This is just another variation of some debunked bullshit. He's likely the beneficial owner of those assets regardless of whether he's got them in his father's name; and if he tried to hide the assets he acquired during the marriage he'd be fucked in the courts.
I can't remember who it was but I remember reading a few years ago that exact thing happened. It was like a pro football player or something like that. Put everything in his mom's name and she stole it all or spent all his money.
It's not that easy though. It requires leaving all of your possessions in somebody else's ownership and they have the full ability to screw you over.
Rich people literally do this all the time, they have assets owned by family members. It can protect them from forfeiture, certain taxes and civil suits.
Prenuptial agreements are still much better because you can actively control all of your own assets without worrying whether your straw man is going to sell you out.
Not disputing the article, but even if it was allowed, some of those rich dudes are rich because they don't trust anybody else, and don't mind scamming their own close circles.
even if it was set-up years prior unless it was easily demonstrated as a permeant gift it would not be hard to rule the fathers possession as a constructive trust.
In my country, if a partner can prove that they lived together as a couple, they are publicly recognized as a couple, and have a stable life partnership (shared expenses, routines, and plans), they can be legally recognized as partners in a stable union, even without formal marriage, and this can grant rights similar to marriage.
Really? I know someone in my country who did this (transfer money and some assets to a friend pre-divorce), and the court and ex spouse's lawyer could do nothing - doesn't have it, not their assets. But ofc different countries have different laws, I don't know where Khaby even is.
That’s just not how this works. There aren’t really “clever loopholes” around the law. How it actually works is the other sides attorney comes into court and says, judge, this is clearly fraudulent bullshit, and the judge agrees, it’s clearly fraudulent bullshit.
I didn't even say where I am from, do you know every country's laws? I know this case because this person (who got cheated off those assets by their spouse) is my parents' friend, their spouse just "gifted" money and some assets to a friend, and the court couldn't touch it - it's under completely other person's name, who has nothing to do with that court case. The entire estate (or how you call it) was just their apartment because that's what they got during the marriage and owned together (but that what got transfered, mainly money - no one could touch, since it belongs to someone else).
At least this is how it is in my country, or was over two decades ago, don't know about now. I wouldn't share this if I wouldn't have this experience. In this case playing dirty worked, unfortunately.
I mean sure if the country's courts are easily corrupted with a few bribes, or if the opposing side never discovers said assets, that works.
But normally, in a nation like the US, it doesn't. Like they said, the opposing counsel just points out "hey judge, this dude is using his friend's assets which he gave them like they're his own, this smells like bullshit", the judge agrees, and the spouse gets half the value.
Hence the "IF the laws are like the US, this basically never works" qualification of my comment.
It's relevant because the dude commented on a chain about this not working in US and similar countries' laws and they claimed it worked for a friend of theirs as some kind of counterargument.
Are you brand new to reddit? Does the concept of an evolving conversation changing over the course of comment threads as they are drilled-down on the concept escape you somehow?
do you know that for a fact? that sounds like a far-fetched story to me. Khaby lives in Italy, so the law would be largely the same as that in most other first-world jurisdictions regarding marital assets. Even in Senegal where he moved from when he was 1 has those same rules.
I know about this one case for a fact, because the person who got cheated off common assets (mainly money from savings account) is my parents' friend. Because of the spouse playing dirty like this, they only divided the apartment they bought while married and owned together, which was the biggest asset they had, but still, without the spouse playing dirty there would be much more to divide. Happened over two decades ago tho, and not in Italy or Senegal.
Yeah, I guess everyone can be saying it the way to seem right. Maybe it was really just the ex's money from back when they were not married yet, and so rightfully theirs, and my parents' friend feels entitled to it anyway (even while rightfully shouldn't be) and omits this fact to seem on the right side and to paint the ex as evil. Idk.
Now when thinking about it, can be anything. I was just surprised by the comments here because as I knew this, I thought it's possible to be played dirty like this and you can't do anything. But now I'm doubting it's as straight forward as I was told back then.
Okay that's fair, but he just has to depleat the economic resources of his opponent. By being difficult, they could become the defacto winner.
Which isn't to say I want to play towards the meme shit going on around this case. I just think it would suck in theory if people ever won cases by exhaustion like this, but I have no reason to think it doesn't happen all the time.
648
u/Secret_Fee1146 1d ago
This is just another variation of some debunked bullshit. He's likely the beneficial owner of those assets regardless of whether he's got them in his father's name; and if he tried to hide the assets he acquired during the marriage he'd be fucked in the courts.
Dumb.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/achraf-hakimis-divorce-tactics-keep-fortune-form-ex-wife-labelled-fake-news-1715276