{"id":49067,"date":"2016-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-06-17T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/1482253-fork.findlaw2.flsitebuilder.com\/blog\/2016\/06\/protecting-against-accusations-of-fraudulent-conveyance-in-bankruptcy\/"},"modified":"2023-12-23T03:31:05","modified_gmt":"2023-12-23T09:31:05","slug":"protecting-against-accusations-of-fraudulent-conveyance-in-bankruptcy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/millermillerlaw.com\/protecting-against-accusations-of-fraudulent-conveyance-in-bankruptcy\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting against accusations of fraudulent conveyance in bankruptcy"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a previous<\/a> post, we mentioned that fraudulent transfer may be found in cases where a debtor voluntarily or involuntarily transferred assets or incurred debts with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which the individual was indebted. We also noted that fraudulent transfer may be found in cases where the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent compensation for the transfers or debts. Here we wanted to say a bit more on this topic.<\/p>\n

It is important to be clear about the difference between the above two grounds for a finding of fraudulent transfer since the requirements for making an initial case for fraudulent transfer are different. Usually, it is very difficult to provide solid proof of intent to defraud. Typically, non-circumstantial evidence is required.<\/p>\n

In looking for evidence of fraudulent intent<\/a> in a bankruptcy case, a variety of red flags exist. These include things like:<\/p>\n