threebyfate Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 She was the one with the money and not her ex husband, so I think that is why she got away with the off shoring. She came from a very wealthy family.You don't understand what you're talking about and if your "ex" is telling you this kind of garbage, he's full of poop.
northstar1 Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Don't believe everything you see on TV, in a movie, or read about, in thriller novels or scandal rags. To successfully hide money, takes a lot more than changing names on assets, like a house and moving money offshore, within a year or two, of divorce proceedings. You mean it isn't like what I saw on the Bourne Identity?
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 You don't understand what you're talking about and if your "ex" is telling you this kind of garbage, he's full of poop. No I think she does, I think you don't understand what she is talking about. http://www.rogersonlaw.com/articles/Where-Is-The-Money-Hidden.php
threebyfate Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 You mean it isn't like what I saw on the Bourne Identity?Oh sorry, of course it's JUST like the Bourne Identity!
Author sunshine94 Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 All I know is when I've chosen "love" it has always wound up costing me a lot of money..... With that experience, would you now choose money over love?
donnamaybe Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 It happens. People who don't have a lot of money wouldn't know anything about it though.
threebyfate Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 No I think she does, I think you don't understand what she is talking about. http://www.rogersonlaw.com/articles/Where-Is-The-Money-Hidden.phpGo back and reread the circumstances of how this happened. She moved everything to the OMs name, within a short span of time prior to divorce. You're looking at something entirely different, than what's being suggested in this thread. Apples to oranges.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Go back and reread the circumstances of how this happened. She moved everything to the OMs name, within a short span of time prior to divorce. You're looking at something entirely different, than what's being suggested in this thread. Apples to oranges. You arrogantly and quite confidently dismissed earlier that this type of thing happens, because "it is too easy to track and audit". It happens, and often! So I would refrain from being so condescending when you make a blanket statement like "People need to learn a few things, before they spout.";)
Author sunshine94 Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 You don't understand what you're talking about and if your "ex" is telling you this kind of garbage, he's full of poop. Well now he has a business, house and car from her. And there was nothing she could do legally to get it back, cause it is in his name. Legally she does not own the business nor the house and car.
Art_Critic Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Well now he has a business, house and car from her. And there was nothing she could do legally to get it back, cause it is in his name. Legally she does not own the business nor the house and car. I guess it would in reality depend on the state divorce laws since any business created during a marriage is considered marital property and to be divided in 2.. It doesn't matter whose name the corporation is in.. the worth of said corporation is still marital property and he would have to pay her half of the business worth. Standard divorce law would apply...
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 You said it's not possible to hide money like that: It's not possible to "hide" money like that, in this day and age of electronic medium. There are enough audit trails to track it back to source. . and this precisely how people "hide" money She hid money from his ex husband by putting the business, house and car in my ex's name. She thought that she would move to SXM and be with my ex and then she would not have to share that money that she gave my ex in a divorce. So she tried to "steal " from her ex husband and lost everything. She had no grounds to stand on because everything was in my ex's name. The business could not be in her name because she is not from St Maarten and also not a legal resident. . I know exactly what I am talking about and it is comparing apples with apples!
threebyfate Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 You arrogantly and quite confidently dismissed earlier that this type of thing happens, because "it is too easy to track and audit". It happens, and often! So I would refrain from being so condescending when you make a blanket statement like "People need to learn a few things, before they spout.";)Come on Tomcat, we both know that these are apples to oranges comparisons. And yes, it's way too easy to claw the money back through financial audit trails. This is my industry, as well as having been through the divorce process, including marital and separate assets and how it impacts, therefore, I do have an inkling of how this works.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I guess it would in reality depend on the state divorce laws since any business created during a marriage is considered marital property and to be divided in 2.. Not if the other man incorporated under his name only, then there is no connection/agreement other than a verbal one.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Come on Tomcat, we both know that these are apples to oranges comparisons. And yes, it's way too easy to claw the money back through financial audit trails. This is my industry, as well as having been through the divorce process, including marital and separate assets and how it impacts, therefore, I do have an inkling of how this works. Well you need to get up to speed then if this your industry because you are seriously not in the know of how these things work. What's with calling me Tomcat?!?!
threebyfate Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) I guess it would in reality depend on the state divorce laws since any business created during a marriage is considered marital property and to be divided in 2.. It doesn't matter whose name the corporation is in.. the worth of said corporation is still marital property and he would have to pay her half of the business worth. Standard divorce law would apply...And if someone tries to throw in the prenuptial or separate asset argument, she wouldn't have to hide her assets, if this was the case. Setting up an offshore trust is very different than what supposedly happened in this scenario. I'm reading this entire thread in disbelief that people can be so naive to believe that it's as simple as what's being proposed. Edited December 14, 2009 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Awesome Username Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I'd be weary of being with someone who I loved but had no goals, no future and was content sitting on his ass all day. However, I'd be weary of somebody who had TOO MUCH money, because he would likely use his power to be a dirtball (Tiger Woods, for example) and cheat on me with mistresses he could pay for, possibly giving me the clap in the process. If there was a man who constantly worked at a goal and had real direction and drive, and he messed up and lost all of his money/got into debt I would stick by him because his character is still there. If I had to choose between money and love, it would be love because I'm financially independent.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Threebyfate just because you've been in a divorce doesn't mean you understand how off shoring works! I hope you don't work on peoples' finances!! EEEK!
Author sunshine94 Posted December 14, 2009 Author Posted December 14, 2009 Not if the other man incorporated under his name only, then there is no connection/agreement other than a verbal one. Plus the assets and money was hidden in St Maarten. Where the laws are Dutch (from the Netherlands/Holland). So rather complicated to go through the very long process of taking him to court.
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Plus the assets and money was hidden in St Maarten. Where the laws are Dutch (from the Netherlands/Holland). So rather complicated to go through the very long process of taking him to court. That is precisely the deterrent.
Art_Critic Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Not if the other man incorporated under his name only, then there is no connection/agreement other than a verbal one. Oh yes...if it was created during the marriage it doesn't matter that his name is the only one who owns the shares I happen to have several corporations and a couple were created in my name only during my first marriage.. So I'm speaking from previous divorce experience.. Of course this is my states law..
Art_Critic Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Threebyfate just because you've been in a divorce doesn't mean you understand how off shoring works! I hope you don't work on peoples' finances!! EEEK! I'm curious.. do you know how it works ? have you ever hid money from a spouse thu assets held off shore ? You do know that since 911 it is almost impossible or is impossible to hide money from the states off shore ?
InspiredbyYou Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Oh yes...if it was created during the marriage it doesn't matter that his name is the only one who owns the shares I happen to have several corporations and a couple were created in my name only during my first marriage.. So I'm speaking from previous divorce experience.. Of course this is my states law.. No you misunderstood what I wrote, of course in the event she put assets in her name it is still the marital assets. I said she put assets in the other man's name only, so the OP's exboyfriend. It has nothing to do with her husband or the marital combined assets. She did that to avoid having to share her assets with her husband in the divorce. People do that.
Art_Critic Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 No you misunderstood what I wrote, of course in the event she put assets in her name it is still the marital assets. I said she put assets in the other man's name only, so the OP's exboyfriend. It has nothing to do with her husband or the marital combined assets. She did that to avoid having to share her assets with her husband in the divorce. People do that. She is in the states.. just how did she move said assets to his name without a paper trail ? It's really impossible in the states..
tami-chan Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 All I know is when I've chosen "love" it has always wound up costing me a lot of money..... LOL....funny:D Anyway, the OP's ex-BF is creepy, he basically prostituted himself. But there are others who marry for money and they are loyal, dutiful to their rich spouses and remain so until they die. I don't know if I can say they are wrong, as I have not known how it is to be in want for anything material. Very easy to say choose love if you have never known how it is to be dirt poor. I know I will be with someone for love, but I also know I would not be with anyone poor-simply because I am at the point in my life where helping someone get "established" financially is something that would take so much of me that I am unwilling to give. If I was in my 20's yes, sure..but in my 30s, no.
Recommended Posts