my cite included both as examples of the same application. Do try not to be condescending about this. It’s a serious matter.
Please stop making things up.
Debbie is treated as a divorced spouse. She is entitled to whatever the law says she’s entitled to which could be half of Louis’s earnings, alimony and child custody. Debbie could transfer her debt to Louis. It’s a pretty big deal to engage in such a contract. I personally know of one divorce where the wife deliberately ran up all the credit cards before calling it off. Her ex husband killed himself over it.
It doesn’t appear from the op’s description that Louis intends to take on this kind of legal responsibility and is only doing this to help out a friend. That makes it a fraudulent marriage entered into by both parties.
No it didn’t.
I cited my position regarding fraud and marriages of convenience. I gave a cite that includes immigration (green cards) as one of the benefits obtained fraudulently.
If a business or law firm finds out about it there is the risk of harming a professional career over it.
yes it did. The language was clear that I cited. It wasn’t ambiguous. If you can’t provide an argument then there is no point in your posts.
The link in post 135 didn’t even contain the word insurance. It was only about immigration law. Period.
Back in post 50 you said:
So are you walking back from this, or are you making the laughable assumption that a cite on immigration law proves anything concerning insurance fraud?
This still sounds like an “I Love Lucy” episode re the logic involved. If the stressed lawyer is currently EMPLOYED BY THE STATE and assumedly has state benefits and is HAVING SURGERY IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS and “will require expensive follow-up treatments and medications” how on God’s Green earth does it make sense to leave her job now? Beyond this there are often delay periods for ramping new spouses up on existing plans. This whole thing sounds like a dizzy headed boondoggle that has not been thought out.
And beyond that there are all the complex legal and tax entanglements of marriage and then the issue of how she intends on presenting her marriage relationship to her peers with you involved as her boyfriend. You need to understand >> This is NOT the same social context as two financially struggling people with a kid not getting married due to benefit hits. Assuming she is speeding up the corporate ladder, if it comes out that she is not married in “good faith” and it looks like she is gaming the system it could effect her professionally in a very negative way.
Your girlfriend may be the sweetest person on earth but she does not (IMO) have particularly good judgment.
Unless your girlfriend is on public assistance we are not talking about “the system” we are talking about a company that will have to pay out more money for her benefits. If it’s a big company where she can do things through HR without anyone knowing or caring then it probably won’t be a problem. Or if she has never ever talked about her personal life or you or anything else. But if it’s like anyplace I’ve worked the company would know and be pissed that she is using their money to help a friend.
No, going back to the cite about fraudulent marriages:
*Many areas of law have had to deal with the fact that if you attach substantial benefits to marriage, some people will marry to get the benefits. But they’ve dealt with the problem in very different ways. For example, some courts have said that as long as a couple “intends to establish a life together,” it doesn’t matter if they’re getting married so that one of them can get a green card or military housing. Courts will say things like, “This husband mowed the lawn, laid carpet and cleaned the house, so we don’t really care whether he loves his wife or not — he’s acting married, and that’s good enough.” There’s a wide spectrum of tests courts apply, from the purely formal (Is this couple legally married? If so, we don’t care why) to functional (Are these people acting married?) to combination tests that require a formal marriage plus evidence that the couple is acting married or evidence that they were really in love when they married. *
Based on what the op said there was no intention to establish a life together between the 2 friends. He then went on to say that she needed an operation. It seems clear that his girlfriend is not interested in any personal relationship with her friend. She could just as easily have picked out a name from a hat of someone in Bangladesh in need of root canal and married that person over the internet. This fits your apparent definition of marriage. It’s a legal contract entered into by both parties. She fills out the paperwork at her place of employment and asks them to pay for any bills from this person.
I’ll be charitable and assume you missed this the first time around:
[QUOTE=Me]
Immigration cases are based on a specific statute criminalizing such conduct, 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). There is no analogue for the “crime” you describe.
[/QUOTE]
Also, you are taking contradictory positions. Either the marriage is validly contracted, or it isn’t. In the latter case, none of the following is true:
And just as an aside, I have a very close friend who was “laid off” from his job after his wife ran up a huge medical bill. They retained people with far less seniority and skill. There wasn’t a huge difference in wages but the medical side of it was a different story. People don’t realize that many businesses self insure. The insurance company is just doing the paperwork. The bulk of the expenses are picked up by the employer.
If his girlfriend marries and immediately causes the company financial harm and they find out the operation was imminent before the marriage she will not be looked at fondly.
Can you repost the part about insurance, because I missed it.
It certainly is clear that if people get married for immigration reasons, that is fraud. You have definitely provided a cite for that, and good for you.
What is not clear is if it is a crime to get married for insurance reasons. You have not provided a cite for that as far as I can tell, and providing more cites about immigration fraud won’t help you.
It certainly is true that if you claim to be married to someone so they can get insurance, that is fraud. But that requires that the two people pretend to be legally married, but aren’t actually legally married. The fraud part there would be claiming to be legally married to someone, but not being legally married. However, being legally married to someone you don’t love is not fraud, people have done it all the time. In some times and places it is the most common kind of marriage, people don’t choose their own spouses instead their parents choose their spouse.
I don’t want a cite that shows if you pretend to be legally married to get on insurance, but aren’t legally married, that would be fraud. I want a cite that shows if you are legally married but aren’t really in lurve that would be fraud
I didn’t miss anything. I cited how a court looks at a marriage. It’s immaterial what benefit is being fronted. It’s that act of creating a marriage for the sole purpose of providing that benefit.
The person or agency that cares about immigration is the US government because they have a financial interest in the transaction. The person or agency interested in insurance fraud is the insurance company and the employer.
That is certainly true. Plus, if her job requires a “high level of ethics and professionalism” this sort of shenanigans certainly won’t help. That doesn’t show a high level of professional ethics, it shows someone who’s willing to game the system as long as it’s legal.
This kind of sitcommy premise exposes her as a goofball to her professional peers, not someone to be taken seriously. If her reputation is important in her profession, and it seems it is, this will torpedo her career. Maybe she won’t get fired over it, but it’s going to change her career trajectory from “rising star” to “person who does their job competantly enough not to get fired”.
^
This. Being a successful professional means in the vast majority of cases you will socialize with your peers and their spouses at least several times a year. Parties, dinners outings, picnics whatever, so how is that going to be handled? It’s bad form not to go to anything.
How does she anticipate the real world complexities of handling your relationship? You want to go to the movies, nice local restaurants, the park, concerts, the theatre you think her peers are co-workers aren’t going to see you at these venues. You think some co-worker or their spouse isn’t going to see you together and deduce in an instant what’s up? The options are (1) she’s cheating on her wife or (2) she’s scamming the company for benefits. None are good reflections on her character.
It’s a 2 part argument. It’s fraud to use a sham marriage to gain a benefit. It’s a sham marriage when both parties agree there is no relationship involved in the transaction. This is what the op is claiming occurred. There is no personal interest between the 2 women. His girlfriend states he is her personal interest as would be expected in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. Sure, it can be muddied up in court and I stated it would be hard to prove but he’s already come out and declared the relationship as such. If he lies about it in court that’s perjury and now HE’s in trouble if he tells anyone or posts it on a discussion board.
If you actually read this, it points out that different areas of the law and different court decisions have dealt with the issue in different ways, that it doesn’t usually matter for insurance, and it does matter for green cards. In other words, your own cite disproves you, but I’m guessing that’s not going to stop you.
This fits the legal definition of marriage. I’m sorry it doesn’t meet your approval.
Wrong.