  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
disclose substantial payments to family members on the eve of bankruptcy. "The sheer number of material inaccuracies contained in schedules that debtor, an attorney, admittedly reviewed and revised twice suffices as circumstantial evidence to support the finding that the 'knowingly and fraudulently' element of S 727(a)(4) was proven.").
Khalil v. Developers Surety & Immunity Co. (In re Khalil), 379 B.R. 163 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) (A "deliberate and conscious choice to omit . . . family and transactions with them" bars discharge under S 727(a)(4) notwithstanding debtor's "honest belief" that he was not required to list them. "'[R]ecklessness does not measure up to the statutory requirement of 'knowing' misconduct.' On the other hand, recklessness can be probative of fraudulent intent. . . . [I]ntent usually must be proven by circumstantial evidence or inferences drawn from the debtor's course of conduct. Recklessness can be part of that circumstantial evidence. . . . [A] court 'may find the requisite intent where there has been a pattern of falsity or from a debtor's reckless indifference to or disregard of the truth.' . . . 'For instance, multiple omissions of material assets or information may well support an inference of fraud if the nature of the assets or transactions suggests that the debtor was aware of them at the time of preparing the schedules and that there was something about the assets or transactions which, because of their size or nature, a debtor might want to conceal.' . . . 'A discharge cannot be denied when items are omitted from the schedules by honest mistake. However, the existence of more than one falsehood, together with a debtor's failure to take advantage of the opportunity to clear up all inconsistencies and omissions, such as when filing amended schedules, can be found to constitute reckless indifference to the truth satisfying the requisite finding of intent to deceive.' . . . Motive can support a finding of knowing and fraudulent intent, but it is not indispensable. A bankruptcy court might find that a debtor's reckless indifference to the truth is part of an attempt to fly 'below the trustee's radar screen', or to protect family or friends from intrusive discovery or preference or fraudulent transfer actions, or simply to make investigation difficult for the bankruptcy trustee or creditors. Alternatively, the court might never know the debtor's motive, but the number of misstatements or omissions, or the size or nature of a single one, might suffice to support a finding that a debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account. . . . [D]ebtor made numerous, substantial, and conscious omissions from his bankruptcy schedules and statement of financial affairs, that Debtor's explanations were not persuasive, that he chose not to correct these inaccuracies when he had the opportunity, and that he had the requisite intent to deceive.").
D. 11 U.S.C. S 727(a)(8):
". . . been granted a discharge under this section, . . . , in a case commenced within six 8 years before the date of the filing of the petition."
Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Williams, 498 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2007) (Equitable tolling is not available under (former) S 727(a)(8) - the debtor is eligible for a discharge notwithstanding several years in dismissed Chapter 13 cases between the current case and a prior Chapter 7 discharge. Debtor filed a Chapter 7 case in October, 1996, and received a discharge. Debtor filed three Chapter 13 cases between 1999 and 2003. Current Chapter 7 case was filed in March, 2004. "[T]he statute itself--unlike other Code provisions--does not expressly provide for tolling. . . . [Further,]
