Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Yes, but whether it was a gift or not shouldn't affect a fraud claim. Afterall, there are plenty of fraud cases that have been prosecuted successfully in which the victim willingly handed over money or property. But willingly or not, if the recipient uses that "gift" in a way that differs from the stated purpose, it's generally defined as fraud. Heck, I'd go so far as to call this case extortion since it's not even about the initial transfer of property (which is what fraud usually covers), but about the future demand for payments (child support) based on fraudulent use of the gift.
|
Still depends on what the elements of fraud are in that jurisdiction. If the prosecution doesn't think they can prove all the elements, or the judge determines that they absolutely can't prove all the elements, they can't prosecute for fraud. I haven't taken torts yet, so I dunno what the elements are for sure (we've only covered fraud as a defense to breaking a contract.) In my state, there are something like 9 elements to fraud. Doesn't mean she's not a lying bee-otch who shouldn't get a dime. Just means that they have to charge her with something else. Sometimes prosecutors have to be creative. The law is surprisingly underdeveloped in this area. Sometimes it's hard to anticipate behavior this outrageous.