18 April 2013
Millionaire hid assets from wife
The man, who cannot be named, did not declare to the court or his wife that he had bought a $265,000 car - or the true size of a huge inheritance from his aunt.
Family Court judge Peter Young, who ruled on the split of a $15.5 million fortune, stated in his decision that the man "intentionally and deliberately withheld relevant financial information as to his net assets and his entitlements under the estate of his late aunt".
Justice Young also found the man did not admit he had received $1 million as part of the sale of a successful business for $15.9 million in August 2009.
The couple, aged 45 and 44, were married in 1995 and have two children. Justice Young gave the husband 66.5 per cent of the fortune and the wife 33.5 per cent, arguing the husband's "failure to disclose" assets justified making an "adjustment in favour of the wife".
The wife, who conceded she is a recovering alcoholic, gets to keep her $93,000 jewellery collection, properties and a luxury car. She had asked the court to give her 45 per cent of the assets.
The husband, who earned $6.2 million in 2010, gets to keep the substantial family home in Melbourne, which has several bedrooms and seven toilets.
During their 18-year marriage the couple had a lavish lifestyle and regular overseas holidays to Hawaii, Hong Kong and the US. The husband conceded he has four cars and the wife said she needed $4400 a week to maintain her "very high standard of living".
"I conclude the husband was intent on ensuring the wife did not know about his purchase of, or use and enjoyment of, this luxury motor vehicle," Justice Young said.
"The husband is a clever, financially astute and very aware individual who clearly knew what valuable assets he owned and was otherwise careful and over precise in the preparation of his various financial documents.
"I do not believe the husband's evidence that the omission of the prestige vehicle was an oversight."
Justice Young said the failure to "make proper, frank and meaningful disclosure" was to "protect" his personal fortune and "ensure that the wife knew little of his substantial and somewhat extravagant lifestyle".
news.com.au 18 Apr 2013
Women are all too aware of the financial benefit gained from falseified reasons for departing a marriage, especially when there are children involved.
The legal system is organised in such a manner to rip off the individuals who have a 'bitter divorce' or an acrimonious relationship, keeping the funds within the corporate 'brethren' of the legal system.
The lawyers prey on the vulnerability of emotional clients, depleting their combined asset base, using the emotions for pure financial gain.
By default the legal system is against the male in just about every respect.
Information has been obtained from various legal sources that the male is firstly at fault with a 70% weight against him.
Any woman can obtain a restraining / intervention order or AVO, WITHOUT any proof whatsoever, and it is up to the male to prove his innocence.
Women regularly vexatiously claim abuse by their spouses, in many a situation where it has never occured.
The legal system cares not for who is right, but rather the financial gain for the entire legal eco system.
The myth promoted by the corporate media "Innocent until proven guilty" is a deliberate lie.