lawyerliz_IHB
New member
I'm now wondering about my previous analysis? Could this be what is known in Florida as a fraudulent transfer? The law's on the books, but very, very hard to prove.
Of course, if there wasn't any fraud, as there wasn't in my client's case, then there's no fraudulent transfer. Strangely enough, I have a feeling, just a feeling, mind you that putting the money in a relative's name, rather than one's own, might be regarded as mens rea (guilty mind), so if you can prove that's where the money came from, you might have a slightly greater ability to prove your case.
I'm sure there is an equivalent statute in every state. Before it was amended, Fla's was taken directly from a statute of Elizabeth the First. Not a new ploy!!
Of course, if there wasn't any fraud, as there wasn't in my client's case, then there's no fraudulent transfer. Strangely enough, I have a feeling, just a feeling, mind you that putting the money in a relative's name, rather than one's own, might be regarded as mens rea (guilty mind), so if you can prove that's where the money came from, you might have a slightly greater ability to prove your case.
I'm sure there is an equivalent statute in every state. Before it was amended, Fla's was taken directly from a statute of Elizabeth the First. Not a new ploy!!