Wilkes’ Creditors Don’t Get to See His Financial Statements, Either

/in /by

Remember how federal prosecutors were denied the ability to review Brent Wilkes’ affidavit showing he was indigent? Well, ChrisC sent along news of a civil magistrate case in which one of Wilkes’ creditors appears to be trying to force Wilkes to reveal where his assets are–also to no avail.

The unopposed motion to compel filed by plaintiff De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc., as
assignee of Union Bank, is denied, without prejudice.

Plaintiff cites In re Marriage of Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1151-1152, that a blanket refusal is unacceptable, and the burden is on the party invoking the privilege to show the testimony could tend to incriminate him or her. However, plaintiff answered some questions, and refused others so this is not a blanket refusal. A review of the indictment against Brent R. Wilkes shows that all the companies were allegedly used as shell corporations to conceal Wilke’s financial interest and the role in CIA contracts and to launder money from CIA contracts. (P’s Ex. 1.) The second indictment involved defendant with another defendant and references secreting funds and conspiracy. Accordingly, there is a direct link between the questions and assets involved and the refusal to answer based upon the Fifth Amendment rights.

The deposition shows that Wilkes answered general questions, but none dealing with his finances, including whether his children are holding any property of defendant’s. Plaintiff should proceed with less intrusive means of finding assets, including DMV records, real property records, UCC filings, subpoenas to banks, and review of court records regarding lawsuits.

It appears that Wilkes is shielding his assets by invoking the Fifth Amendment, claiming that since his assets are the basis of his charged crime, he does not have to explain anything more about them. Or something like that.

I’m guessing that Union Bank will avail itself of the other methods suggested by the judge to see if there’s any assets they can get out of Wilkes and his family. Though I wonder whether they ought to be looking with his family, or in another country…?

image_print
  1. Anonymous says:

    Wilkes is entitled to assert the 5th here far as I can tell; and from this limited snippet of background, that is what I would tell him to do also. I don’t see anything of significance to this routine Superior Court order. The court spelled out the other speps that Plaintiff De Lage should pursue, which they probably already have done as a matter of practicality. Once they can certify that they have pursued all available avenues, and are stymied by Wilkes’ assertion of the 5th, they put that certification in a Motion for Summary judgment and request the court to determine the issue in their favor. This is a civil case, not a criminal case, and the assertion of the 5th, as has been done here, can be held against Wilkes. This type of situation may not happen every day, but it is not unheard of and that is how it is routinely handled.

  2. Anonymous says:

    bmaz

    Oh, I’m sure–I’m just wondering when we’ll all get to learn where Wilkes’ money has disappeared to.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Caymans and Geragos is my bet…. Wife (ex-wife?) and her lawyer are the best shot at this info. If they are not pursuing it doggedly, then they likely have a stake (i.e. account access in Caymans) in not doing so. Heh heh, as we discussed before your eventful vacation (welcome home by the way), Geragos won’t be returning any money…

  4. marksb says:

    A review of the indictment against Brent R. Wilkes shows that all the companies were allegedly used as shell corporations to conceal Wilke’s financial interest and the role in CIA contracts and to launder money from CIA contracts.
    Wow. Just wow. How illegal can one get?