Share this content

Interesting fraudulent asset protection BO case

Didn't find your answer?

Judge basically says there is no sanction for a fraudulent asset protection scheme (and a fraudulent detrimental reliance is still good enough for a constructive trust per para 62), so fraud does pay (in some cases) after all.

I'm not sure why the "clean hands" doctrine was not deployed, as in this similar fraudulent asset protection BO case that went the other way:

Replies (0)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.

Share this content