Okay. Now, under what statute or common law crime does this sham marriage constitute insurance fraud? Pick any state. Alternatively, can you point to any prosecution for insurance fraud under similar circumstances?
Is it? I mean, it could be. Like, say, for* immigration*. But what about for insurance?
Is it? It seems we’re conflating two possible meanings of “sham marriage”. One is where you aren’t actually married, you just lie to people that you’re married. The other is where you actually get legally married, despite not being in love.
But it totally is not the case that people who marry, but not for love, are guilty of fraud.
I know several people where I work (a large software company with lots of workers from India) who had their marriages arranged by their parents. Are these sham marriages? They didn’t marry for love, they married because it was time for them to get married and this person looked decent.
What court? Who’s going to be on trial? Who says he should perjure himself in court? Nobody but nobody is required to provide proof of marriage to an insurance company pas the marriage license. That’s the proof that the insurance company will need. I have never had to prove that I love my wife, or that we live together, when I fill out insurance forms. All I have to prove is that I’m married to her.
If this guy did go to court, and was asked about the relationship he’d be an idiot to perjure himself, whether or not he posted contrary information on public message boards or not. Perjury is a serious crime.
But he certainly isn’t on the hook as an “accessory” to any sort of crime, even if we established that a crime was taking place, which we haven’t. You aren’t an accessory to a crime just because you know about the crime, despite what the cops on “Law And Order” say to witnesses to get them to talk.
You never know; there might be a level of street cred in this arrangement among younger people – sort of a hipster version of those commercials where you “adopt” a third-world child. Plus, the OP gets to wink slyly and insinuate to his friends that he’s banging someone else’s wife.
Have you now abandoned your contention that the proposal is fraudulent in favour of a contention that it is unethical?
nm
This. Medical insurance costs are a HUGE big deal for my company, and managing them every year is getting harder and harder. If marriage solely for medical benefits knowing that a major cost is coming up happened at my company, it would be not looked upon kindly. At best it would be considered a major error of judgment; at worst the employee might find herself out of a job.
I think your company would lose more in a lawsuit for firing someone for getting married than it would save in insurance costs.
This presumes they will be ham handed enough to fire her while giving this as the reason. Re mid level corporate positions there are numerous ways to get rid of people legally.
It doesn’t say that at all. It’s pretty clear there are tests the court would apply and they all revolve around intent to have a relationship.
No it doesn’t fit the legal definition of marriage. She has stated her intentions are to have a relationship with her boyfriend and the marriage is strictly to provide a benefit. Based on your position she could randomly marry anybody on the planet, never having met them, and as long as there’s a piece of paper you consider them married. She has no personal interest in the woman at all.
What was going to ask!
It just seems like such a slap in the face to those who have fought, and those who continue to fight, for marriage equality. Some people have argued against giving gay people equal marriage rights because straight people may enter into sham marriages for financial gain. Way to prove them right, and make them feel justified in continuing to penalize gay couples for the actions of straight people.
In this scenario the absolute best outcome would be career suicide. And that goes for her friend.
Straight couple entered into sham marriages for benefits long before gay marriage was even on the radar. I don’t think this, even if it becomes common, will have any effect on marriage equality.
Wasn’t this the plot of an Adam Sandler movie?
Not to mention that some people have advocated against gay marriage by saying they can straight-marry and thus aren’t actually missing out on any rights. :smack:
You know, I was going to post a similar story I heard from a friend of mine recently, and then I saw the OP and I guess its more relevant to just include it here as an anecdote:
Friend-of-a-friend is joining the military. Finds out that he will make MORE money if he is married, so he asks one of his female friends if they want to get married since it would be win-win for them; he would get more pay, she would get health coverage which she needed at the time. Ironically, the guy broke his hip in boot camp and their plan didn’t pan out well (she just recently divorced him).
If a servicemember gets more pay for being married, and the spouse of a servicemember gets health coverage for being married to him/her, then I imagine that sham weddings have got to be pretty common in the military. But never having served, I’m not sure exactly how it works and how worthwhile it is for 2 random people to get married for sweet $$$ from Uncle Sam. 
How so? Especially in an at will state. In order to win a lawsuit she would either have to lie under oath about the marriage or explain the sham marriage to a jury. Are you confident that a jury would have no problem with making the company pay for a lawyer friend who is starting up her own practice? For a civil suit it wouldn’t matter if it was a criminal fraud or not.
Yes those sham marriages are common in the military. Especially for those deploying. Stories of soldiers being fleeced by their sham spouse are just as common.
Yes, aside from a few basic restrictions (age, parent/child relationship, mental defect) there aren’t any restrictions placed on two people getting married. In the eyes of the law they are legally married regardless of the motivations (love, money, insurance, status, power, inheritance). As long as the marriage meets the criteria set by the state intentions do not enter into it. She could marry any random person on the planet. It’s not a matter of considering them married - they are married.
I’m not sure why you think the law cares about that.
Despite this apparent clarity, you can’t point to a single one of those tests. Strange.