Agreed. Children shouldn't profit from the criminal activities of their parents. Or parents that are criminals at the expense of the victims.
THREAD BUMP: Max Clifford defense exhibit A: penis size
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
Agreed. Children shouldn't profit from the criminal activities of their parents. Or parents that are criminals at the expense of the victims.
If she was an active conspirator then fair enough.
But why should she be actively disadvantaged if she was totally innocent of any criminal activity?
If she didn't do anything wrong, why should she end up suffering loss??
She won’t suffer loss.
She's not suffering loss. She's just suffering reduced/No gain.
She will if her inheritance is reduced as a consequence of civil cases/legal costs (*) made against her dads estate.
(*I assume that had she managed to get the conviction overturned, she might have been able to recover various legal costs too)
She won’t. It is nothing to do with her directly but rather it is his estate that might be liable.
If you’re referring to that then that is a bit silly, it’s like asking why she should suffer for his credit card debts etc... if there is money in his estate to pay his liabilities then those need to be settled.
Or maybe asking why the mortgage needs to be paid on a house rather than a daughter just inheriting it... “why should she be punished because of the pesky mortgage” etc...
It’s not her money.
In what universe do you not consider this a loss?
I've never won the lottery. Does that mean I've lost millions of pounds?
With a civil case pending, it would never morally have been the estate's money, though .So yes, if it goes against the estate, it will go against her.
Doesn't really seem fair somehow.
But again, this is one of those cases where only the bloody lawyers win!
It's similar to if he'd acquired the cash illegally : she shouldn't expect to inherit that either.
The failure to win the lottery =/= a family legacy being drained as a result of the actions of certain individuals within that family.
If she had been able to overturn the conviction she would be able to stave off any civil claims and possibly recover defense costs too.
The fact that this would make her position better off also meant that her failure to achieve this means that she is worse off.
And it comes back to, why should she be worse off because of something her dad might (Or might not) have done?
Likewise then, why should she be better off because of something her dad might (or might not) have done?
At last, somebody is starting to get it.
"Justice" is complex.
Justice for some frequently (Always maybe) means injustice for others.
How should we as a society balance this, really quite serious, conflict of interests?
At last, somebody is starting to get it.
"Justice" is complex.
Justice for some frequently (Always maybe) means injustice for others.
How should we as a society balance this, really quite serious, conflict of interests?
There isn’t a conflict here. He can leave his money to whomever he likes, if he chooses to leave most to a dog charity then that is his call, it isn’t her money.
The fact he’s dead just means it is his estate being potentially pursued, if he wasn’t then he’d be pursued. Either way it is his money they potentially will go for.
If he has indeed chosen to leave money to his daughter then that is great for her, if it is less that she expected to gain then so what? She hasn’t lost anything, she’s just not had as big a gain as she expected as it turns out his estate minus any debts/liabilities isn’t as big as first thought as his estate might need to pay out to cover his crimes along with any of his other debts.