Estate Planning Law Firms.com quotes the Attorney General as saying the following:

“The perpetrators of this fraud deceived seniors into using their hard-earned retirement nest eggs to buy unneeded annuities that actually undermined their financial security. Living trust mills such as this one violate not only the law, but the trust of their elderly victims.”

What surprised me was the apparent scope of the alleged organization being sued by the Attorney General: between 250 and 300 sales agents and another 80 telemarketers were involved, allegedly soliciting elderly consumers through mailings, seminars, telemarketing, presentations at senior centers and other means, marketing their services as a way to avoid probate and estate taxes, then eventually convincing seniors to buy annuities that were, according to the Attorney General, not in their best interest.

Without commenting on this particular case, there does seem to have been a disturbing and growing trend in recent years of attempts to deprive the elderly of the considerable wealth concentrated in their hands.  

One more reason, if any were needed, to take great care in choosing investment and estate planning advisors.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

On to fraud.

In R. v. Moore (1998 Carswell Nfld 276), an accused along with a deceased’s four siblings signed and filed with the court false documents stating that the whereabouts of the deceased’s four children were unknown, that the deceased left no will, and that the accused knew of no one else with an interest in the estate. This is chronicled at length in a set of reasons dealing with the deceased’s remarkable and inspiring life. The accused, though equally remarkable, was hardly inspiring. The criminal charges marked the culmination of her complex scheme of lies and deceit.

The accused claimed she doubted whether her brother was born to the deceased, and said her doubts in this regard justified her behaviour. The Court found that the accused was “resourceful, and articulate”, but used her talents by “persist[ing] in [a] despicable charade” to defraud her brother, nieces and nephews.

For all her trouble, the accused received $10,000, plus a conviction for fraud. It is often bizarre the extent someone will go for what seems, objectively, to be a small amount of money.

An interesting aspect of the case is that the deceased in question, mother of the accused/convicted, was by all indications a font of kindness and compassion, taking several children under her wing during her lifetime. The reasons dwell at length on what a fine person the deceased was, implying quite clearly that the accused failed to measure up to her mother’s legacy.

We will not be posting a blog on Good Friday, April 6, 2007.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

This was the question considered in Abou-Rahmah v. Abacha [2006] EWCA Civ 1492 as reported in 9 ITELR.

A victim of fraud made payment into a Nigerian bank account through an English branch which funds were promptly removed from the bank by the fraudsters who disappeared. The victim sought damages against the Nigerian bank by way of a proceeding commenced in England.

Having lost at trial, the Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the bank had knowingly assisted in the fraudster’s breach of trust. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal and, in so doing, comprehensively reviewed the authorities.

In short, a finding that the bank had knowingly assisted in the breach of trust would require a dishonest state of mind such that the bank had knowledge that rendered its participation “contrary to normally acceptable standards of honest conduct.”

Such a state of mind could involve suspicions combined with a conscious decision not to make enquiries. Applied to the case at hand, the Court considered that, although the bank had general suspicions that the account holder who subsequently committed the fraud was possibly involved in money laundering, the bank had no knowledge of any specific act of dishonesty regarding the transactions in question.

Until tomorrow,

David