Heterosexual marriage + hidden homosexuality = fraud?

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

I know I’m not kidding, I am however looking to ascertain the legality or otherwise of such actions - nothing specific to the case in particular. It was merely a jumping off point for the query.

It has already been explained to you that establishing fraud is a long and difficult road and that merely having an attraction to a member of the opposite sex does not even come close.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what is the connection between the conditions for a voidable marriage and fraud?

If you know there’s no possible connection then state that fact and why it is so, rather than trying to set up a ‘gotcha’.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It has already been explained to you that establishing fraud is a long and difficult road and that merely having an attraction to a member of the opposite sex does not even come close.

Did I ask “does having a mere attraction to the opposite sex establish fraud?”
Keep your straw man for burning tomorrow night.

partyguinness

Fraud is based on intent. It would be nigh impossible to show/prove intent to defraud. Anyway, where is the benefit or unlawful gain?

Plus purely from a policy point of view it would set a very bad precedent if people were allowed to throw around poorly grounded accusations of fraud.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Did I ask “does having a mere attraction to the opposite sex establish fraud?”
Keep your straw man for burning tomorrow night.

I have a feeling you have already decided that a crime has been committed and are looking simply to justify your position.

minikin

For the purposes of getting back on track, I had inserted details in brackets in the following text to make the query clear. Again, don’t get thick, I’m just asking a question.

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain [MARITAL ASSETS, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, CHILDREN] for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss [LOSS OF HOME, FINANCIAL ASSETS, CHILDREN] to another, by any deception [CLOSETING OF TRUE SEXUALITY] induces another to do [MARRY] or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have a feeling you have already decided that a crime has been committed and are looking simply to justify your position.

Your feelings, as valuable and all as I’m sure they are, have nothing to do with the facts of this discussion. If I had decided it was a crime I would have stated same.

GarIT

I wonder at which point the people in this thread will realise bisexuals are actually real.

minikin

partyguinness wrote: »

Fraud is based on intent. It would be nigh impossible to show/prove intent to defraud. Anyway, where is the benefit or unlawful gain?

Plus purely from a policy point of view it would set a very bad precedent if people were allowed to throw around poorly grounded accusations of fraud.

See my post above. It strikes me that people are often allowed ‘throw around poorly grounded accusations’ and to have those accepted as fact in court, based upon the impression the judge forms from the performance of a witness. ‘Finding them credible because they come from the right address/the right family/the right school’ etc.

One eyed Jack

minikin wrote: »

I know I’m not kidding, I am however looking to ascertain the legality or otherwise of such actions - nothing specific to the case in particular. It was merely a jumping off point for the query.

But in order to establish whether fraud was committed, it would depend on the specific circumstances in each case? In this particular case, it was Mr Y’s contention that Ms X wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in (that appears to be, from your opening post, the basis of your suggesting her intentions were fraudulent), and the Court rejected the assertion -


Mr Y claimed that Ms X had fallen in love with someone else, and that she wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in. It was the court’s “decided impression” from her evidence that the real reason was because she had long been in constant fear of imminent harm. Mr Y’s emphasis on the fact that Ms X’s “new love is another woman, as though this somehow matters (it does not)”, was not appropriate.

minikin

GarIT wrote: »

I wonder at which point the people in this thread will realise bisexuals are actually real.

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

it becomes an issue. One which may form the basis for annulment. anything further than this will fall on the facts of the case.

minikin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But in order to establish whether fraud was committed, it would depend on the specific circumstances in each case? In this particular case, it was Mr Y’s contention that Ms X wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in (that appears to be, from your opening post, the basis of your suggesting her intentions were fraudulent), and the Court rejected the assertion -


Mr Y claimed that Ms X had fallen in love with someone else, and that she wanted him out of the house so that her partner could move in. It was the court’s “decided impression” from her evidence that the real reason was because she had long been in constant fear of imminent harm. Mr Y’s emphasis on the fact that Ms X’s “new love is another woman, as though this somehow matters (it does not)”, was not appropriate.

I’m familiar with the judgement, having read through all 16 sad pages of it, thanks.

Let’s be VERY CLEAR here, I have not at any point “suggested that Ms Y’s intentions were fraudulent”. Please withdraw that. It was for this very reason that I discussed this in generalities from the beginning.

It’s the principle of law surrounding such an event I’m interested not the rights or wrongs of a particular case.

GarIT

minikin wrote: »

Irrelevant. If the person knew (which as an adult we must assume they have considered long and hard before committing to a legal relationship) their true sexuality before the marriage and did not disclose same to their future spouse then that becomes the issue. Entering a legal contract on a false basis.

At what point in the thread will newcomers realise this discussion is about dishonestly entering a legal contract rather than sexuality.

Prove they knew.

If someone can't realise their partner isn't happy in the bedroom then it's their own fault.

minikin

GarIT wrote: »

Prove they knew.

If someone can't realise their partner isn't happy in the bedroom then it's their own fault.

Hypothetically: a previous (predating the marriage) same-sex partner of the person who wants to end the relationship comes forward as a witness for the wronged party.

Jesus, nice bit of victim blaming there.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Hypothetically: a previous (predating the marriage) same-sex partner of the person who wants to end the relationship comes forward as a witness for the wronged party.

that doesn't prove anything. sexuality is not black and white.

One eyed Jack

minikin wrote: »

I’m familiar with the judgement, having read through all 16 sad pages of it, thanks.

Let’s be VERY CLEAR here, I have not at any point “suggested that Ms Y’s intentions were fraudulent”. Please withdraw that. It was for this very reason that I discussed this in generalities from the beginning.

It’s the principle of law surrounding such an event I’m interested not the rights or wrongs of a particular case.

I won’t withdraw it because you didn’t discuss it in generalities from the beginning! It forms the basis of your opening post, and it forms the basis of your argument that it should be assumed her intent was to commit fraud -

minikin wrote: »

After the marriage breakdown, the wife wants the husband out of the house in order to move her same sex partner in. This is a massive simplification of the case

hullaballoo

Moderator: minikin, please do not attempt to moderate the discussion on this forum. It is for the moderators to moderate. There is an expectation of minimum standards of civility as well so the spoiling for a row schtick is inappropriate also.

Please have a read of the forum charter before posting here again https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057083888

minikin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that doesn't prove anything. sexuality is not black and white.

Give over, the issue isn’t fifty shades of sexuality, it’s the question of whether a fraudulent act has occurred either by commission or omission.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won’t withdraw it because you didn’t discuss it in generalities from the beginning! It forms the basis of your opening post, and it forms the basis of your argument that it should be assumed her intent was to commit fraud -

and even that was not correct. that the wife wanted him out so she could move her partner in was an assumption on the part of the husband not a statement of fact.

minikin

hullaballoo wrote: »

Moderator: minikin, please do not attempt to moderate the discussion on this forum. It is for the moderators to moderate. There is an expectation of minimum standards of civility as well so the spoiling for a row schtick is inappropriate also.

Please have a read of the forum charter before posting here again https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057083888

I’ll leave it there so, I’m not spoiling for a fight, just looking for a reasonable discussion... it was the constant red herrings being thrown my direction that pulled this off course. I tried to get it back on topic a few posts back (post #37) for the sake of the thread.

ohnonotgmail

minikin wrote: »

Give over, the issue isn’t fifty shades of sexuality, it’s the question of whether a fraudulent act has occurred either by commission or omission.

and whether a fraudulent act depends on the facts of the case. You are arguing that they knew they were gay and entered into a marriage anyway and using the existence of a previous same-sex relationship as proof they were gay at the time of the marriage. It doesn't.

Seamai

Have a close friend who is going through a very messy divorce at the moment. The guy is gay and should never have married a woman. She was well aware of his history but like many women before her she thought she'd be the one to turn him and keep him on the straight and narrow. The only problem now is it's their kids who are the ones suffering for their parents mistakes now and I blame her as much as him.

km991148

minikin wrote: »

For the avoidance of any doubt:
This is not an anti-homosexual argument, as the basis of my question would equally apply to any marriage between man/woman, man/man or woman/woman... if one party subsequently decided to end the relationship on the basis that they were no longer the sexuality (the gender which they are attracted to and wish to remain in a legal relationship with) they had claimed to be at the point of initiating the marriage.

I think you have the answer - it seems to centre around intent - my initial (non legal expert) opinion seems to be backed up.


If you had some other hypothetical situation where a person of one sexuality decided to woe and marry someone (say some old person of another sexuality) with the intent to take all in the will then that would be fraud - but that has nothing to do with the sexuality but the intent of pretending to be in love with the goal of taking the inheritance.

With regards to the simplified version of the case you present that doesnt seem to be the case at all and its one of confusion, hurt and all sorts of social issues and conflict. None of which point to a clear cut case of fraudulent behaviour (hence why I offered this opinin in the the first place).

km991148

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and whether a fraudulent act depends on the facts of the case. You are arguing that they knew they were gay and entered into a marriage anyway and using the existence of a previous same-sex relationship as proof they were gay at the time of the marriage. It doesn't.

Plus it needs to be intent to deceive in order to make a gain (I think..?).

It could be argued that people may be intending to deceive (in this situation) but that includes deceiving themselves - but I don't see much in the way of gains..

ohnonotgmail

km991148 wrote: »

Plus it needs to be intent to deceive in order to make a gain (I think..?).

It could be argued that people may be intending to deceive (in this situation) but that includes deceiving themselves - but I don't see much in the way of gains..

you're right, intent is an essential element. as is for the purposes of making a gain. Not easy things to prove.

seamus

minikin wrote: »

For the purposes of getting back on track, I had inserted details in brackets in the following text to make the query clear. Again, don’t get thick, I’m just asking a question.

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain [MARITAL ASSETS, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, CHILDREN] for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss [LOSS OF HOME, FINANCIAL ASSETS, CHILDREN] to another, by any deception [CLOSETING OF TRUE SEXUALITY] induces another to do [MARRY] or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

Note the interpretation of "gain" and "loss" in that act;

For the purposes of this Act—

(a) “gain” and “loss” are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, whether any such gain or loss is temporary or permanent,

Thus, any fraudulent intent would only extend to an intent to deprive the other spouse of their assets.

Marrying someone for the purposes of having a child and then leaving them, would not be fraud. Unless of course the overarching intent was extract child support and the child is incidental, but you would never be able to prove that.

Likewise marrying someone for "prestige" or otherwise to enjoy notoriety would also not be considered fraud.

The reason you basically never see these cases in Irish courts is because our divorce process is simultaneously painful and simple. If you marry a millionaire and divorce them, you will have to wait at least two years to get the divorce, and for all intents and purposes you will leave with exactly what you entered the marriage with.

To be able to walk away with extra assets or ongoing support, you will need to put in a few extra years with the other spouse and make yourself entirely reliant on them. While I have no doubt a few people have played long games like this, if someone has been married for ten years then you're going to find it very hard to prove that they entered the marriage with the intention of divorce and getting spousal support.

These kinds of cases are seen in countries like the US, where the divorce process is simpler and can result in very large awards to one spouse even if the marriage has only lasted a few months.

Robbo

minikin wrote: »

For the purposes of getting back on track, I had inserted details in brackets in the following text to make the query clear. Again, don’t get thick, I’m just asking a question.

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001

Making gain or causing loss by deception.

6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain [MARITAL ASSETS, FINANCIAL SUPPORT, CHILDREN] for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss [LOSS OF HOME, FINANCIAL ASSETS, CHILDREN] to another, by any deception [CLOSETING OF TRUE SEXUALITY] induces another to do [MARRY] or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

You'd have to flesh out the dishonesty requirement for this (and most other offences under the same Act) in order to advance this position.

CrabRevolution

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have a feeling you have already decided that a crime has been committed and are looking simply to justify your position.

It's similar to a recent thread by a poster asking about suing the council almost 40 years after a supposed electric shock.

It was clear from the outset that the poster had already made up their mind about the answer before posting the "question" and got very stroppy when people pointed out the 100s of holes and impossibilities in what they were proposing.

km991148

Yeah, think op has the answer.

Unless there are any other hypothetical changes to the original question it seems a clear no, no crime of fraud.