Just a quick question regarding potential fraud and or tax evasion.
Can criminal charges be brought against an individual based on evidence and facts given in a civil trial that demonstrate an intent to defraud someone?
That someone could either be an individual or, a government agency or, both.
I have a case going ahead in the district court of Western Australia for a claim of equitable remedy based on both Part Performance and Promissory Estoppel in relation to a property.
As part of the discovery process evidence will be supplied that can clearly show that the defending party not only had intent to defraud over a significant time frame, but that they also lied and presented contrived positions and excuses in an effort to hide this, as well as then attempting to bully their way out of action in claiming that the matter was concluded and that we had no legal right to any claim. All without a shred of evidence to back up any one of the myriad of claims and positions that they have claimed and adopted.
Without any supporting evidence of their claimed positions by ensuring that they enacted them with the required documents that would validate their claims can this then show an intent to defraud?
For example, they have claimed that a part of an agreement was for inheritance, naturally we are saying that this was never advised to us and to do so would wrap up our investment into a revocable promise of a will.
So we are saying that if this was their intention as claimed then they should have ensured that it was action-ed in accordance with that intention by way of a registered will. Given that our investment now forms part of what they claim is an inheritance then it would stand to reason that this should have been enacted legally.
However, they can not provide any proof of this, and they claim that they do not need to. They expect us and everyone else to just accept their word on the matter.
It is a position that they claim existed for over 12 years and from inception which would have been more than enough time for them to make the required arrangement in their wills.
They then try to apply a contingency to the inheritance position. That being it was subject to us remaining on the property.
Essentially the contingency seeks to void the claimed inheritance position. This would then place them into a position of having received a significant amount of money over 12 years against which no provision was made to delay declaration and against which no capital gains for the money received or the improvements to the property at time of sale were declared.
I know it's a tangled web of lies and deceit but in conjunction with specific milestone timeline events it can be show to demonstrate actual intent to deceive in order to gain unjust enrichment.
It seems to my understanding against Western Australian Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 Part VI. Chapter XLI (2) that their actions meet the requirements for common fraud. The main element needing to be demonstrated clearly is the intent.
Alternatively depending on what positions and claims they wish to maintain it could show under Australian Criminal Code. Obtaining a financial advantage by deception Section 134.2 that they have by way of intent evaded taxation obligations against the monies received over 12 years and not declared.
Additional to this would the fact of not having made the appropriate declaration of capital gains when they divested the property.
The fact that they have not declared capital gains also speaks to me that they did not make the required income declarations, given the amount of financial connectivity between government agencies if they had made income declaration against the property in question then this would have surely triggered an alarm with no declaration of a capital gain?
So no declaration of capital gain speaks of no declaration of incomes derived against a contrived contingency and claimed position of inheritance.
Furthermore declaring the matter concluded and attempting to allow no right of reply would indicate addition intent to deceive with intent to defraud either us or a government agency.
This is just my logic in the whole process and has rung some very serious alarm bells for me. The other party seems intent to maintain their current claims and positions even in the face of the evidence that I show them that validates our claims and position and clearly shows them the folly of maintaining their current claims.
Would love to get anyone's take on these things in relation to what would actually happen if bring all these facts to the attention of a registrar or the judge in a district court? Are they then compelled to report the findings to another authority for further investigation separate to the civil case before them?
Thanks in advance.
Tony
Can criminal charges be brought against an individual based on evidence and facts given in a civil trial that demonstrate an intent to defraud someone?
That someone could either be an individual or, a government agency or, both.
I have a case going ahead in the district court of Western Australia for a claim of equitable remedy based on both Part Performance and Promissory Estoppel in relation to a property.
As part of the discovery process evidence will be supplied that can clearly show that the defending party not only had intent to defraud over a significant time frame, but that they also lied and presented contrived positions and excuses in an effort to hide this, as well as then attempting to bully their way out of action in claiming that the matter was concluded and that we had no legal right to any claim. All without a shred of evidence to back up any one of the myriad of claims and positions that they have claimed and adopted.
Without any supporting evidence of their claimed positions by ensuring that they enacted them with the required documents that would validate their claims can this then show an intent to defraud?
For example, they have claimed that a part of an agreement was for inheritance, naturally we are saying that this was never advised to us and to do so would wrap up our investment into a revocable promise of a will.
So we are saying that if this was their intention as claimed then they should have ensured that it was action-ed in accordance with that intention by way of a registered will. Given that our investment now forms part of what they claim is an inheritance then it would stand to reason that this should have been enacted legally.
However, they can not provide any proof of this, and they claim that they do not need to. They expect us and everyone else to just accept their word on the matter.
It is a position that they claim existed for over 12 years and from inception which would have been more than enough time for them to make the required arrangement in their wills.
They then try to apply a contingency to the inheritance position. That being it was subject to us remaining on the property.
Essentially the contingency seeks to void the claimed inheritance position. This would then place them into a position of having received a significant amount of money over 12 years against which no provision was made to delay declaration and against which no capital gains for the money received or the improvements to the property at time of sale were declared.
I know it's a tangled web of lies and deceit but in conjunction with specific milestone timeline events it can be show to demonstrate actual intent to deceive in order to gain unjust enrichment.
It seems to my understanding against Western Australian Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913 Part VI. Chapter XLI (2) that their actions meet the requirements for common fraud. The main element needing to be demonstrated clearly is the intent.
Alternatively depending on what positions and claims they wish to maintain it could show under Australian Criminal Code. Obtaining a financial advantage by deception Section 134.2 that they have by way of intent evaded taxation obligations against the monies received over 12 years and not declared.
Additional to this would the fact of not having made the appropriate declaration of capital gains when they divested the property.
The fact that they have not declared capital gains also speaks to me that they did not make the required income declarations, given the amount of financial connectivity between government agencies if they had made income declaration against the property in question then this would have surely triggered an alarm with no declaration of a capital gain?
So no declaration of capital gain speaks of no declaration of incomes derived against a contrived contingency and claimed position of inheritance.
Furthermore declaring the matter concluded and attempting to allow no right of reply would indicate addition intent to deceive with intent to defraud either us or a government agency.
This is just my logic in the whole process and has rung some very serious alarm bells for me. The other party seems intent to maintain their current claims and positions even in the face of the evidence that I show them that validates our claims and position and clearly shows them the folly of maintaining their current claims.
Would love to get anyone's take on these things in relation to what would actually happen if bring all these facts to the attention of a registrar or the judge in a district court? Are they then compelled to report the findings to another authority for further investigation separate to the civil case before them?
Thanks in advance.
Tony
