Better way to protect asset?

I know a guy who is a manager of a government agency. He is under police's investigation (not charged yet) for unlawful misuse of power (the max panelty is 2 years imprisonment if found guilty). He also faces likely civil tort from the victim. He bought a property (residential) with his wife two years ago. Now he's selling the property.

As the property price is continuously going up, selling the property means he most likely won't be able to afford a property in the future. Should he be better off to simply transfer his half of the ownership to his wife? I know property ownership in family law generally means nothing, as he still entitle to the half of the property if one day his wife wants to separate from him.

 

So he is divesting assets so he won’t have to pay compensation to his victim if found guilty?.

 

Seek legal advice would be avenue to pursue regarding assets etc

There may be an issue with selling ?? These assets may be already flagged regardless if investigation already happening??

 

One possibility is that it's too late for him to transfer his part of the ownership to his wife because police's investigation has started. So he has to sell the property??? I'm not a lawyer so I'm not so sure. I don't usually talk to this guy a lot, so I can't ask him why he's selling his property (also it's too personal and private)

(I posted this thread to learn something from the case. I know everyone's situation is different and one should seek formal legal advice if concerned.)

 

Right
Why legal advice is required

 

better off in what sense?

 

Google helped me find an article from Andreyev Lawyers: Is it worth transferring your home to your spouse? (Is it worth transferring your home to your spouse? | Andreyev Lawyers) I've found the explanation I wanted.

 

That article covers the bankruptcy side, but you would need also consider the proceeds of crime side too. He should seek legal advice because there would be ways to improve asset protection, to an extent, and doing some things could make it worse.

 

I don't know what he's doing to protect his asset. My interest is what I can learn from his case in terms of asset protection. One of the scenairos in the article is sell the property and then buy a new one in his wife (risk free) name, and the repayment of the loan should come from his wife's bank account (not his)

 

If you own nothing in your name, that's probably the cheapest way to "protect your assets".

In this case, investigation means nothing. The onus of proof lies with the prosecution. It's all speculation at the moment. Tort law requires the aggrieved to prove damages. This whole process will take years. Transferring will trigger stamp duty.

misuse of power seems broad.

 

It's actually breached law ("indictable offence" as described in the Act). This is why police is involved now (I'm not going into the details).

"Transferring will trigger stamp duty." Yes.

 

Police investigations often lead nowhere since the state prosecutor may consider the costs and merits of a case to be uncertain and waste of taxpayer money. Often such employees are dismissed after review finds the issue occurred but doesnt merit legal action. Assuming that the property has a debt then the net asset position may be so minor that its hardly worth the significant legal costs for anyone to pursue any compensation claim.

 

Is he now charged with the offences? If so, did he enter a plea of guilty? Yes, then conviction and sentencing follow. If no, there is no conviction at this stage and it will go to defended hearing.

there are several scenarios.
1. Prosecution drops charges because it has a very weak case.
2. Pursue and prosecute at hearing.
3. Drop some charges they can’t prove and prosecute charges they can prove.

likewise, the accused can consider pleading guilty to one or more charges or defend all charges.

you may think he has breached but it’s for the prosecution to prove. This entire process including hearing will take a while.

 

Which Act by the way?

 

As long as it's done 10yrs before the event like the article.
If done recent to bankruptcy it could be clawed back.

 

Not necessarily safe. I think in the Cummins case he transferred his half of the property 26 years before his bankruptcy, and the ATO was successful in claiming it back - resulting trusts need to be considered as well as s120 and s121 Bankrupcy Act and s37A conveyancing act NSW or other state equivalents. The state legislation is rarely remembered.

 

I don't care if he's guilty or not. My interest is how I can do (available short term and long term options) to protect my asset. I know the best way is "own nothing but control everything". But it's just not practical: I have to have my own roof over my head and have to have some investment to secure my retirement. Surely I should consult my own lawyer, but getting myself educated is also important.

 

You're correct. Speak to a lawyer.

 

I have written 60+ tips on asset protection on this forum so have a read of some of those.