{"id":562597,"date":"2026-04-14T23:41:48","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:41:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T23:41:48","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:41:48","slug":"ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/","title":{"rendered":"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. The wife is represented by Mr. Foy of Counsel instructed by Ellis Jones Solicitors LLP. The husband by Mr. Geary of Counsel instructed by Michael Spoors Solicitors. The first intervenor by Mr. Travers of Counsel instructed by DMH Stallard and the second intervenor is in person. The first and second intervenors are the parents of the wife. 2. For convenience I refer to the husband as H, the wife as W, the first intervenor as IF and the second as JF. 3. Screens were requested to prevent W and JF having to see H and IF. 4. I am grateful to the ushers and Counsel for resolving the logistical difficulties that inevitably followed. The Parties\u2019 respective positions 5. The parties\u2019 respective positions are helpfully summarised in the opening note from Mr. Geary set out below. H seeks. 6. a. A declaration that W and Mr N (W\u2019s former partner) hold equal beneficial interests in Farmland 1 (\u2018SF\u2019); b. A declaration that the trust in favour of JF (W\u2019s mother) (DT1) is a sham and therefore the underlying alleged trust is null and void or otherwise invalid and that JF holds no beneficial interest in either SF or Farmland 2 (\u2018SDF\u2019). c. A declaration that W and IF (W\u2019s father) hold their beneficial interests in SDF upon the terms set out in the trust in favour of IF (DT2); d. An order that W and JF pay his costs set out in Form N260 in the sum of \u00a352,569.24 W and JF seek. 7. a. Rectification of the register to remove the transfer of SDF to H and W\u2019s joint names. b. A declaration that the Declaration of Trust between W and JF dated 16 February 2016 (DT1) is valid and that the terms therein are binding such that all of W\u2019s beneficial interests in SF and SDF were transferred to JF by virtue of the same; c. Alternatively, an order rescinding the Declaration of Trust between W and IF dated 17 February 2016 (DT2). d. An order for sale and distribution of the NPS of SF and SDF according to the Declaration of Trust dated 16 February 2016; (DT1). e. Costs IF seeks; 8. a. A declaration that there is an implied (if not express) trust that he is a beneficial owner of SDF; b. A declaration that as such his beneficial interest from the NPS of SDF is the fixed sum of \u00a357,500 and 40% as to the balance c. A declaration that the Declaration of Trust between W and JF (DT1) is invalid and that JF has no beneficial interest in SDF. d. Costs (from W and JF) Chronology. 07.10.2013 Purchase of Land at SF (T Solicitors acted in purchase) by W and Mr N (W\u2019s former partner) for \u00a336,000. 07.10.2013 Transfer of SF registered in joint names of W and Mr N. 2013 IF and JF divorce. 2014 Separation of W and Mr N. 04.04.2014 Contract for purchase of SDF (T Solicitors acted in purchase) by W. IF paid the deposit and rent until completion on 16.02.2016. 2015. H stays with W in her mobile home on SF. December 2015 PF Homes Ltd propose option to purchase. January 2016 H and W commence relationship (H says December 2015). 16.02.2016 Transfer of SDF registered to W using monies provided by IF. 16.02.2016 Backdated home-made trust deed between W and JF. (DT1) Actual date of execution not determined. April 2016 Backdated home-made trust deed between W and IF is signed and back dated to 17.02.16 (DT2) 07.10.2016 Option to purchase entered into by W on both parcels of land \u00a332,864 and \u00a313,160 paid out to W. 2017 W and H engaged to be married. December 2017 W and H\u2019s first child born (E). 01.04.2018 Marriage of W and H. 2019 W and H discuss emigration to Portugal. 2020 W and H\u2019s second child born (R). 26.11.20 Shares in H\u2019s business transferred to W. June 2021 W and H instruct LN solicitors re potential emigration to New Zealand. 02.09.2021 Transfer of SDF to joint names of W and H. 09.11.2022 Separation W and H. 19.04.2024 Divorce proceedings W and H. I am informed that the sale to the developer is due to complete next month when \u00a3737,383.80 is to be paid for SF and \u00a31,248,636.57 for SDF. I assume this will be paid to solicitors pending resolution. Summary of my findings 9. The trust deed (DT1) in favour of JF fails. Reasons: (a) This was backdated and W has not shown this was executed prior to the trust deed in favour of IF (DT2). (b) The deed is inconsistent with the 2021 TR1 transfer from W to the joint names of W and H where W on the TR1 form declares the land to be held on trust for herself and H as joint tenants. (c) JF provided no valid consideration for any beneficial interest. (d) The evidence I heard points to W having a distant relationship with JF in 2016 and a much closer relationship with IF. (e) There is no evidence surrounding the circumstances in which this DT1 trust was created or pointing to its existence at the relevant time. (f) The DT1 trust deed was home-made and produced to right a misconceived and unproven wrong that IF had stolen monies from JF. (g) Subsequent documents generated by W demonstrate she perceived herself as the sole beneficial owner of SF and SDF. (h) It is more likely that DT1 was executed much later when the relationship between W and H started to break down to defeat H and IF\u2019s claim. 10. On balance, and in contrast to the purported DT1 trust deed in JF\u2019s favour, I find the DT2 trust deed in IF\u2019s favour was valid notwithstanding the backdating given the clear understanding of the parties at the time, the provision of the purchase monies by IF and the contemporaneous notes of the conveyancing solicitors evidencing the authenticity of the arrangement. 11. If I had not found DT2 to be valid I would in any event have found that IF has the benefit of a common intention constructive trust and\/or resulting trust in his favour for the return on his investment of \u00a357,500 and 40% of the net sale proceeds with the remaining 60% to W. The conveyancing file shows there were discussions at the time concerning how to protect IF\u2019s interest in the land including by way of trust deed. W chose to draft this herself to save money having queried how much the conveyancing solicitors were charging. Overview of evidence and my findings 12. I heard from W, JF, H, IF and Mr P who was one of the witnesses to the 2016 DT1 trust deed purportedly in favour of JF. 13. W and JF\u2019s evidence was tainted by their jointly held profoundly negative view of IF. W and JF rarely gave focused answers to questions posed by Mr. Geary and Mr. Travers instead preferring to adhere to a narrative that IF had coerced and put pressure on W to sign the DT2 deed of trust and had threatened JF. 14. JF was particularly bitter that IF had left her after 34 years of marriage. 15. W\u2019s narrative throughout was that IF made threats to kill JF and even tried to electrocute her on one occasion. 16. I had to intervene on several occasions to keep W and JF on track. 17. I do not find that IF applied undue pressure on W to sign the trust deed in his favour. I find that W and IF had a good relationship in 2016 when IF made frequent visits to the farm to help. This is evidenced in the jovial banter that can be seen in texts and emails passing between W and IF in 2016 when she refers to him as \u201cPoops\u201d. 18. In contrast, at page 204 is a text dated 13th February 2016 from W to IF where W stresses in capitals the urgent need to complete. This is indicative of W putting time pressure on IF who was to provide funding. 19. When W attended the conveyancing solicitors on her own on 18th January 2016 she did not make any mention of any undue pressure otherwise this would have been recorded in the solicitor\u2019s attendance note at page 376. 20. At page 384, the solicitor\u2019s attendance note dated 10th February 2016 points to IF not wanting his name on a trust. However, his knowledge is less sophisticated than that of W who knew more about trusts. At page 224 W tells her lawyers she used to deal with trusts and how straight forward these are. In evidence, IF was under the mistaken impression that if he was named, this might adversely impact his entitlement to his civil service pension. At that point IF was happy to take a charge. There is a further undated solicitors note at page 385 in which a declaration of trust was again discussed. 21. The letter from T Solicitors at page 223 again indicates a discussion as to how IF\u2019s interest could be protected by way of charge or trust. 22. At page 236 is an attendance note dated 18th January 2016 in which W agrees to setting up a trust to protect IF\u2019s share. 23. There is little or no compelling evidence in 2016 that W was enjoying a good or any relationship with JF at that time. 24. Nor is there any evidence from any independent source that W was fearful of IF in 2016. The evidence shows the contrary to be the case. 25. It was agreed that whatever label was attached to the arrangement, on sale IF was to receive the return of the purchase monies, together with a share of the proceeds of sale, then described as a 50\/50 split page 387 letter 10\/02\/16. 26. It is troubling that W sought to covertly gift her interest in the land to JF and hid this information from IF her father notwithstanding IF provided both the purchase monies and help on the farm. 27. I found IF and H to be more reliable witnesses. To this day IF cannot fathom the disdain held against him by W and grieves the loss of a daughter\u2019s love. He became visibly upset while giving evidence. 28. I prefer the evidence of IF that their discussions were generally led by W as to how both parties might benefit from the land development value whereas there is no evidence of similar discussions between W and her mother at that time. 29. The essence of those discussions was that IF should get his investment back and the remaining profits should be split 50:50. 30. I heard from Mr P who witnessed W\u2019s signature on the DT1 deed of trust in favour of JF. Mr P is a good friend of W. 31. In her Form E W asserts that she owes \u00a3200,000 to Mr P. Mr P is a man of limited means who inherited monies and appears to have been persuaded by W to loan these monies to her with no terms for repayment. This is remarkable. 32. Mr P was unclear about when W had signed the DT1 trust in favour of W\u2019s mother saying he thought she had signed in 2021. He may have muddled this with the TR1 form he signed in 2021 at page 594. But his evidence taken as a whole did not lead me to believe the deed was signed prior to the DT2 deed in favour of IF, let alone executed by then. 33. W herself gave evidence that she thought she signed the DT1 trust in JF\u2019s favour at the end of February or the beginning of March 2016. 34. The other witness, Mr M, died on 18th December 2019 so we can safely assume he witnessed JF\u2019s signature prior to that time. 35. I treat W\u2019s and JF\u2019s evidence with some caution given their wish to right wrongs allegedly committed by IF in respect of which there is no evidence, nor is IF\u2019s personal conduct relevant to this dispute save for allegations of duress which are unfounded on the evidence before me. 36. Mr P said he posted the DT1 trust deed to JF by recorded delivery at the post office, but no recorded delivery slip has been adduced in evidence. JF by contrast said she received the deed in the regular post. 37. Notwithstanding that Mr P was W\u2019s witness, contrary to what he said in his witness statement, he left me with the clear impression that W had a good relationship with IF but did not restore the relationship with JF until about 2020 when Covid struck. 38. Instead, in stark contrast to his statement, Mr P spoke of friction between W and JF in 2016\/7 and of the two of them being estranged. 39. H confirmed in evidence that there was little or no communication between W and JF in 2016. He told the court JF did not visit the farm until 2017. 40. By contrast, W and IF had a good relationship at that time. Mr P told the court the two were comfortable and relaxed in each-other\u2019s company. 41. JF accepted she had no evidence IF had ever threatened her daughter. More detailed analyses and discussion 42. It is curious that W did not tell the solicitors acting for her in 2022, KN solicitors, about the trust in favour of JF. This is clear from the letter of advice dated 12 April 2022 [p276-277] expressing concerns about the prospects of success in respect of undue influence and noting that, \u2018The contemporaneous documents we have seen including the T solicitors files, do not support the allegation of undue influence but do unfortunately tend to support your father having some interest in the property. There is no mention anywhere of the purchase monies being a gift and it remains the case that the declaration was executed. 43. I have some reservations about this privileged advice finding its way to the court bundle, but I was assured that the bundle had been agreed and no objection was taken by Mr. Foy. 44. I do not find that IF gifted the monies to his daughter, and the presumption of advancement is rebutted accordingly, despite previous gifts from father to daughter. W was in receipt of working tax credits and unable to borrow the money from a bank. W took the lead in the negotiations with the developer and insisted she could draw up a trust deed to save legal costs and to protect IF\u2019s interest in the land pending purchase by the developer. 45. Discussions followed as to how both parties could benefit financially. 46. At no time did W mention JF\u2019s purported interest or the DT1 trust. I reject entirely W\u2019s assertion that she was fearful of the consequences from IF given their good relationship at the time. 47. It is notable that in 2019 when IF learned that W was paying an excessive rate of interest on her borrowing, he took out a bank loan in his name for her on the basis that the monthly payments which W would have to make would be much reduced. 48. W only had a limited income from the farm topped up by working tax credit of \u00a363 per week in 2016. W admitted in evidence that she knew in February 2016 that she could get as much as \u00a3200,000 per acre if the deal with the developer reached fruition. 49. In 2021, and on the instructions of her immigration lawyer, W requested a letter from T solicitors concerning the provision of the funds for the purchase of SDF, and received a reply on 10 August 2021 [p272-273] which states: \u2018I have reviewed your purchase file and whilst I can confirm that the funds were from your father and AML checked, there is no evidence that they were an irrevocable gift and we cannot confirm something that was orally agreed\u201d 50. W\u2019s text dated 27th June 2016 [p248] concerning her hope for the purchase of a ski chalet in Andorra demonstrates that she regarded herself, not JF, as having an interest in the proceeds of sale of SDF. 51. The letter dated 14th November 2021 also demonstrates that W regarded herself as the true beneficiary of the proceeds of sale of SDF. She comments, \u2018\u2026who gives away a (huge) 40% of their own personal wealth (which they had personally grafted to earn themselves) to anyone unless they are themselves put in a position whereby, they are made to have to\u2026\u2019 [p367]. The 14 November letter is about W\u2019s entitlement. No mention is made of the DT1 declaration of trust or beneficial interest in favour of her mother. 52. Pausing here, it is notable that IF agreed to reduce his percentage from the 50% that had been discussed down to 40%. This is not the action of someone who was overbearing or pushy as alleged by W. I find the contrary to be the case. 53. W\u2019s position that she holds the land on trust for her mother is untenable in the light of the 2021 TR1 form where she declares she holds the same land on trust for herself and H. The fact that she did this to deceive the New Zealand immigration authorities does nothing to support her case. 54. Nor does W mention the land was held on trust for JF to her New Zealand lawyers in 2021. Nor to IF\u2019s lawyer in her seven page letter dated 14th November 2021. 55. It is equally extraordinary that W does not mention anything about the trust in favour of JF in the detailed letter her lawyers sent to IF dated 6th July 2022 at page 545. 56. This letter casts serious negative assertions on IF\u2019s character and is not indicative of being fearful of provoking an aggressive response. 57. In my judgment neither W nor JF intended that the DT1 document created the legal rights and obligations which it gave the appearance of creating because it is plain from the above findings that W subsequently always regarded herself as the true beneficial owner. JF and W conspired together to create the document to punish H for perceived misdemeanours, but subsequent events make it clear that W always regarded herself as maintaining true beneficial ownership. And there is simply no evidence that JF ever sought to challenge W\u2019s stance that she (W) had sole beneficial entitlement. The Law 58. Section 53 Law of Property Act 1925 [\u2018LPA\u2019] Section 53 of the LPA provides: \u201853\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Instruments required to be in writing: 1 Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land a. no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law; b. a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will; c. a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition, must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will. 2. This section does not affect the creation or operation of resulting, implied or constructive trusts.' 59. Notwithstanding that the trust to IF was backdated and the land was not clearly defined; I am satisfied that the statutory requirements were complied with. 60. As Mr. Geary sets out in his note, the law of sham is often said to be crystallised in the \u2019canonical\u2019 passage from the judgment of Diplock LJ in Snook v. London & West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786, when he said: 61. \u201cAs regards the contention of the plaintiff that the transactions between himself, Auto-Finance, Ltd. and the defendants were a "sham", it is, I think, necessary to consider what, if any, legal concept is involved in the use of this popular and pejorative word. I apprehend that, if it has any meaning in law, it means acts done or documents executed by the parties to the "sham" which are intended by them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties legal rights and obligations different from the actual legal rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intend to create. One thing I think, however, is clear in legal principle, morality and the authorities (see Yorkshire Railway Wagon Co. v. Maclure ((1882) 21 Ch D 309); Stoneleigh Finance, Ltd. v. Phillips ([1965] 1 All ER 513,[1965] 2 QB 537), that for acts or documents to be a "sham", with whatever legal consequences follow from this, all the parties thereto must have a common intention that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and obligations which they give the appearance of creating.\u201d 62. W continued to hold the view that she retained the beneficial interest. JF never sought to challenge this view. It must follow that the deed of trust (DT1) to JF was a sham. 63. The judgment of Birss J (as he then was) in JSC Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426, includes the following passage:- \u201cDespite the frequent references to a \u201csham trust\u201d, there is not really any such thing. What may or may not be a sham are the acts or documents which purport to set up the trust. The famous passage on sham in the judgment of Lord Diplock in Snook v London and West Riding Investments [1967] 2QB 786\u2026The same point was made in New Zealand Official Assignee v Wilson [2008] 3 NZLR 45 at paragraphs 48\/49: \u201cThe two situations (valid trust and sham trust) do not fall into combination. The finding that the purported trust is void as a sham does not amount to an invalidation of a trust. It is not the trust as such which is a sham. There is no trust to be a sham. It is the trust documentation that is the sham. To find that a document is a sham, the focus is on the intentions of the relevant parties. In Hitch v Stone [2001] STC 214 at paragraph 66 Arden LJ put it this way: \u201cThe test of intention is subjective. The parties must have intended to create different rights and obligations from those appearing from (say) the relevant document, and in addition they must have intended to give a false impression of those rights and obligations to third parties 64. Where the parties agreed informally that one of them shall purchase land as a joint venture, a constructive trust may be imposed to enforce the agreement. The DT2 trust arose in these circumstances. This was to be a joint venture between W and IF with a sharing of the profits. The purchaser (in this case W) will hold the land on constructive trust for all other parties to the agreement (in this case IF). This is known as the \u2018Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch 43\u00a0() equity\u2019, based on the common intention of the parties. See the summary in\u00a0Megarry & Wade: The Law of Real Property\u00a010th\u00a0edn, \u00a710-22 and the cases cited therein, including\u00a0Cobbe v Yeomans Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 1752\u00a0at [30] (Lord Scott),\u00a0Banner Homes v Luff [2000] Ch 372\u00a0, 397-9 (Chadwick LJ) and, more recently,\u00a0Dixon v Willan [2022] EWHC 2160 (Ch)\u00a0at [12] (Judge Cawson QC). It follows (as\u00a0Megarry\u00a0notes, citing\u00a0Michael v Phillips [2017] EWHC 614 (QB)\u00a0) that the absence of an intention to enter into a joint venture is fatal to the claim. No such absence of intention is shown in respect of the DT2 trust. On the contrary both W and IF intended this to be a joint venture. 65. Where property is transferred to a purchaser (in this case W), but the purchase money is provided by another purchaser (in this case IF) (rather than, for instance, a mortgagee), there is presumed to be a resulting trust in favour of IF. Similarly, as IF paid the purchase monies, and his contribution was made at the time of purchase or is referable to money paid at the time of purchase, IF acquires a proportionate share in the equity in the property. These presumptions of resulting trust are rebuttable. They may be rebutted\u00a0inter alia\u00a0by evidence that IF\u2019s money was a loan or a gift to W or by any other evidence of any intention inconsistent with such trust. Here, no such rebuttable evidence exists. See\u00a0Megarry\u00a0at \u00a710.016 and the cases cited therein, including\u00a0Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington BC [1996] AC 669 at 708\u00a0(Lord Browne-Wilkinson),\u00a0Laskar v Laskar [2008] 1 WLR 2695\u00a0and, more recently,\u00a0Emirate EMD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi [2023] EWHC 1113 (Comm)\u00a0. 66. It follows that IF would be able to show a beneficial interest even if I had found the DT2 trust to be invalid. 67. Application of facts as found to the law. 68. It seems unlikely that the purported DT1 trust in favour of JF was created before the trust in favour of IF, given my findings that W had little to do with JF at the purported time of execution of the trust in JF\u2019s favour. 69. This is in stark contrast to the position with IF who featured prominently and positively in W\u2019s life at that time.Nor can the written evidence from Mr P as to timings in terms of the execution of the DT1 trust in favour of JF be relied upon. Mr. P\u2019s statement was not consistent with his evidence at trial, nor can he be said to be a truly independent witness. He was keen to comply with W\u2019s wishes even to the extent of parting with \u00a3200,000 to tide her over. Money he could ill afford. 70. I find the purported DT1 trust in favour of JF was executed after the trust in favour of IF and is void as IF had already acquired a beneficial interest at the purported time of execution 71. I find the DT1 trust to be a sham as it does not reflect the true intentions of the parties and has no compelling evidential basis for its existence at the time. This is in stark contrast to the DT2 trust which was fully contemplated at the time as evidenced in the conveyancing solicitor\u2019s contemporaneous notes. W continued to act as though she was the beneficial owner reinforcing the premise that the trust in favour of JF was a sham. My decision 72. See summary of findings. 73. After repayment to IF of \u00a357,500 IF has a 40% share and H and W have a 30% share each in the remainder of SDF. The option fee and the extension fee paid to W will have to be taken into account to reflect the terms of the DT2 trust. The Next steps 74. I invite Counsel to agree an order that reflects these findings and to list the matter before me in a remote hearing with a time estimate of 90 mins to consider the question of costs. 75. My preliminary view subject to submissions is that W and JF should pay IF and H\u2019s costs to be summarily assessed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The wife is represented by Mr. Foy of Counsel instructed by Ellis Jones Solicitors LLP. The husband by Mr. Geary of Counsel instructed by Michael Spoors Solicitors. The first intervenor by Mr. Travers of Counsel instructed by DMH Stallard and the second intervenor is in person. The first and second intervenors are the parents of the wife. 2. For…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8063],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7638],"kji_keyword":[7622,9047,7663,9048,9046],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562597","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-family-court-b-district-and-circuit-judges","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-famille","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-favour","kji_keyword-interest","kji_keyword-purchase","kji_keyword-trust","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nKI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The wife is represented by Mr. Foy of Counsel instructed by Ellis Jones Solicitors LLP. The husband by Mr. Geary of Counsel instructed by Michael Spoors Solicitors. The first intervenor by Mr. Travers of Counsel instructed by DMH Stallard and the second intervenor is in person. The first and second intervenors are the parents of the wife. 2. For...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"22 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T21:41:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims)","og_description":"1. The wife is represented by Mr. Foy of Counsel instructed by Ellis Jones Solicitors LLP. The husband by Mr. Geary of Counsel instructed by Michael Spoors Solicitors. The first intervenor by Mr. Travers of Counsel instructed by DMH Stallard and the second intervenor is in person. The first and second intervenors are the parents of the wife. 2. For...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"22 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/","name":"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T21:41:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/ki-applicant-husband-v-si-respondent-wife-sham-trusts-and-intervenor-proceedings-in-financial-remedy-claims-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"KI (Applicant husband) v SI (Respondent wife) (Sham trusts and intervenor proceedings in financial remedy claims)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/562597","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562597"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}