Misappropriation

Andhonest

My wife has a childless elderly aunt who has included my wife and two other neices in her will. Her aunt is of sound mind and lives in her own house. Very recently my wife was told by her aunt that the cash element of the will had been given out two years ago, as she no longer needed it and saw no point in having them wait. Her aunt had given the cash ( a very large sum) to my wife's sister to divide it up. Her sister kept it, and spent it, although she is denying it and claims the aunt had asked for it back, and it was returned. The aunt says the cash was never asked for back. The reason none of this came out is because they are not a close family. Maybe that is why the wife's sister thought she could get away with it. There is no trace now of the cash. It is wife's sister's word against their aunts. The stress is unreal. Is this a crime? Is it theft?

makeandcreate

To be honest it's none of your business. The aunt would need to report it to the Garda.

splinter65

A woman in the whole of her senses gave her niece a big pile of money and the niece spent all the money and now there’s a family row over the niece not sharing the big pile of money with her sister.
How is this a legal issue?

Eggs For Dinner

I would have thought that if the aunt gave specific instructions to divide it up a certain way and the niece did something to the contrary, the aunt would have cause to take action.

splinter65

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I would have thought that if the aunt gave specific instructions to divide it up a certain way and the niece did something to the contrary, the aunt would have cause to take action.

What kind of action? The niece will say that her aunt gave no such instruction. Where is the evidence or proof that any such instructions were given?

brian_t

Andhonest wrote: »

Her aunt is of sound mind .......... the cash element of the will had been given out two years ago, as she no longer needed it.

Is this not a slight contradiction.

Presumably the non-cash part of the will is devided equally between the three nieces.
Perhaps you should suggest that the Aunt changes her will to allow for the fact that one neice got all the cash.

Andhonest

splinter65 wrote: »

A woman in the whole of her senses gave her niece a big pile of money and the niece spent all the money and now there’s a family row over the niece not sharing the big pile of money with her sister.
How is this a legal issue?

She didn't give her niece the money in any sense. She asked the niece to divide it up between five. I think theft has many styles and this is one of them!

NSAman

Did she pay tax if she didn’t share it up and there is no evidence of it?

Might be gone, but tax man would still be interested if big enough and might get sister in the trouble she needs ...;))

Andhonest

brian_t wrote: »

Is this not a slight contradiction.

Presumably the non-cash part of the will is devided equally between the three nieces.
Perhaps you should suggest that the Aunt changes her will to allow for the fact that one neice got all the cash.

I don't see any contradiction... The aunt had the cash in her house and decided to help her relatives out (to pay off mortgages etc) sooner rather than later. I think also she didn't feel comfortable with so much cash in the house. Yes, that is the suggestion that will be made.

Andhonest

splinter65 wrote: »

What kind of action? The niece will say that her aunt gave no such instruction. Where is the evidence or proof that any such instructions were given?

The niece isn't denying anything. She is saying she gave it back. She didn't.

Lenar3556

And it was all hard cash? As in bank notes?

splinter65

Andhonest wrote: »

The niece isn't denying anything. She is saying she gave it back. She didn't.

But there’s no paper trail, no evidence, no proof of any wrong doing. If the aunt gave her niece cash then she has no more proof that she gave it to her niece then that she gave it to someone collecting for St Vincent de Paul.
If the niece says she gave it back to the auntie then where is the proof that she didn’t.

pummice

What you are alleging is fraud. That is a matter for the police. Go to the Garda with your story

Rodney Bathgate

Are we taking actual cash or the contents of bank accounts?

Marcusm

Bringing a bit of the “legal discussion” aspect into this, can any of our resident professionals express a view on the relationships at play here.

Does it involve a bailment? I suspect not as the aunt never expects the return of the property.

Has the Niece become an agent for the aunt in the disbursement of the monies such that the niece is liable/responsible to the aunt as principal?

Is the niece a trustee for the abt’s intended beneficiaries? To whom would the niece owe a duty of care?

Andhonest

Lenar3556 wrote: »

And it was all hard cash? As in bank notes?

Yep, cash.

Andhonest

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Are we taking actual cash or the contents of bank accounts?

Cash.

AndrewJRenko

Andhonest wrote: »

Cash.

What kind of amounts are we talking about - five figure sum? Six figures or more?

Had auntie payed all her taxes on her cash haul?

Andhonest

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What kind of amounts are we talking about - five figure sum? Six figures or more?

Had auntie payed all her taxes on her cash haul?

A huge amount. I don't want to specify here. Yes, all after tax. Saddest part is the thought that had it not been discovered she would have possibly lived the rest of her life thinking nobody cared enought to say thank you. Who t. f. is so greedy that they could do that to an old person.

Andhonest

Marcusm wrote: »

Bringing a bit of the “legal discussion” aspect into this, can any of our resident professionals express a view on the relationships at play here.

Does it involve a bailment? I suspect not as the aunt never expects the return of the property.

Has the Niece become an agent for the aunt in the disbursement of the monies such that the niece is liable/responsible to the aunt as principal?

Is the niece a trustee for the abt’s intended beneficiaries? To whom would the niece owe a duty of care?

Only insofar as the aunt asked her to divide it between the others. If a verbal instruction means anything.

Lenar3556

In my own humble opinion, I think the principle relationship at issue here is between the aunt and niece who allegedly received the money. The aunts feelings on the matter now, the evidence in existence and indeed her capacity generally would be central in establishing any offence that may have been committed and any action that could potentially be taken now as a consequence.

The fact that it was in cash, removes a lot of the traceability of movement. It is unusual that such a sum would be held in cash in the first instance - it would often be indicative of funds that were in some way ‘hot’. As has already been pointed out there would also have likely been a significant tax liability arising at the point of alleged receipt by the niece.

Out of interest, what is it thought that she did with all this cash?

All things considered, and particularly if the moneys are no longer in existence - I would think this ship has sailed from the OP’s perspective. The aunt may decide to amend her intentions with respect to the capital assets remaining.

splinter65

I have personal and professional experience of elderly ladies living alone with terrifying amounts of cash around the house, in some cases for years. The strange thing is that they would all have living a frugal life in general as a common denominator.
One lady who had the appearance of a homeless person but who actually lived in a very nice house came to my office one day with €40000 in her very battered charity shop handbag,
There’d been break-ins in her rather salubrious estate and she’d decided to bank SOME of the money even if it meant “SW cutting me off my pension and leaving me to starve” (implying there was yet more cash at home).
Try explaining to her that, yes SW may cut back a bit of your pension, but no, your not going to starve because you have this money.

pummice

Did your wife's sister show iincreased but unexplained signs of new wealth, eg new car or going on expensive holidays, etc

AndrewJRenko

Andhonest wrote: »

A huge amount. I don't want to specify here. Yes, all after tax. Saddest part is the thought that had it not been discovered she would have possibly lived the rest of her life thinking nobody cared enought to say thank you. Who t. f. is so greedy that they could do that to an old person.

Would the total amount have exceeded the CGT cap for the neice - €310k iirc? That may give you some leverage if so.

amdublin

Cash???

I know you don't want to give the exact amount...but are we talking $10k to be divided up or $100k????

The J Stands for Jay

NSAman wrote: »

Did she pay tax if she didn’t share it up and there is no evidence of it?

Might be gone, but tax man would still be interested if big enough and might get sister in the trouble she needs ...;))

As long as it's over €3k the tax man is interested (but will likely be under the threshold for CAT, depending on the amount).

The J Stands for Jay

Andhonest wrote: »

The niece isn't denying anything. She is saying she gave it back. She didn't.

This would be a second transaction the tax man would want a slice of.

Andhonest

pummice wrote: »

Did your wife's sister show iincreased but unexplained signs of new wealth, eg new car or going on expensive holidays, etc

Yes, she did.

Andhonest

amdublin wrote: »

Cash???

I know you don't want to give the exact amount...but are we talking $10k to be divided up or $100k????

As another poster put it, a 'terrifying amount'.

amdublin

Andhonest wrote: »

As another poster put it, a 'terrifying amount'.

The aunt needs to go to the guards

How did she withdraw a terrifying amount in cash btw??

tempnam

Has the aunt had any say in this? Does she want anything to be done, or is this a result of the rest of the family feeling hard done by and wanting their slice of the pie?

amdublin

That's a good question. Does the aunt want to involve the police?

beauf

Andhonest wrote: »

...The stress is unreal. Is this a crime? Is it theft?

Why mention a will, no one died.

So this was never anyone elses money other than aunts. She is free to give it away to a stranger on the street.

If vast amounts of money were spent there should be signs of what it was spent on. If nothing else the tax man would take an interest if someone seems to be able to spend a lot more money than they earn.

Andhonest

amdublin wrote: »

The aunt needs to go to the guards

How did she withdraw a terrifying amount in cash btw??

I don't know how. It will be up to her to go or not. Her decision.

Andhonest

beauf wrote: »

Why mention a will, no one died.

So this was never anyone elses money other than aunts. She is free to give it away to a stranger on the street.

If vast amounts of money were spent there should be signs of what it was spent on. If nothing else the tax man would take an interest if someone seems to be able to spend a lot more money than they earn.

She entrused the niece to divide it up. That was her instruction. It is not disputed that she could give it to who she wanted. The point is that it was NOT given to who she wanted.

splinter65

Andhonest wrote: »

She entrused the niece to divide it up. That was her instruction. It is not disputed that she could give it to who she wanted. The point is that it was NOT given to who she wanted.

That is all hearsay.

Peregrinus

Andhonest wrote: »

She entrused the niece to divide it up. That was her instruction. It is not disputed that she could give it to who she wanted. The point is that it was NOT given to who she wanted.

When you say "she entrusted the niece to divide it up", do you mean the neice had no judgment to make or discretion to exercise; she was just to divide the money into five (or whatever) equal shares and distribute it? Or was she asking the niece to make some judgment about who needed how much money and to divide it out "fairly", in response to people's various needs and circumstances?

longgonesilver

If the aunt is over 65, this sounds like a serious case of financial elder abuse. The HSE have dedicated units to investigate these matters and deal with them sensitively and appropriately.

The most important thing here might not be the money but the safety and well-being of the aunt into the future.


https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/olderpeople/elderabuse/protect-yourself/safeguarprotectteams.html

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/olderpeople/carersrelatives/protecting-older-people-from-abuse.html#contact

Andhonest

splinter65 wrote: »

That is all hearsay.

The aunt is still alive. These are her words on the matter as of a week ago. It would be hearsay if she were deceased.

Andhonest

Peregrinus wrote: »

When you say "she entrusted the niece to divide it up", do you mean the neice had no judgment to make or discretion to exercise; she was just to divide the money into five (or whatever) equal shares and distribute it? Or was she asking the niece to make some judgment about who needed how much money and to divide it out "fairly", in response to people's various needs and circumstances?

She was asked to split it evenly and just give it to them.

amdublin

Op, I kind of feel like it's not really any of your business and the aunt would not like to know you are sharing her private business for discussion with strangers.

It is the business of you aunt. And maybe your wife. They need to go to the guards if they think a crime has been committed.

Peregrinus

On the facts given, the person who is wronged here is the aunt. We are told in the OP that she is of sound mind, so there is no question of anyone having the right to step in and defend on her behalf interests which she is unable to defend herself.

If she doesn't want to do anything about this, the matter is at an end. She has changed her mind. She no longer wishes to give her money to her other nieces; she is happy for the niece who got it - to whom she gave it, in fact - to keep it. There is nothing the other nieces can do about this because they had no right to the money in the first place.

splinter65

Andhonest wrote: »

The aunt is still alive. These are her words on the matter as of a week ago. It would be hearsay if she were deceased.

What precisely does the aunt want to happen regarding the matter from here on?