I''ve received stbx bank statements, and it is obvious that one of the pages has been ''doctored''.Its a slightly different format from rest of statements. It looks as if a separate typed page has been placed over the original statement before copying - just keeping the top of the original showing.
I am wondering what to do next - my first inclination is to take it to the bank and ask what they think before I go to my solicitor with it. Can my request for the missing page to be sent direct from the bank to her or would this have to be an order from a judge?
Also does anyone know, if I can prove my suspicions are correct, what the implications of this will be for the ex.
Surely the very fact it is a document requested by the court that has been tampered with must be fraud?
First thing to do is to look at the carry forward and opening and closing balances on the month in query.
On the top of the statement you get opening and closing balances
So, just do a basic forensic by seeing whether they add up the income in and the outgoings.
You might then find that even though the statement looks tampered with that the figures add up.
After that you can consider why he might be appearing to be tampering with the statement - maybe because he has bought something he doesn''t want disclosed to a court as it is personal or maybe because he has something bigger and more devious to hide.
Something similar happened to me during the process which was that my ex submitted bank statements but blocked out the postal address at the top of some statements - reason was that he didn''t want the court to know where he was living (which was with other woman) as he was trying to say that he was living out of need with a mutual friend.
I just let the court draw their own conclusion - in my case too petty to worry about but his bank statements made very interesting reading as did his credit cards. He was living the life of Elton John - 5 star whilst pleading poverty due to the resession.
Thanks for your quick reply.
The bottom of the statement is missing and there isn''t too much difference between the last entry on that page to the opening balance of the next page but there is 4 days difference and there could have been money paid in and withdrawn in that time.
To me it doesn''t really matter what amount it is, even if it was for £10 the very fact that a court document has been altered must be illegal and have some sort of penalty when it comes to the judges'' decision over these financial proceedings.
Well it depends on what you know about his earning capacity and any dealling that you think he may or may not have with another party and just what they might amount to.
You could ask for a full statement to be resubmitted as some of the statement is cut off. Put it in writing and then if no response put the letter to court with the statement - it will then be up to the judge to decide the relevence and whether it amounts to significcant misconduct.
On the face of it it does not appear to be too financially important - it might just be a debit card transaction that he doesn''t want anyone to know about.
My ex husband seemed to be quite unashamed of the purchses and places he had been but desperate to conseal that he was living with other woman - it was blatently obvious from that point of view that he had another lady as he was making huge purchases at top womans fashion houses:S
My ex painstakingly doctored each and every entry on approx 12 months worth of bank statements to conceal a large payment he had received which he then used to purchase another property.
It was truly unbelievable - even my very experienced Barrister had never seen anything like it before.
The Judge alluded to the fact that my ex husband''s claims of poverty were untrue but incredibly nothing was actually done about it. I think people that attempt such feats should be severely pulled up and punished there and then. What''s the point of swearing your form E on oath if no one bats an eyelid if your whole form e is actually "false". I think this is one of those instances when it is very Judge dependent.