wow.
congratulations, glenn.
it looks like the appellate court will rule in your favor.
congrats!
Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
wow.
congratulations, glenn.
it looks like the appellate court will rule in your favor.
congrats!
- 325
wow.
congratulations, glenn.
it looks like the appellate court will rule in your favor.
congrats!
Thank you Mr.Ed. That's very kind of you. I hope your right.
After reading the doc, it appears Mr. Ed is right, this thing is history. They want those two questions answered so they can kill it.
I wish I was as optimistic as everyone else. Its hard to read between the lines on these types of questions, but one is definitely slanted towards the prosecution and the other is a toss-up in my mind.
The questions:
1. Does the sale of an annuity with a market value equal to the price paid for the annuity constitute a trespassory taking of the purchaser's property? 2. Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in modifying the third element of the instruction defining theft by larceny (CALCRIM No. 1800) so as to eliminate the element of intent from the clause, "or removed it from the owner's possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property."
It doesn't take much to realize that the answer to question 1 is clearly yes, if certain circumstances exist. In this case, they appear to have existed, i.e., Impaired mental condition, undue influence, etc, with the warning flags of large financial transaction, beneficiary questions, etc. This is a slam dunk for the prosecuter, unless some of the underlying conditions are contested.
Question 2 is a much harder read. This sounds like a good question for the defense to harp on, but, if I remember correctly (and I'm not a lawyer), in CA, elder financial abuse does not require intent. This is part of the reason there are age caps on annuities, though the agent is responsible for other factors on top of this.
The issue continues to be about the beneficiary selection and selling an annuity to someone who was already medically diagnosed as mentally impaired. How does an agent know this? That's the real question.
I'm guessing this will end up being sent back to be retried and the prosecution won't bother doing it again. Since the annuity has been 'undone', this has turned into a crime without a victim or even a real crime.
Dan
The questions:
1. Does the sale of an annuity with a market value equal to the price paid for the annuity constitute a trespassory taking of the purchaser's property? 2. Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in modifying the third element of the instruction defining theft by larceny (CALCRIM No. 1800) so as to eliminate the element of intent from the clause, "or removed it from the owner's possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property."
It doesn't take much to realize that the answer to question 1 is clearly yes, if certain circumstances exist. In this case, they appear to have existed, i.e., Impaired mental condition, undue influence, etc, with the warning flags of large financial transaction, beneficiary questions, etc. This is a slam dunk for the prosecuter, unless some of the underlying conditions are contested.
Question 2 is a much harder read. This sounds like a good question for the defense to harp on, but, if I remember correctly (and I'm not a lawyer), in CA, elder financial abuse does not require intent. This is part of the reason there are age caps on annuities, though the agent is responsible for other factors on top of this.
The issue continues to be about the beneficiary selection and selling an annuity to someone who was already medically diagnosed as mentally impaired. How does an agent know this? That's the real question.
I'm guessing this will end up being sent back to be retried and the prosecution won't bother doing it again. Since the annuity has been 'undone', this has turned into a crime without a victim or even a real crime.
Dan
I don't think you read the first question correctly. Even if she was impaired, which it doesn't appear she was at the time, he didn't take her property. But I'm no lawyer so who knows.
Question two seems even more in Glenn's favor. It seems impossible to me to argue Glenn's intent was to deprive the annuitant of her money permanently.
- 2,584
The questions:
"1. Does the sale of an annuity with a market value equal to the price paid for the annuity constitute a trespassory taking of the purchaser's property? "
If it does, then there are a lot of financial vehicles other than just annuities in the past and the future that should be prosecuted as such.
This case involves taking convoluted laws, mixing them together, confusing the issues in court, for an absurd result, IMO.
I don't think anybody that is hiding they knew a person was mentally incompetent calls the son to let them know what is going on. Then they are told nothing about mental competence, but they are hung up on. Agent did his job, IMO.
Simply put, this is not a crime, IMO.
"1. Does the sale of an annuity with a market value equal to the price paid for the annuity constitute a trespassory taking of the purchaser's property? "
If it does, then there are a lot of financial vehicles other than just annuities in the past and the future that should be prosecuted as such.
This case involves taking convoluted laws, mixing them together, confusing the issues in court, for an absurd result, IMO.
I don't think anybody that is hiding they knew a person was mentally incompetent calls the son to let them know what is going on. Then they are told nothing about mental competence, but they are hung up on. Agent did his job, IMO.
Simply put, this is not a crime, IMO.
Last edited:
1. Does the sale of an annuity with a market value equal to the price paid for the annuity constitute a trespassory taking of the purchaser's property?
They have set the question up so that the correct answer is No. The market value is equal to the price paid, therefore no tresspass. They've answered their own question, the rest is formality.
They have set the question up so that the correct answer is No. The market value is equal to the price paid, therefore no tresspass. They've answered their own question, the rest is formality.
- 717
I think the answer to Question #1 is "NO", otherwise as others have said there will be many annuity sales that would fall under this definition. Wasn't the original prosecution about depriving the insured of the use of her money?
- 1,896
Don't 99% of all financial transactions involve "depriving you of money" for a period of time?
