By claiming that proceeds of a judicial bribery scheme had been laundered from Italy into nineteen U.S. bank accounts, prosecutors sought asset forfeiture as described at "Using Multiple Jurisdictions To Launder Money".  That forfeiture case was mostly based on U.S. anti-money laundering laws which included 18 U.S.C. §1956 (Money Laundering) and 18 U.S.C. §1957 (Money Laundering of property from specified unlawful activity).

In two of the cases mentioned at "Following The Money Trail From Poland To Delaware", prosecutors from Warsaw and Koszalin had asserted that they too suspected money laundering.  In those cases the prosecutors sought the issuance of letters rogatory in Delaware by claiming that laundering could have occurred in violation off Article 299 of Poland’s penal law.

Like the foregoing prosecutors, litigants in the private sector may also allege that an adversary has fraudulently concealed assets in violation of U.S. and / or foreign money laundering laws.  To cite just one example, the RICO plaintiff more fully described at "Divorce, RICO & An Asset Search", claimed that her ex-husband had laundered money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956.

Continue Reading Alleging Money Laundering In Private Sector Lawsuits

Bankruptcy Fraud, Money Laundering & Hidden Assets” outlines how a Chapter 7 debtor hid his Porsche and Rolls Royce and other assets.  That debtor eventually pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §152 (Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery) and one count of 18 U.S.C §157 (Bankruptcy fraud).  “An Asset Search For Automobiles” similarly highlights how a Chapter 7 debtor concealed his $113,000 Porsche 911, by fraudulently transferring it out of state and registering it in the name of his brother.

A September 29, 2009 adversary complaint filed against 84-year-old Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor Michael R. Mastro too claims that a valuable automobile was fraudulently transferred.  As part of this suspected fraudulent transfer, Mr. Mastro’s wife Linda, could have assigned Mr. Mastro’s $400,000 Rolls Royce to “LCY LLC Series Automobiles“.  The “Gift Statement” she reportedly executed, states that the Rolls was transferred without any exchange of consideration:

Continue Reading Mr. Mastro Supposedly Transfers His Rolls Royce & Other Assets

As a high-profile Twin Cities auto magnate, Mr. Hecker had been one of Minnesota’s largest car dealers.  During April 2008, he sought a divorce from his wife of about fifteen years in Hennepin County Family Court, Case No. 27-FA-08-2731.  Mr. and Mrs. Hecker however, stipulated to dismiss said divorce case during October 2008. 

At that time, Mr. Hecker had business difficulties which later culminated in the entry of a nearly $477 million dollar judgment against him in Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC v. Dennis E. Hecker, Hennepin County Civil Court, Case No. 27-CV-09-2152.  Given the fact of this $477 million dollar debt, Mr. Hecker filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on June 4, 2009. 

Mrs. Hecker meantime, applied to the Family Court for a monthly award of interim spousal maintenance and child support.  Similar to what I discussed at "Recovering Marital Assets Through A Domestic Court", page 4 ¶14 of her September 28, 2009 supporting affidavit asked the Court to "impute income" to Mr. Hecker:

Click On The Affidavit To Read It


Continue Reading Has Auto Magnate Dennis Hecker Hidden His Assets?

Some post-judgment creditors, divorcing spouses and other private litigants use a domestic summons / subpoena to elicit an adversary’s bank customer information from a foreign bank witness.  Under limited circumstances, these private litigants might serve a domestic summons / subpoena, as set forth by the Court in First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse, 154

This "Asset Search News Roundup" concentrates on the International Centre For Asset Recovery ("ICAR"), which is part of the Basel Institute on Governance.  ICAR’s "Knowledge Centre" is particularly geared toward helping "asset recovery practitioners, investigators, prosecutors and policy makers worldwide".

The Knowledge Centre generally has information for domestic governmental authorities, about  forced

Suspected Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford may have facilitated one of the largest financial frauds known to date.  Any receivers, investors or other stakeholders with claims against Mr. Stanford under bankruptcy or other laws, are of course trying to interdict Stanford’s assets.  As I mentioned in my "March 25, 2009 Asset Search News Roundup"

Have the methods mentioned at “Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy“, been used to hide assets during a financial fraud?  Are there any red flags that assets are being fraudulently concealed?  Finding answers to these questions can be critically important if you are trying to recover: marital assets; probate assets

Image: Steve Hillebrand / U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Investors who profited because of Allen B. Stanford’s suspected securities fraud / Ponzi scheme may face clawback lawsuits under the Bankruptcy Code, according to Bloomberg.Com’s "Stanford Receiver May Need a Decade to Pay Victims".  Investors who collected profits from Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme could