Our eyes see that the man admitted that he was the sole director, sole beneficiary, and authorized signatory in the bank account of a Nebraska company. Is there more to it than that? In addition, the woman showed that the Nebraska Company is 100% owned by the Arizona Trust (see Appendix 89 to the wife's summaries).
- The woman inserted two more pins in the evidence board regarding the Nebraska company's 'mystery'. First, the man's request that the profits due to the Nebraska company be transferred to the Oklahoma company, which, as recalled and as stated above, is under his full control. Thus, he instructed the Vermont Membership Management Company in December 2014 (see Appendix 68 to the wife's summaries):
"Given that Nebraska does not have a bank account, Oklahoma will receive the proceeds due to Nebraska."
The additional point, for those who still have doubt or a shadow of doubt, is that the registered address of the Nebraska Company is none other than the address of the office in Monaco of Mrs. Jennifer - the only director of defendant 2 who testified before me on behalf of the man in this proceeding (see Appendix 31 to the wife's summaries).
- The man's method of action, as I have shown above, illustrates what the sage said about man: "What was is what will be, and what is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9), and this is also the case in our case. The man had made a fortune from the tax authorities in the United States, and when he was caught doing so, he apologized, among other things, to his wife, who was not involved in anything. Thus, he wrote before the U.S. court:
"I used my positive qualities to cause harm and commit a selfish crime... I realize that I hurt people who did not make the same choice I did, and I would like to apologize to them, to my parents, to my wife, to my children. They did not do anything to deserve to be put through the ordeal of this case."
- But as I said, what was is what will be. When the time came for the couple's separation, the man reverted to his ways even more vigorously and asked her the extent and location of the joint property. The property of the parties was not registered in their name in their joint life for reasons of the economic planning carried out by the man, which also took into account the situation of separation of the parties and prepared for this in detailed instructions to the trustees on the identity of the beneficiaries of the trusts he created, in a manner that excludes the woman in the event of a divorce.
- As it turned out and was proven by signs and wonders, in the matter of the parties' property, the man created not only a regular tax haven but also a "shelter in time of divorce," and acceding to the man's claims is akin to cooperation and giving a reward to the sinner.
- Throughout the proceeding, the man sought to wave various signatures of the woman regarding the trusts and the subsidiaries under them, claiming that she knew and agreed to the existence of the "screen" between the corporations and the couple, and even to the existence of stipulations that would exclude her from the property in the event of a divorce dispute between her and the man (see, inter alia, paragraphs 45 and 139 of the affidavit of the man's main testimony). There is no more far-fetched claim than this, and the explanation is simple. Is it conceivable that a woman can have any interest in giving up all her property, her share of the family property that has accumulated over the course of more than 20 years of marriage, during which she did not earn from work, in a situation of divorce dispute?!
- When the man was asked in his interrogation about his attempts to remove the woman as a beneficiary of the loyalties, he evaded and outrageously denied it. Thus, he was asked and answered:
"The wife's counsel: Did you ever instruct Phoebe that if legal proceedings were conducted between you and [The woman] Will she be removed from the loyalties as a beneficiary?