What Can I Do If My Ex Partner Is Hiding Assets?

If someone suspects their ex-partner is not disclosing or hiding something non-disclosure, there are legal steps that can be taken to protect that party’s interests and achieve a just and equitable settlement.

When a relationship ends, both parties must be completely transparent about their financial circumstances. Hiding information or assets can backfire, and the Court has the power to make orders to correct any unfairness experienced by one party due to the other party not fully disclosing their assets or circumstances.

What is Full and Frank Disclosure?

In Family Law matters, each party has a duty of disclosure (also known as “full and frank disclosure”) and this extends to all assets, liabilities, superannuation and financial resources. This means each party has to provide disclosure about their salary and wages, savings, share portfolios, cryptocurrency, trusts, companies, property, motor vehicles, superannuation, and any other assets or liabilities a party has. The purpose behind this duty is that a party cannot make informed decisions about what is a fair and reasonable property settlement without knowing all the information about the assets, liabilities and superannuation. It is also difficult to negotiate child support or spousal maintenance without proper financial information.

A party’s duty of disclosure is not a courtesy. It is a legal obligation. Section 71B (or Section 90RI for a de facto relationship) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) requires each party to give full and frank disclosure of all information and all documents that are relevant to the issues in a case.

This obligation applies before a court case begins and continues throughout the court process. This duty is ongoing and does not end until the case concludes. The Court also requires each party to sign and file an “Undertaking as to Disclosure”, promising the Court that they have complied with their duties and that they will continue to comply with this obligation until the conclusion of the case.

If a party does not comply, the Court can take strong action.

The Court may order that party to pay the legal costs of the other party, assume that party is hiding assets, or adjust the division of property in favour of the other party due to the non-disclosure.

The duty of full and frank disclosure is fundamental to the Family Law system. The Act makes this very clear. If a party suspects that their former partner is hiding assets, delaying disclosure, or being selective about what they provide, there are a number of options available. There are practical steps available, and the Court has wide powers to correct any unfairness.

What hiding assets or money can look like

In practice, there are common warning signs that a party is not being forthcoming with their financial circumstances. These signs include large unexplained withdrawals, transferring money to relatives or business associates, delays in producing bank statements or tax returns, a sudden reduction in income without a commercial reason, claiming financial hardship while maintaining an expensive lifestyle, unexplained loans to or from family or friends, and unusual movement of cryptocurrency that is not consistent with normal investment behaviour.

A party does not need to prove that their former partner is hiding assets before taking action. If something does not feel right, there are steps that can be taken to obtain further information about the non-disclosing party.

Case Reviews for Non-Disclosure

The court takes non-disclosure seriously.

Case law shows that attempts to hide assets often backfires on the non-disclosing party, and as a result, the Court can make adjustments to protect the innocent party. Full disclosure is the quickest and most cost-effective way to reach a fair resolution.

In Weir and Weir (1993) FLC 93-338, the husband had deliberately failed to disclose $100,000. When the matter came before the Court on appeal, these funds were uncovered, and the Court ordered the husband to pay the wife half of the hidden amount, in addition to the property settlement she had already received.

In Chang v Su [2002] FamCa, Ms Su alleged that Mr Chang had substantial assets in Taiwan that he had failed to disclose, relying in part on statements he had made to the Australian Department of Immigration four years earlier. She argued that Mr Chang had deliberately misled the Court about his financial position to undermine her claim to a fair property settlement. During the proceedings, Mr Chang provided only limited disclosure and failed to explain significant changes in his finances.

The Court held that Mr Chang had not provided a coherent account of his property or assets. His claim that he owed more than he owned was implausible, and the Court inferred that he remained a person of substantial wealth in Taiwan. The Court concluded it was just and equitable to assume he had sufficient assets to pay off the mortgages on two Sydney properties and transfer them to Ms Su. Mr Chang was unsuccessful on appeal and was denied special leave to take the matter to the High Court of Australia.

In Black v Kellner (1992) 15 Fam LR 343, the parties had a relatively short marriage of three and a half years. Before the relationship began, the wife owned a house, while the husband operated his own chiropractic practice. During the proceedings, the husband failed to provide an accurate disclosure of his financial position and income. Because of his lack of disclosure, the trial judge was unable to determine the full extent of the husband’s assets or earnings. The trial judge made a property settlement order, awarding the husband $40,000, which represented approximately 6.3% of the agreed value of the wife’s property. The husband appealed the decision seeking a greater amount of the wife’s property. the Full Court found that, given the husband’s failure to disclose his financial position and the circumstances of the case, the trial judge’s decision was just and equitable.

In Trang & Kingsley [2017] FamCAFC 120, the wife failed to fully account for her use of $250,000 both before and after the separation. The Court also had concerns about her disclosure regarding property interests she held overseas, including their identity and value. Because of this lack of disclosure, the trial judge could not accurately determine or value the parties’ property, except for the wife’s superannuation. Given these circumstances, the Court found it was not just and equitable to adjust the husband’s property interests in the wife’s favour. The wife’s appeal was dismissed.

How We Help

At Delaney Roberts Specialist Family Lawyers, we understand the importance and significant of the duty of disclosure and how it impacts on negotiating property settlements, spousal maintenance applications and child support matters.

In matters where there are concerns about undisclosed income, concealed assets, or irregular financial arrangements, we work closely with experienced forensic accountants. These specialists assist in tracing funds, analysing business and trust structures, and identifying discrepancies in financial records. Their involvement can help ensure full and frank disclosure, supports informed negotiations, and, where necessary, provides clear, independent evidence to the Court.

Our specialist Family Lawyers can guide you through the process, ensure all financial information is properly documented, identify risks, and help you explore the options available to protect your interests.