{"title":"Fraud, Trusts and Trusting: Enforcing Crown Forfeitures in Equity, <i>c.</i> 1570–1620","authors":"David Foster","doi":"10.1080/01440365.2023.2274686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conveyances with informal agreements to hold for the benefit of the transferor initially proved efficacious in avoiding statutory forfeiture provisions. In the late sixteenth century, the equity side of the Exchequer developed a capacious doctrine of revenue fraud designed to capture such informal arrangements and to subject the transferor to liability for crown forfeitures. Initially drawing inspiration from the ‘badges of fraud’ in the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances 1571, the Exchequer quickly lowered the evidentiary threshold required to prove a conveyance fraudulent. A key badge of fraud was an ‘entrusting’ of the transferee by the transferor. The presence of a conveyance ‘in trust’ eventually became the sole evidence required to hold certain conveyances fraudulent under the statute. In the longer term, these cases became the precedential basis for holding the beneficiary’s right under a trust liable to forfeiture as a matter of doctrine.","PeriodicalId":43796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal History","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01440365.2023.2274686","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Conveyances with informal agreements to hold for the benefit of the transferor initially proved efficacious in avoiding statutory forfeiture provisions. In the late sixteenth century, the equity side of the Exchequer developed a capacious doctrine of revenue fraud designed to capture such informal arrangements and to subject the transferor to liability for crown forfeitures. Initially drawing inspiration from the ‘badges of fraud’ in the Statute of Fraudulent Conveyances 1571, the Exchequer quickly lowered the evidentiary threshold required to prove a conveyance fraudulent. A key badge of fraud was an ‘entrusting’ of the transferee by the transferor. The presence of a conveyance ‘in trust’ eventually became the sole evidence required to hold certain conveyances fraudulent under the statute. In the longer term, these cases became the precedential basis for holding the beneficiary’s right under a trust liable to forfeiture as a matter of doctrine.
为了转让人的利益而签订非正式协议的交通工具最初证明在避免法定没收规定方面是有效的。在16世纪后期,财政部的公平方面发展了一套宽泛的税收欺诈理论,旨在捕捉这种非正式安排,并使转让者承担没收王冠的责任。最初,英国财政部从1571年《欺诈性转让法规》(Statute of欺诈性转让)中的“欺诈徽章”(badges of fraud)中汲取灵感,迅速降低了证明转让欺诈所需的证据门槛。欺诈的一个关键标志是转让人对受让人的“委托”。根据该法规,“信托”转让的存在最终成为认定某些转让具有欺诈性所需的唯一证据。从较长期来看,这些案件成为将信托下的受益人权利作为一种理论问题予以没收的先例依据。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Legal History, founded in 1980, is the only British journal concerned solely with legal history. It publishes articles in English on the sources and development of the common law, both in the British Isles and overseas, on the history of the laws of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and on Roman Law and the European legal tradition. There is a section for shorter research notes, review-articles, and a wide-ranging section of reviews of recent literature.