Are you wondering what are the consequences of fraudulent conveyance? As we find ourselves navigating the realm of financial transactions, the term “fraudulent conveyance” often surfaces. Whether in Canada or the United States, fraudulent conveyance represents a serious concern, carrying heavy consequences for all parties involved. Let’s delve deeper into this topic to understand the intricacies of its impact on these two nations.

We will look at the laws in both Canada and the USA in this article.

At its core, fraudulent conveyance refers to the intentional transfer of property with the purpose of putting it beyond the reach of creditors. This financial strategy has been a traditional tool used by some individuals or entities struggling with financial burdens, seeking to shield their assets from impending legal or financial claims. However, the repercussions of such actions can be severe, not just legally, but also ethically and socially.

Fraudulent Conveyances Act

In the context of Canada, the law provides ample protection against fraudulent conveyance through the Fraudulent Conveyances Act. When individuals or corporations are found guilty of such activities, the consequences they face range from civil to criminal.

On the civil side, the court could void the fraudulent transaction, thereby reinstating the asset back to the debtor’s estate for the benefit of all creditors. This decision could seriously undermine the financial stability of the fraudulent party, especially if the transferred assets have since been utilized or sold.

The aftermath of such actions extends to criminal liability as well. A party found guilty could face fines, imprisonment, or both under the Canadian Criminal Code. Additionally, the consequences are not limited to the original parties involved in the fraudulent transaction. Anyone who aids, abets, or is somehow party to the transaction could also face similar punitive actions.

A stigma of dishonesty and mistrust

This legal liability can leave an indelible stain on one’s personal and professional reputation. It can create a stigma of dishonesty and mistrust, making future business dealings difficult and possibly leading to social ostracism. Also, such behaviour, if widespread, can undermine the faith in the financial and legal system, negatively impacting the country’s economic health.

Moving our lens south to the United States, the fraudulent conveyance is equally grave. Governed by the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), later revised as the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), the legal consequences are quite similar to those in Canada. The Act allows courts to void fraudulent transfers, leaving the debtor and the transferee facing substantial financial losses.

The consequences in the United States extend to criminal charges as well. Though fraudulent conveyance is typically a matter of civil law, it can escalate to criminal prosecution under bankruptcy fraud statutes if the fraudulent transfer occurred during a bankruptcy proceeding. Convicted individuals could face imprisonment, heavy fines, and probation.

Convicted individuals could face imprisonment

Face public backlash and loss of trust

In the U.S., just like in Canada, the social and ethical ramifications are significant. Businesses found guilty of fraudulent conveyance may face public backlash and loss of trust, leading to business failure. Individuals might find their reputations tarnished, making it difficult to secure future personal or business loans. Plus, such fraudulent actions can also have negative impacts on the overall economy, creating an environment of distrust and inhibiting financial growth.

Overall, fraudulent conveyance, whether in Canada or the United States, carries serious implications. The legal, financial, and social consequences underscore the importance of transparency and fairness in financial dealings.

It is crucial to understand these repercussions as individuals and businesses navigate the financial landscape of their respective countries. Remember, short-term gains achieved through dubious means can lead to long-term pain. It is in the interest of all parties to maintain the integrity of our financial systems, promoting trust and stability in our economies.

Famous cases in the United States

Fraudulent conveyancing, also known as fraudulent transfer, is an issue that has frequently drawn attention in legal circles and occasionally found its way into the public eye. Though often hidden under layers of complex legal argument, these cases have captured media attention due to their high-stakes nature and the involvement of high-profile individuals or entities. Here are a few notable cases that come to mind:

The Madoff Ponzi Scheme: No discussion of high-profile fraudulent conveyance would be complete without mentioning the Bernie Madoff scandal that erupted in 2008. Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding thousands of investors of nearly $65 billion.

When the scheme unravelled, the court-appointed trustee Irving Picard sought to recover the funds fraudulently transferred by Madoff to satisfy the claims of the swindled investors. Several cases connected to the Madoff fraud involved attempts to avoid fraudulent conveyance, making this a landmark series of cases in American jurisprudence.

Fraudulent conveyance makes headlines

The Zell/Chilmark Fund L.P.: In the late 1990s, another notable case involving fraudulent conveyance made headlines. Billionaire Sam Zell’s Chilmark Fund was involved in a major lawsuit related to the bankruptcy of a company they had invested in, the Carter Hawley Hale Stores Inc.

The case revolved around a debt-for-equity swap that was alleged to be a fraudulent conveyance. The court ruled that Carter Hawley Hale’s transfer of assets to the Zell/Chilmark Fund was not a fraudulent conveyance because it did not occur with the intention to defraud creditors.

The Tribune Company Case: In 2007, a leveraged buyout (LBO) led by real estate mogul Sam Zell resulted in the Tribune Company, one of the largest media companies in the US, filing for bankruptcy just a year later.

Creditors and the trustee alleged that the buyout was a fraudulent conveyance, designed to benefit shareholders at the expense of the company’s creditors. In 2019, after a protracted legal battle, a Delaware bankruptcy judge ruled that the LBO was indeed a fraudulent conveyance, leaving the door open for creditors to pursue legal action against former shareholders.

One of the largest bankruptcy cases in history

The LyondellBasell Industries Case: In one of the largest bankruptcy cases in history, multinational chemical company LyondellBasell filed for Chapter 11 in 2009. The case featured a fraudulent conveyance dispute over a $12.5 billion loan the company had taken shortly before filing for bankruptcy. After years of litigation, the court ruled that although the CEO had an actual intent to defraud, the lenders did not, and thus the loan was not a fraudulent conveyance.

The TOUSA Inc. Case: In 2007, homebuilder TOUSA Inc. took out loans to repay its existing creditors. After declaring bankruptcy six months later, the bankruptcy court ruled the new loans were fraudulent conveyances, as the company was insolvent at the time and the loans were taken with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the company’s creditors. This ruling was upheld on appeal and marked an important precedent in fraudulent conveyance law.

The line between valid transactions and fraudulent conveyances can be thin, and it requires diligent analysis and scrutiny to distinguish between the two. As these high-profile cases demonstrate, fraudulent conveyance disputes can have far-reaching consequences, not just for the parties involved but also for the broader business and legal communities.

Cases that made the media in Canada

Fraudulent conveyancing is an issue that the Canadian legal system has grappled with, both in terms of litigation and efforts to prevent it. A fraudulent conveyance occurs when a property is transferred to a third party to evade creditors, taxes, or other legal obligations. This can lead to complex cases with far-reaching implications. A few high-profile cases have made headlines in recent years, spotlighting the issue to the wider Canadian public.

The first is the landmark case involving the family of disgraced theatre mogul Garth Drabinsky. Drabinsky, founder of Livent Inc., was convicted in 2009 for defrauding investors of $500 million.

Canadian case law concerning fraudulent conveyances

The Ontario Court of Appeal in 2012 ruled that Drabinsky and his wife had fraudulently transferred their opulent Bridle Path mansion in Toronto to their three children, to prevent creditors from seizing it. The decision was significant as it confirmed that the onus is on the transferor, in this case, Drabinsky, to prove the transfer was not fraudulent. The case remains a precedent in Canadian case law concerning fraudulent conveyances.

In a more recent case, the Vancouver property developer Michael J. Lonsdale was accused of fraudulent conveyance in 2021. Lonsdale allegedly transferred properties into his wife’s name to shield them from creditors.

The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favour of the creditors, ordering that the properties be returned. This case grabbed the public’s attention not just due to the high profile of Lonsdale but also the large scale of the assets involved. It raised the question of how effective existing laws are in preventing fraudulent conveyances, prompting calls for reform.

Consequences of fraudulent conveyance

Another significant case unfolded in 2023, when a prominent Calgary businessman, Peter Sorensen, was accused of fraudulent conveyance. Sorensen was under bankruptcy proceedings and was alleged to have transferred several properties to his wife and children to protect them from being seized.

The case became notorious due to the high-profile nature of the businessman and the size of the assets involved. After a protracted legal battle, the court ruled against Sorensen, finding that he had engaged in a fraudulent conveyance. This ruling reaffirmed the legal stance that transferring assets to protect them from creditors during bankruptcy proceedings is illegal.

Transferred his home into his daughter’s name

Lastly, the case of Gerard Comeau, a New Brunswick man who was charged in 2020 with fraudulent conveyance, provides an interesting twist. Comeau was not a high-profile businessman or millionaire; instead, he was a pensioner who had transferred his home into his daughter’s name, allegedly to evade creditors.

The case made headlines, partly due to Comeau’s status as an ‘everyman,’ but more significantly, it highlighted how fraudulent conveyance can be committed by anyone, not just those with significant wealth. The court ruled that Comeau’s transfer of his property was fraudulent, reinforcing the principle that laws against fraudulent conveyance apply universally, regardless of one’s social or economic status.

Growing awareness of the problem

These cases highlight the ongoing issue of fraudulent conveyancing in Canada. They have attracted considerable public and media attention, contributing to a growing awareness of the problem and prompting discussions about the need for further legal reform.

However, they also underscore the continuing determination of Canadian courts to hold those who commit fraudulent conveyances accountable, regardless of their social or economic standing. The law is clear: attempts to evade legal obligations through property transfers will not be tolerated.

How long can you go to jail?

The concept of fraudulent conveyancing is quite intriguing and can bring with it quite a web of complexities. As you delve into its world, you’re faced with a myriad of rules and regulations that vary significantly across different countries. For this conversation, let’s focus on Canada and the United States, two countries with intricate legal systems where this matter is handled with considerable seriousness.

The Canadian legal system deals with fraudulent conveyancing under the umbrella of fraud in general. What that means is that fraudulent conveyancing, which involves deceitfully transferring property to avoid debt or deceive creditors, isn’t a specific crime. However, it falls under the broader realm of fraud offences, as defined by the Canadian Criminal Code.

Maximum sentence of 14 years in jail

The severity of the sentence hinges on the monetary value of the fraud committed. For fraud cases involving property valued over CAD 5,000, offenders may face a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail. Cases, where the property involved is valued at less than CAD 5,000, are typically considered less severe, and the maximum prison sentence, in this case, would be up to two years. Naturally, the exact sentence depends on a variety of factors, including the individual’s criminal history and the details of the case at hand.

When you cross the border and head into the United States, the landscape changes quite dramatically. In the United States, fraudulent conveyancing or fraudulent transfer is primarily a civil, rather than a criminal issue, covered under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) and its successor, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). These acts are intended to protect creditors from debtors who transfer assets to avoid their debts.

Consequences of fraudulent conveyance

However, where things get interesting is when fraudulent conveyance crosses over into the realm of federal bankruptcy fraud. If a debtor fraudulently transfers assets within one year before filing for bankruptcy, they can be subject to criminal charges.

The penalties for bankruptcy fraud in the United States are substantial, and a convicted individual can face up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines for each count of fraud. Given that fraudulent conveyancing could be part of a larger pattern of fraudulent behaviour, multiple counts could potentially be brought, each carrying its own potential for prison time and fines.

Although the United States generally treats fraudulent conveyance as a civil matter, this doesn’t mean that the consequences are any less serious. A judgment for fraudulent conveyance can result in the original transfer being set aside, allowing the creditor to seize the transferred property. Moreover, the debtor may be liable for the creditor’s attorney’s fees, adding a significant financial burden.

We hope you found this article on the consequences of fraudulent conveyance useful.

Find a Local Lawyer

Contact us

What are the consequences of fraudulent conveyance?