The Supreme Court has ruled that two women are now free to sue their husbands for more divorce monies after the spouses were determined to have not declared their true worth at their divorce hearings. I am surprised that this wasn't always the case .... after all that's perjury and fraud. So any agreement or settlement entered into should always be based upon the true position ..... however as to whether they should always get half the money, well that's another matter for me.
The quote of the week is from the BBC report: 'Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering' and failed to disclose his true wealth during the divorce.
So with the judgement the now ex Mrs Gohil is now free to demand more money from Mr Gohil, who is currently in prison for getting his money via illegal activities. However this does raise a few pertinent questions, not least of which might be framed as this one:
Q: So if an ex-wife is entitled to half the proceeds salted away from her husbands crimes, then is she also entitled to half the criminal sentence as well?
....... After all she lived rather nicely (if apparently entirely innocently), on the proceeds of his crimes. Surely she could be said to have therefore profited in some manner from his crimes?
As for this current divorce idea that is covered under the expression, 'what's his is mine' ..... even though I did nothing to earn it ..... so as for Ms Sharland (the other lady in this court case), is she really worth several hundred millions, even though she apparently didn't actually work in developing the business? ..... she was a housewife, fair enough, but is that really worth more than the £10 million plus shares that she got in the first settlement?
To me it just looks like lawyers greed ... I mean can she really not live very comfortably, nay very richly, on £10m plus? apparently not, as she said its not the money 'its the principle'.
Its all gone too far into the land of stupid. Wills can be ignored, and it appears that now women in these divorce cases get all the rewards, and often none of the risks, and thus become fabulously wealthy purely through the luck of marrying someone clever.
 |
| Marry For Love Divorce For Money? |
The quote of the week is from the BBC report: 'Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering' and failed to disclose his true wealth during the divorce.
So with the judgement the now ex Mrs Gohil is now free to demand more money from Mr Gohil, who is currently in prison for getting his money via illegal activities. However this does raise a few pertinent questions, not least of which might be framed as this one:
Q: So if an ex-wife is entitled to half the proceeds salted away from her husbands crimes, then is she also entitled to half the criminal sentence as well?
....... After all she lived rather nicely (if apparently entirely innocently), on the proceeds of his crimes. Surely she could be said to have therefore profited in some manner from his crimes?
As for this current divorce idea that is covered under the expression, 'what's his is mine' ..... even though I did nothing to earn it ..... so as for Ms Sharland (the other lady in this court case), is she really worth several hundred millions, even though she apparently didn't actually work in developing the business? ..... she was a housewife, fair enough, but is that really worth more than the £10 million plus shares that she got in the first settlement?
To me it just looks like lawyers greed ... I mean can she really not live very comfortably, nay very richly, on £10m plus? apparently not, as she said its not the money 'its the principle'.
Its all gone too far into the land of stupid. Wills can be ignored, and it appears that now women in these divorce cases get all the rewards, and often none of the risks, and thus become fabulously wealthy purely through the luck of marrying someone clever.
I agree, if someone profits from the proceeds of a crime, they should be liable for part of the punishment. I'd expect though, for any proceeds of crime to be seized before they can play any part in a divorce settlement.
ReplyDeleteI think the word is 'estimated' proceeds of crime. They often just pick a sample period for the court case. The proceeds prior to that period (especially in the case of white collar and welfare benefit crimes), are not calculated and thus not 'recovered', even if it was possible. I once knew of a gentleman who defrauded his own UK company by salting away large sums in Israel ... he got five years, did three, and his family emigrated to Israel to start a new life with the proceeds of his crime.
Delete