- 23 -
The funds were then disbursed per petitioner's instructions to
various third parties, including petitioner's nominee
corporations. Assets in the Pierpont Account would be difficult
to trace to petitioner because the account was held under the
identification number of Burns' law firm. We agree with Burns'
testimony at trial that the Pierpont Account effectively hid
petitioner's assets from potential creditors, including
respondent.
Petitioner asserts that a purpose of the Pierpont Account
was to protect petitioner's assets from the consequences of
voluntarily giving Mr. Freidus blank signed checks drawn upon her
corporate bank accounts. The record, however, shows behavior
inconsistent with petitioner's alleged purpose. Petitioner
testified that she knew what checks were being written and what
they were used for. Petitioner knew that Mr. Freidus was using
the checks to make investments on her behalf. Petitioner hoped
that Mr. Freidus would make good investments and earn profits.
Petitioner would often discuss potential real estate investments
with Mr. Freidus or Burns. If petitioner approved of a
transaction, she signed all necessary documents. Petitioner knew
of Mr. Freidus' investment in horses, but she usually left the
investment decisions to him. If petitioner truly needed
protection, she could easily have canceled the checks or closed
the corporate accounts. She certainly would not have given Mr.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011