4 ms·

>And over a year later, no criminal case has been filed Just so people know, this is a blip of time in the legal world; financial fraud takes time to document.

by ABCLAW 5y ago

>And over a year later, no criminal case has been filed Just so people know, this is a blip of time in the legal world; financial fraud takes time to document. People need to go in, recover all of the relevant ESI, categorize it, then process it. Interviews with relevant stakeholders need to be undertaken - some of them who will have tight schedules, or be abroad, etc. I've been involved in fraud cases that take half a decade to hit the courts, then another decade to get through them. As long as there's no statute of limitations style deadlines about to lapse and there's no risk that the assets being recovered are being wasted, there's little harm in spending pre-claim time on due diligence work prior to triggering court filing timelines.

falcolas 5y ago
> there's little harm Losing access to all of your money for an indeterminate amount of time with no recourse is a fairly large harm.
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  The harm here refers to whether or not there's a need for interim injunctions to prevent the liquidation or concealment of assets in order to avoid being solvent at the time of judgement. My comment doesn't state anything about asset forfeiture, just the timelines associated with fraud investigations.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    And during that timeline, the not-yet-charged family is flat broke because of a logically tenuous action against their assets. An action they were legally unable to contest in a layman’s definition of a reasonable timeframe (like when their next mortgage payment is due). It’s not your legally narrow definition of harm, or the court’s definition of an unreasonable timeframe… yet it’s undeniably harmful to an innocent family. We’re still doing that part - innocent until proven guilty - right?
    - ABCLAW 5y ago
      >because of a logically tenuous action against their assets Generally speaking, in order to get intrusive injunctive relief of this level, you need to have a VERY good record. Without the ability to freeze assets, someone can defraud you then use the proceeds of fraud itself to fund a legal defense while hiding assets. Or draw out the case and take a decade long vacation in Ibiza on your dime. Which happens. A lot. The court isn't going to get it right 100% of the time, but it does the vast majority of times when it comes to these cases - evidentiary standards are so high that people regularly write off MILLIONS of dollars in fraud losses because of how hard these remedies are to get. Without a desire to understand how the system works on your end, it's impossible on my end to explain WHY these rules exist.

by ABCLAW 5y ago

falcolas 5y ago

> there's little harm Losing access to all of your money for an indeterminate amount of time with no recourse is a fairly large harm.

ABCLAW 5y ago
The harm here refers to whether or not there's a need for interim injunctions to prevent the liquidation or concealment of assets in order to avoid being solvent at the time of judgement. My comment doesn't state anything about asset forfeiture, just the timelines associated with fraud investigations.
- falcolas 5y ago
  And during that timeline, the not-yet-charged family is flat broke because of a logically tenuous action against their assets. An action they were legally unable to contest in a layman’s definition of a reasonable timeframe (like when their next mortgage payment is due). It’s not your legally narrow definition of harm, or the court’s definition of an unreasonable timeframe… yet it’s undeniably harmful to an innocent family. We’re still doing that part - innocent until proven guilty - right?
  - ABCLAW 5y ago
    >because of a logically tenuous action against their assets Generally speaking, in order to get intrusive injunctive relief of this level, you need to have a VERY good record. Without the ability to freeze assets, someone can defraud you then use the proceeds of fraud itself to fund a legal defense while hiding assets. Or draw out the case and take a decade long vacation in Ibiza on your dime. Which happens. A lot. The court isn't going to get it right 100% of the time, but it does the vast majority of times when it comes to these cases - evidentiary standards are so high that people regularly write off MILLIONS of dollars in fraud losses because of how hard these remedies are to get. Without a desire to understand how the system works on your end, it's impossible on my end to explain WHY these rules exist.