3 ms·
This is a lie. Hiding assets is trivially easy. You just shouldn't hide them by literally hiding them or not telling about them. Selling the assets for almost
by pineaux 2y ago
This is a lie. Hiding assets is trivially easy. You just shouldn't hide them by literally hiding them or not telling about them.
Selling the assets for almost free to a different organisation just before you go get your bankrupty is the way to go.
- braincat31415 2y agoIf it is legal and done in plain sight, then it is not "hiding" by definition. If it were illegal, the court and the lawyers representing parents would have done something about the fact of the sale. Hide: "put or keep out of sight; conceal from the view or notice of others." The fact is that most of complainers here would be laughed out of the bancruptcy court, yourself included. Selling assets for nothing before bancruptcy is legal, but will almost certainly be scrutinized by the court. The court has a broad power to collect the proceeds, sue the purchaser for the difference from the market value, and take additional steps to recover assets.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tredre3 2y agoIn the financial world, hiding an asset doesn't always mean making it literally invisible. It just means making it out of reach to the collector. You can argue about the legality of what he did if you want, but being a pedant about the dictionary definition of the word "hide" just detracts from your main point by showing that you're arguing in bad faith.
- braincat31415 2y agoFine, I'll go with your definition. I already pointed out (which you didn't bother to read) that fire-sale of assets before the bancruptcy does not make them out of reach to the collector. Maybe you need yet another definition. Try harder.