:
 

tlc123

Junior Member
NO, thank goodness I DON'T have children with this loser! I wanted one....he decided he "didn't want anymore" AFTER we married because he said "he would never have anything."
I had PERFECT credit going into this and at this point...I think I still do.....two months ago my beacon score was 777. However, I tried to get a consolidation loan so I could handle this debt alone and not have to "bother" him and they turned me down due to HIS bankruptcy. He had NO credit! I worked diligently for 4 years to build his credit back and DID! He lost it again in 10 months after I left! He has assets he can sell to satisfy his part of our marital debt...but refuses. I am left with NO CHOICE but to fight dirty. I already work two jobs to keep my head above water...and NO, I don't want a bankruptcy on my credit and I don't want to go down with him just because I loved him at one time. He obviously doesn't care about me.




acemagoo61 said:
A police officer, someone who arrests people commiting a felony. Boy is that tempting.

I have to assume you don't have children with him or you wouldn't want him to get arrested, lose his job and not be able to pay child support.
 
ihatearizona said:
Aha! Now we get it. Ex wife revenge. Sad isn't it.

Lady, it's time to let it go. Get on with your life now that that loser is out of it. Revenge will not help your situation. Move on and try to be happy.

Doesn't matter one whit whether it is an vengeful ex-wife wanting to turn him in.

The man is defrauding creditors. He is committing a felony. That boat most certainly should have been reported. It would have likely been sold to pay off some of his debts.

The man is out buying a boat, undoubtedly on credit, when he's so poor he has to declare bankruptcy. Then he hides the asset so he doesn't have itsold to pay creditors he's stiffed. Why in the world would you defend someone like that? By defending what he did makes you every bit as bad as he is.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top