EMPLOYMENT LAW AND JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT
Serving New York City and Nassau County
Home > Judgment Enforcement > Fraudulent Transfers and Debtor Misconduct

Fraudulent Transfers and Debtor Misconduct

Unwinding Improper Transfers and Holding Debtors Accountable Under New York Law

When judgment debtors believe enforcement is imminent, they often attempt to move assets out of reach. These transfers may be made to family members, business partners, shell companies, or newly formed entities. Sometimes they occur quietly; other times they are obvious and deliberate. In either case, New York law provides powerful mechanisms for unwinding these transactions and recovering the assets that should have been available to satisfy the judgment.

Fraudulent transfer litigation requires careful investigation, precise pleading, and a firm understanding of how debtors attempt to shield assets. I take on a limited number of these matters to ensure each receives the detailed analysis and strategic planning that this type of litigation demands.

What Is a Fraudulent Transfer?

Under New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL), a transfer is considered fraudulent if it was made:

  • with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or
  • without receiving reasonably equivalent value, at a time when the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.
These transfers can include money, property, business interests, receivables, or any asset with economic value. Even transfers made to trusted insiders, like children, spouses, friends, or business associates, may be unwound if the statutory elements are met.

Why Fraudulent Transfers Matter in Judgment Enforcement

A judgment becomes meaningless if a debtor can simply shift assets to another person or entity. Fraudulent transfer litigation ensures that judgment creditors are not left without recourse. These claims can:

  • void the transfer entirely,
  • compel the transferee to return the asset or its value,
  • impose liability on the transferee,
  • expose related companies or individuals to judgment enforcement,
  • support broader veil-piercing or alter-ego theories.
In complex cases, fraudulent transfer litigation becomes the central mechanism for recovering value.

Recognizing Common Signs of Debtor Misconduct

Indicators of fraudulent intent often appear soon after a lawsuit is filed or immediately following the entry of a judgment. Common patterns include:

  • transferring property to relatives for little or no consideration,
  • forming new companies to continue the same business under a different name,
  • draining bank accounts,
  • commingling personal and business funds,
  • sudden changes in compensation or distributions,
  • selling assets for below-market value,
  • rerouting income streams to insiders,
  • closing accounts and opening new ones at different institutions.
While some transfers appear legitimate on their surface, deeper review often reveals the true intent behind them.

Building a Fraudulent Transfer Case

These cases require more than suspicion. They demand a structured understanding of the debtor’s financial behavior and the ability to trace assets through documents, disclosures, and discovery. A typical analysis includes:

  • reviewing bank statements, transfers, and account activity,
  • examining business records, tax filings, or contracts,
  • identifying relationships between the debtor and transferees,
  • comparing the timing of transfers with litigation events,
  • evaluating whether the debtor received fair value,
  • determining whether the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent after the transfer.
From there, claims may be brought under DCL §§ 273–276-a (depending on timing and intent), seeking avoidance of the transfer, recovery of the asset, and attorneys’ fees where authorized.

How Fraudulent Transfer Litigation Interacts With Other Enforcement Tools

Fraudulent transfer claims are frequently paired with:

  • restraining notices to freeze remaining assets,
  • subpoenas to identify recipients of transfers,
  • turnover proceedings under CPLR § 5225(b),
  • veil-piercing or alter-ego theories,
  • successor-liability claims involving newly formed entities.
Used together, these tools create a coordinated enforcement strategy that can reach assets even when debtors believe they have successfully hidden them.

Debtor Misconduct Beyond Transfers

Not all misconduct involves the movement of assets. Debtors may also:

  • refuse to respond to subpoenas,
  • conceal financial records,
  • lie about the existence of accounts or businesses,
  • engage in cash-heavy operations to avoid traceability,
  • thwart orders of the court.
New York law provides remedies for these behaviors as well, including contempt proceedings, sanctions, and adverse inferences.

Why These Cases Require a Focused, Evidence-Driven Approach

Fraudulent transfer litigation is rarely simple. It often involves multiple actors, overlapping transactions, and the need to reconstruct financial histories. Because I maintain a limited caseload, each case is examined with care. The objective is not only to unwind improper transfers but to position the creditor for full enforcement — whether through turnover orders, settlement, or direct recovery from transferees.

If You Believe a Debtor Moved Assets to Avoid Paying a Judgment

Improper transfers can be challenged and unwound. Whether assets were shifted to family members, moved into new business entities, or transferred quietly after litigation began, the law provides mechanisms to reach them. If you suspect a fraudulent transfer or want to evaluate the debtor’s recent financial activity, you may contact my office for a structured assessment.

Contact the Office