Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would hope that the government wouldn't simply seize the wife's property unless it could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that stolen money was used to purchase the property registered in her name. Assumptions made by talking heads and message board fools are one thing, the law is quite another. If she was in on his scheme and used stolen money to purchase the property, then yes, by all means seize it. Simply being married doesn't automatically make her guilty, though.
She can adapt. We all do. New lifestyles can be a GOOD thing! And GOOD can be BETTER when she works off her jail time. How? Arm her with plastic bags in one hand and a pooper scooper in the other and start fetchin!
I think it all depends on if they can PROVE she was in on the scheme with him, if she isn't then I believe she's entitled to keep her apartment and enough money to live on. $62 million is a bit excessive in my opinion but I do believe she's entitled to keep something, she shouldn't have to pay for her husbands mistakes if she didn't know what he was really doing.
If It's from illeagl gains it isn't her or her husbands money. That is what they have to rpove and she has to prove it was earned honesty;because the money will be a civil hearing.if its not her money she has bo right to it ;no matter if she didn't know.
Seems to me whether or not she's innocent, or whether or not some of the money was earned honestly, they collectively owe $billions. She should have to forfeit everything and then still owe $billions. As harsh as that may be, it's fair. Married people are a single financial entity. Since all their profits are in common, so should all their debts be too. Plus she should be prosecuted for mailing jewelry after her husband was arrested; that's a serious crime right there.
I would hope that the government wouldn't simply seize the wife's property unless it could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that stolen money was used to purchase the property registered in her name. Assumptions made by talking heads and message board fools are one thing, the law is quite another. If she was in on his scheme and used stolen money to purchase the property, then yes, by all means seize it. Simply being married doesn't automatically make her guilty, though.
I was wondering about that.
Who is his wife anyway?
Is she some young hottie he went out and bought with the dirty money?
Is she the original wife, mother of his grown kids?
Is she from a very wealthy family?
Is she out and about on the socialite scene?
Did she work with him at all?
What are the chances she didn't know what was going on?
Is that important?
They don't put gangsters' wives in jail because they knew or take all the family stuff away do they?
Say somebody like Gotti.
(I know this is crazy, ridiculous money and assets that don't compare, but just as example.).
I would hope that the government wouldn't simply seize the wife's property unless it could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that stolen money was used to purchase the property registered in her name. Assumptions made by talking heads and message board fools are one thing, the law is quite another. If she was in on his scheme and used stolen money to purchase the property, then yes, by all means seize it. Simply being married doesn't automatically make her guilty, though.
Why do you think people like him put properties in the wife's name to begin with? To me that SCREAMS they were bought with stolen money.
His sons certainly knew what he was doing, how could his wife be so stupid as to know nothing?
Her liability doesn't depend on her complicity. Her ability to prove that her assets were not the result of her husband's criminal activities are the relevant matters here. She did not come from a rich family, she did not inherit millions. The cookbook she wrote didn't make her a millionaire. She will have to establish what assets she brought in to the marriage, and how those assets were managed to arrive at a reasonable estimate of her net worth apart from her husband. And even then, that's criminal matters. Once the criminal matters are resolved, there will probably be civil suits pursuing her assets since she was married to Bernie, and clearly benefited from his criminal activities.
Her liability doesn't depend on her complicity. Her ability to prove that her assets were not the result of her husband's criminal activities are the relevant matters here. She did not come from a rich family, she did not inherit millions. The cookbook she wrote didn't make her a millionaire. She will have to establish what assets she brought in to the marriage, and how those assets were managed to arrive at a reasonable estimate of her net worth apart from her husband. And even then, that's criminal matters. Once the criminal matters are resolved, there will probably be civil suits pursuing her assets since she was married to Bernie, and clearly benefited from his criminal activities.
I agree, and I think it's unlikely that she will keep the $62 million or whatever the lawyer suggested. However, there is going to be a limit in terms of which assets of hers can be pursued. No judge in the country will let it get to the point where she faces the soup kitchen and the homeless shelter. Nor should a judge allow that. Doing so smacks of Bolshevism.
I agree, and I think it's unlikely that she will keep the $62 million or whatever the lawyer suggested. However, there is going to be a limit in terms of which assets of hers can be pursued. No judge in the country will let it get to the point where she faces the soup kitchen and the homeless shelter. Nor should a judge allow that. Doing so smacks of Bolshevism.
I'm not sure that Bolshevism has anything to do with how her assets are ultimately distributed. The luxury penthouse, she'll probably lose. Homes are generally considered joint assets, and when the dust settles, she probably won't be able to afford the taxes and fees on it anyway. Her net worth will probably be subtracted from the $62 million. Jewelry, clothing and so on will probably be considered personal possessions, though I wouldn't be surprised if the auditors compare their insurance papers against the jewelry and go after some of the more expensive pieces. She's lived very well for most of her life, and will have to substantially roll back her living standard. But then, she, in a way, was an investor in Bernie's scheme. She invested her confidence in him, she may have invested some money with him. She certainly invested her energies and time and participation in this marriage. So, she, like all the other investors, got conned and end up losing on their investments. The difference is, right now, she's got assets to fight for, whereas many of the other investors have already lost their assets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
